RIP Liberalism

[Pete7469]

Anyway the OP --- who evidently ran away to find that PoliSci book as advised --- doesn't seem to distinguish between "Liberal", "leftist" and "Democrat". I bet he thinks they're three terms for the same thing.

Regressive, libturd, democrook, bed wetter, socialist, fascist, moonbat, marxist, bolshevik, parasite, leftist and snowflake are all the same thing retard.

"People"...

...who are too stupid to think for themselves and want a nanny state to provide shit they're not willing to work for.

 

[peach174]

So glad LIberalism has been completely rejected. Liberals now only control 18 of 50 state Governorships. Zero control of any of the Federal government. Also almost completely devoid of control in state legislatures. Stick with the identity politics though guys, you're doing great. Oh and push farther left, definitely a great idea.

You must be new at this.

As long as we have our Constitution ---- which, granted, may not be that long --- we have Liberalism. That's what it's made of. Writ by Liberals.

Not liberal by classic definition, as the FF's were.

What you people are is far removed from that.

"you people" This gets better and better.

There ain't no "classic definition", Sparkles. Just one. A term cannot mean its own opposite.
If you don't know how to use it, that's on you.

Pogo
They are refering to the Saul Alinsky Radicals of the 70's.

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their unique 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind the word liberal .

 

[Pogo]

Anyway the OP --- who evidently ran away to find that PoliSci book as advised --- doesn't seem to distinguish between "Liberal", "leftist" and "Democrat". I bet he thinks they're three terms for the same thing.

Regressive, libturd, democrook, bed wetter, socialist, fascist, moonbat, marxist, bolshevik, parasite, leftist and snowflake are all the same thing retard.

"People"...

...who are too stupid to think for themselves and want a nanny state to provide shit they're not willing to work for.

Ah yes Eliminationism. I have heard of that.

Sad stuff.

 

[Londoner]

So glad LIberalism has been completely rejected. Liberals now only control 18 of 50 state Governorships. Zero control of any of the Federal government. Also almost completely devoid of control in state legislatures. Stick with the identity politics though guys, you're doing great. Oh and push farther left, definitely a great idea.

They lost their hub in Moscow yet didn't fade away.

Dorothy,

Trump is friendly with Russia. His people were in communication with Putin's people prior to the election. If you had even one ball, you'd hold him accountable for his very dangerous and unprecedented partnership with Russia.

 

[Pogo]

You must be new at this.

As long as we have our Constitution ---- which, granted, may not be that long --- we have Liberalism. That's what it's made of. Writ by Liberals.

Not liberal by classic definition, as the FF's were.

What you people are is far removed from that.

"you people" This gets better and better.

There ain't no "classic definition", Sparkles. Just one. A term cannot mean its own opposite.
If you don't know how to use it, that's on you.

Pogo
They are refering to the Saul Alinsky Radicals of the 70's.

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

'Nother fun fact: when the Republican Party came up it was the party of Big Gummint. That was a legacy they inherited from the Whigs. And that was also where the Liberals tended to be.

 

[peach174]

Not liberal by classic definition, as the FF's were.

What you people are is far removed from that.

"you people" This gets better and better.

There ain't no "classic definition", Sparkles. Just one. A term cannot mean its own opposite.
If you don't know how to use it, that's on you.

Pogo
They are refering to the Saul Alinsky Radicals of the 70's.

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

Tell that to them, they hijacked it.

 

[my2¢]

Liberalism dead? Not that I like it but observing the liberals I'd sum their modus operandi as 2 steps ahead and then one step back.

 

[Pete7469]

I never heard of him until a couple of years ago but that sure didn't stop message board wags from ascribing my points to Bo Belinsky. Which is just part of the whole blatant dishonesty of this place.

This is why you can't take discussions with libturds seriously. Someone points out the Saul Alinsky agenda, and the bed wetter responds about some obscure ball player and ignores the line of questioning because he is programmed to avoid exposing the treason of the libturd agenda.

Why do people waste time with these parasites? They should be so ashamed and ridiculed to the point of suicide or seeking refugee status in Havana.

 

[Pogo]

"you people" This gets better and better.

There ain't no "classic definition", Sparkles. Just one. A term cannot mean its own opposite.
If you don't know how to use it, that's on you.

Pogo
They are refering to the Saul Alinsky Radicals of the 70's.

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

Tell that to them, they hijacked it.

Nope. The McCarthyites and Red Scare freaks did that. Back in the '40s.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- Redefining the Political Spectrum​

Hell, I'm old enough to remember them doing that.

I remember George H.W. Bush doing it too in the '88 election. Again -- pure dishonesty. Demagoguery for the not-paying-attention.

That's a good essay and demonstrates how Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

 

[Pogo]

I never heard of him until a couple of years ago but that sure didn't stop message board wags from ascribing my points to Bo Belinsky. Which is just part of the whole blatant dishonesty of this place.

This is why you can't take discussions with libturds seriously. Someone points out the Saul Alinsky agenda, and the bed wetter responds about some obscure ball player and ignores the line of questioning because he is programmed to avoid exposing the treason of the libturd agenda.

Why do people waste time with these parasites? They should be so ashamed and ridiculed to the point of suicide or seeking refugee status in Havana.

---- See what I mean Peach? There it is.

 

[regent]

The present Republican party is America's third conservative party, while the Democratic party just keeps rolling along. Hoover almost finished the Republican party but not quite, Trump has the better chance. The sad thing is America needs both, a liberal and conservative party.

 

[peach174]

Pogo
They are refering to the Saul Alinsky Radicals of the 70's.

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

Tell that to them, they hijacked it.

Nope. The McCarthyites and Red Scare freaks did that. Back in the '40s.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- Redefining the Political Spectrum​

Hell, I'm old enough to remember them doing that.

I remember George H.W. Bush doing it too in the '88 election.

It's a good essay and demonstrates how Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

Again -- pure dishonesty.

I'm not talking about that type.
I'm talking about the Radicals that took over in the 70's.
Like Pelosi, Boxer, Warren, Sanders,Obama.
The whole book is about getting rid of our current form of government.
Obama did a good job of it and Hillarys election would have cemented it with her Supreme Court nominations.

 

[peach174]

I never heard of him until a couple of years ago but that sure didn't stop message board wags from ascribing my points to Bo Belinsky. Which is just part of the whole blatant dishonesty of this place.

This is why you can't take discussions with libturds seriously. Someone points out the Saul Alinsky agenda, and the bed wetter responds about some obscure ball player and ignores the line of questioning because he is programmed to avoid exposing the treason of the libturd agenda.

Why do people waste time with these parasites? They should be so ashamed and ridiculed to the point of suicide or seeking refugee status in Havana.

---- See what I mean Peach? There it is.

 

[Pogo]

Think that's what he means by "you people"? I have no idea.

First time I ever heard of Saul Belinsky was when Glenn Beck dredged him up.

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

Tell that to them, they hijacked it.

Nope. The McCarthyites and Red Scare freaks did that. Back in the '40s.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- Redefining the Political Spectrum​

Hell, I'm old enough to remember them doing that.

I remember George H.W. Bush doing it too in the '88 election.

It's a good essay and demonstrates how Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

Again -- pure dishonesty.

I'm not talking about that type.
I'm talking about the Radicals that took over in the 70's.
Like Pelosi, Boxer, Warren, Sanders,Obama.
The whole book is about getting rid of our current form of government.
Obama did a good job of it and Hillarys election would have cemented it with her Supreme Court nominations.

Take your word for it. Again I don't know the book. Nor did I ever get an answer on who "you people" was, but that wasn't your term.

I don't think Warren, Sanders or O'bama took anything over in the '70s though.

 

[Pogo]

I never heard of him until a couple of years ago but that sure didn't stop message board wags from ascribing my points to Bo Belinsky. Which is just part of the whole blatant dishonesty of this place.

This is why you can't take discussions with libturds seriously. Someone points out the Saul Alinsky agenda, and the bed wetter responds about some obscure ball player and ignores the line of questioning because he is programmed to avoid exposing the treason of the libturd agenda.

Why do people waste time with these parasites? They should be so ashamed and ridiculed to the point of suicide or seeking refugee status in Havana.

---- See what I mean Peach? There it is.

You notice he tries to call Bo Belinsky an "obscure ball player" --- yet I never divulged that he was a ball player. So much for "obscurity".

(for the non-baseball fans, Bo Belinsky was rather notorious and not at all 'obscure' -- HIM I've actually heard of)

 

[peach174]

Well its hard to label their uniqe 3 types of blends of big government and they hid behind word liberal .

"Liberal" has nothing to do with "big". For that matter ---- none of them do. That's not even related.
"Left" and "right" prolly pull that way but it's not a part of Liberalism.

Tell that to them, they hijacked it.

Nope. The McCarthyites and Red Scare freaks did that. Back in the '40s.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- Redefining the Political Spectrum​

Hell, I'm old enough to remember them doing that.

I remember George H.W. Bush doing it too in the '88 election.

It's a good essay and demonstrates how Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

Again -- pure dishonesty.

I'm not talking about that type.
I'm talking about the Radicals that took over in the 70's.
Like Pelosi, Boxer, Warren, Sanders,Obama.
The whole book is about getting rid of our current form of government.
Obama did a good job of it and Hillarys election would have cemented it with her Supreme Court nominations.

Take your word for it. Again I don't know the book. Nor did I ever get an answer on who "you people" was, but that wasn't your term.

I don't think Warren, Sanders or O'bama took anything over in the '70s though.

Bernie Sanders was one of the original Radicals.
The rest are the continuation of it.
Especially Obama the community organizer.

 

[Pete7469]

You notice he tries to call Bo Belinsky an "obscure ball player" --- yet I never divulged that he was a ball player. So much for "obscurity".

(for the non-baseball fans, Bo Belinsky was rather notorious and not at all 'obscure' -- HIM I've actually heard of)

I looked it up asshole, because unlike you I prefer to be informed.

 

[JQPublic1]

Anyway the OP --- who evidently ran away to find that PoliSci book as advised --- doesn't seem to distinguish between "Liberal", "leftist" and "Democrat". I bet he thinks they're three terms for the same thing.

Regressive, libturd, democrook, bed wetter, socialist, fascist, moonbat, marxist, bolshevik, parasite, leftist and snowflake are all the same thing retard.

"People"...

...who are too stupid to think for themselves and want a nanny state to provide shit they're not willing to work for.

The election of Trump wasn't accomplished by conservatives. It was done by disenchanted liberals and non partisan working class stiffs who wanted changes the establishment candidates of either party just wouldn't give them. Liberalism isn't dead. Hillary's popular vote tally proved that. Trump has in fact done more damage to the conservatives than he has the liberals.Trump's First Lady destroyed any semblance of conservative aspirations Trump and his followers might have. They don't give a shit about conservatism OR liberalism.

 

[Eloy]

One has to learn new definitions as political debates shift meaning depending on the writer. Historically, Liberalism is associated with values which are missing in conservatism. Liberals are the first rebels against absolute monarchy and dictatorship, espousing instead economic and social freedom and equality. Liberalism is a broad coalition of interests nowadays. Inspired by the American Founding Fathers' endorsement of liberty and equality of the individual, the French were to add fraternity, in that there is a unity and a mutual trust among those who would defend liberalism.

Sadly, the Americans now as well as some Europeans are shifting to the right again. The election of Trump represents, as the opening post says, a rejection of liberal values such as freedom of speech (how often accused those who oppose him of lying --- firstly Ted Cruz and then Hillary Clinton and opponents at his rallies should be punched in the face), freedom of the press (again, as part of his party piece, he would point at the press who gave him so much free coverage and would call them the worst people and liars too), freedom of religion (his badmouthing of Muslims will never be forgotten), free markets (Trump attacked international trade treaties and seems to want the United States to become protectionist through a series of crippling taxes on business that trade overseas, civil rights (Trump began back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department. So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior; he was more recently to claim that the first black president was not an American citizen, Trump praised the Israelis for how they profile Palestinians:
CBS "Face the Nation" interviews, thoughout 2016
an American-born judge, Trump believed should be disqualified from hearing a case because he was Mexican, etc.), Other liberal values are democracy (Trump got elected although he claimed the election was rigged), secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation (Trump is alarming Europeans by calling into doubt America's loyalty to NATO).

Now it is time for liberals to be worried and for their democratic societies to push back against demagogues like Trump and his European counterparts. Let's see if the Republican Congress will continue to stifle the Executive. Such opposition is needed.

 

[BluesLegend]

So glad LIberalism has been completely rejected. Liberals now only control 18 of 50 state Governorships. Zero control of any of the Federal government. Also almost completely devoid of control in state legislatures. Stick with the identity politics though guys, you're doing great. Oh and push farther left, definitely a great idea.

You must be new at this.

As long as we have our Constitution ---- which, granted, may not be that long --- we have Liberalism. That's what it's made of. Writ by Liberals.

Might want to rush out and buy a PoliSci textbook before you dig deeper.

Your lying, again. A lie of desperation and fear of rejection.