Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism

[bendog]

Do you ever think before you post (can you think)? As a troll, you're a failure. Simply because the echo chamber rewards you is no measure.

Consider (not you birpat, it's obvious you won't) that the author of the OP has never posted anything of substance. If he has someone I'm sure will search all of his posts/threads and prove me wrong. His entire body of work can be diagrammed in this way:

"Ain't (Obama, liberals, progressives, blacks, immigrants, women, Democrats) awful". The guy(?) has never posted anything original, thought provoking or interesting. I'm not sure he is filled with hate for everyone who holds opinions s/he cannot understand but what is clear is s/he refuses to consider any opinion which conflicts with the dogma s/he holds close.

S/he is the archetype for the willfully ignorant set.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add, so default to an ad hominem attack.

See, the difference between my attack on bripat and your's on mine is I posted a premise, his opinions are dogmatic and he refused to consider and opinion which conflicts with the dogma he holds close. You on the other hand don't reference the premise an offer a counterpoint - you go directly to the attack.

He might have had a pt if he'd have premised all political campaigning inevitably goes down to lie and hypocrisy ... but then there's also usually an idealistic notion there too. Even the Inquisition thought it a good idea at the time. (-:

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add, so default to an ad hominem attack.

See, the difference between my attack on bripat and your's on mine is I posted a premise, his opinions are dogmatic and he refused to consider and opinion which conflicts with the dogma he holds close. You on the other hand don't reference the premise an offer a counterpoint - you go directly to the attack.

He might have had a pt if he'd have premised all political campaigning inevitably goes down to lie and hypocrisy ... but then there's also usually an idealistic notion there too. Even the Inquisition thought it a good idea at the time. (-:

Even today Darrell Issa considers the Inquisition a good idea; anyone who questions the dogma of his far right wing ideology is suspect and open game for an investigation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressivism is not about principles but necessity. Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes.

Yep. And progressive elite sycophants will argue that this was simply a necessary step to take in order to get judges appointed. Every progressive individual is a full blown hypocrite who only truly cares about seeing the screwed up vision they have come to reality. No matter the cost.

The fact that the Filibuster has been abused and used with greater excess then ever before by the GOP seems to have escaped the attention of the Echo Chamber.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add, so default to an ad hominem attack.

See, the difference between my attack on bripat and your's on mine is I posted a premise, his opinions are dogmatic and he refused to consider and opinion which conflicts with the dogma he holds close. You on the other hand don't reference the premise an offer a counterpoint - you go directly to the attack.

He might have had a pt if he'd have premised all political campaigning inevitably goes down to lie and hypocrisy ... but then there's also usually an idealistic notion there too. Even the Inquisition thought it a good idea at the time. (-:

Well, it's certain that the power of stupid people in large groups was a fear of the framers. Hence, they created al sorts of checks and balances to the federal power, one of which being that the franchise in federal elections only extended to people who had some of that "skin in the game", that we have heard about in the somewhat recent past.

Under the original Constitution states decided who should be able to vote, but since that time America has extended the vote to more Americans through amendments, again, America has become more liberal through the years.

The more liberal it has become, the worse our government has become and the further down the road to national bankruptcy we have traveled.

That's your opinion. Mine is you must have been dropped on your head early and often to have become such a dope.

 

[Billo_Really]

Seriously? What the fuck am i supposed to say to it? The whole thing is hyperbolic non sense. It's gross, lazy generalizing of an entire group of people that lacks any basic facts. I mean okay, he brings up the issue of ObamaCare and Obama's handling of it but then somehow connects it with liberals in general. What sense does that make? Since when does Obama and ObamaCare somehow represent liberalism in general? He's an idiot.

No shit! I'm a liberal. And I withdrew my support for the ACA, when it became clear they were not going to include the public option.

 

[bripat9643]

Under the original Constitution states decided who should be able to vote, but since that time America has extended the vote to more Americans through amendments, again, America has become more liberal through the years.

The more liberal it has become, the worse our government has become and the further down the road to national bankruptcy we have traveled.

That's your opinion. Mine is you must have been dropped on your head early and often to have become such a dope.

No, it's not my opinion. It's fact. Just look at the national debt. Has it gone down as our government became more liberal? How about the government's total share of our economy? IN 1914 government took about 5% of the GDP in taxes. Now it takes over 50%.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The more liberal it has become, the worse our government has become and the further down the road to national bankruptcy we have traveled.

That's your opinion. Mine is you must have been dropped on your head early and often to have become such a dope.

No, it's not my opinion. It's fact. Just look at the national debt? Has it gone down as our government became more liberal? How about the government's total share of our economy? IN 1914 government took about 5% of the GDP in taxes. Now it takes over 50%.

The government was smaller in 1914, we had not experienced WW I; the Spanish Flu; The Great Depression; the 1930's and the uprising of labor; World War II; Air Travel & the building of a National Highway System and the electrification of rural America; the Cold War and the Red Scare; the Space Race; the Vietnam War and the Stagflation of the Nixon/Ford Administration; the Tylenol murders and other and greater acts of terrorism, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and the WTC. Each of these events created a need which was filled by the Federal Government, for those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.



The population of the U.S. in 1913 was 97 million, in 2013 it is 313 million.