The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[rightwinger]

The periodic table has not changed
The basic hydrocarbons that make life have not changed

What does it take to create life?
The right climate and the correct alignment of molecules

Is life being created today?
It very well may be. We may have new single cell organisms being created all the time and not realize it

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is a joke thread?

Physics and chemistry that is supported with hundreds of years of theory and evidence explains it very well.

Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.

How do you explain your super being coming out of thin space??

You have it backwards.

Space/time came out of the Creator.

"Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven."

Physics and chemistry (we can just say physics) can explain abiogenesis. Whether not not these hypotheses become scientific theories depends on the theoretical and empirical support they get.

Also, you set an absurd standard. You are not being rational. You would not demand the replication of the formation of Earth in the lab in order to know the truth that it has an iron core, nor would you demand that we watch a lump of an isotope for 2 million years to know the isotope has a half-life of 2 million years.

 

[bripat9643]

How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.

Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?

You think atoms are sentient?

I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.

 

[rightwinger]

How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.

Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?

You think atoms are sentient?

I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.

You are not sentient

 

[bripat9643]

How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.

Soooo... just to be clear ... we're NOT made of atoms?

You think atoms are sentient?

I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.

You are not sentient

Is that you're way of admitting that you're a creationist?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is that you're way of admitting that you're a creationist?

That is his way of saying that you keep posting over his head.

 

[fncceo]

Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.

Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity. The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.

It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.

 

[edthecynic]

Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.

Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.

Adam represents mankind in the bible, otherwise original sin and mankind's need for redemption would be meaningless.

Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[edthecynic]

2.17Omnipotence

Even God cannot change the past.

- Agathon

 

[edthecynic]

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Sentience - Wikipedia​

Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.

It can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!

 

[cnm]

It can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!

Go to it.

 

[alang1216]

1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.

a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
Challenge me on that.

b. As an example...
Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'

We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election.

Just don't try to use ObamaCare as an example since it uses private insurance companies, hospitals, & doctors.

 

[alang1216]

Christianity is welcome to define the concept of God anyway it wishes but wishes don't create reality.

Of course every religion can define theological terms to suit their own theology.

Why is this a point of contention?

Agreed but PoliticalChic seemed to think that her Christian definition was the only valid definition. I was just trying in my own bumbling way to say what you said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.

Point of Order!!!


Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.

Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.

How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.
   

 

[rightwinger]

I find that Leftists like to bring up the Inquisition to assuage their conscience over the 100 million they slaughtered.

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.

Point of Order!!!


Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.

Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.

How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.

Off topic Frau Braun

 

[Moonglow]

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.

Point of Order!!!


Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.

Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.

How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.

Off topic Frau Braun

I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...

 

[alang1216]

If you kill because someone doesn't believe as you believe I think that is criminal. Doesn't matter if it's the Church or NKVD. The Catholic Church was no better or worse than other theocracies.

Well there is part of your problem, you dont understand why these people were put to death.

Plenty of Jews lived in Europe with no problem with the church.

You should unlearn what you think you have learned on this topic if you want to grasp the Truth of the matter.

I'm no historian but my understanding is that the Inquisition was the judicial arm of the Catholic Church run by local Church officials. As such there was large variation as to how the edicts of the Pope were carried out. In Spain, the monarchy persecuted and expelled Jews and forced their conversion.

"The history of the Jews [after 1492] in Spain is that of the conversos, whose numbers, as has been shown, had been increased by no less than 50,000 during the period of expulsion to a total of maybe 300,000. For three centuries after expulsion, Spanish Conversos were subject to suspicion by the Spanish Inquisition which executed over 3000 people in the 1570-1700 period on charges of heresy (including Judaism among other). They were also subject to more general discriminatory laws of known as "limpieza de sangre" which required Spaniards to demonstrate "old Christian" background in order to access certain positions of authority."

You do subscribe to the notion of Objective Truth, do you not?

BTW, I am not trying to offend you or put you off with cheap shots or whatever. And I am not trying to convert you to anything, as I do not ever want that responsibility again anyway.

I simply want to reason with you and come to an accurate mutual understanding.

I do believe in 'Objective Truth' but I call it science.

I do appreciate conversing with an adult, there are too few on USMB.

My goal is to make one person think critically about what they believe and why they believe it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2.17Omnipotence

Even God cannot change the past.

- Agathon

That, of course has no meaning with respect to the powers attributed to God in the Judeo-Christian understanding.


Not only can God change the past, but your god, Communism, thrived on exactly that.



The first defector, Victor Kravchenko revealed that the Communists did in reality what Winston Smith did in "1984,"....

"Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.

It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed. The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot.

a. . The new history" became possible. To brand the shame more deeply on our minds, "study" of the new version was made obligatory for all responsible Party people. History classes met nearly every night in this period and lecturers from Sverdlovsk came to our town to help hammer home the lies, while most of us fumed inwardly. Whatever human dignity remained in our character was humiliated.. But even the most gigantic lie, by dint of infinite repetition, takes root; Stalin knew this before Hitler discovered it. As I looked on I could see terrible falsehoods, at first accepted under pressure, become established as unquestioned "facts," particularly among younger people without personal experience to the contrary to bother them."
Text collection


Bulletin: Stalin never gave up communism, international socialism.

It lives on in his creation, the United Nations.




Now, can we agree that you are simply an uneducated dunce, the fodder of Liberalism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives share the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks.

a. The Democrat Party stands for the very same things as the Communist Party.
Challenge me on that.

b. As an example...
Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

They didn't call it 'ObamaCare.'

We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election.

Just don't try to use ObamaCare as an example since it uses private insurance companies, hospitals, & doctors.

"We Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are a diverse lot so I'm sure you can always fine one individual who shares the very same aims and desires as Bolsheviks but I for one don't and neither does the party so far as I know. I challenge you to find communism in the Democratic Party platforms from any of the past presidential election."


Let's check.


How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.


Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:

......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce



Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.


They didn't call it ObamaCare....or 'single payer'....but it was.




....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University


President Barack Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism, claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.”
Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism [VIDEO]






Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find that rightist types like to equate liberals with Bolsheviks but will never accept that Nazism was an extreme, right-wing, nationalist movement.

Classic liberals hate bolshies as much as they do Nazis, but today the meaning of the word liberal is quite unclear.

Pretty clear to me....

I do not think that left = liberal any more than right = conservative.

Many on the left have nothing to do with actual liberalism though they do try to hijack the word.

Many on the right have nothing to do with conservatism either, no matter how hard the media tries to pin them on conservatives.

Point of Order!!!


Don't mistake what are called 'Liberals' are in any way similar to classical Liberals....what would be called conservatives today.

Communist John Dewey convinced the Socialists to change the name of their party to Liberals.

How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.

Off topic Frau Braun

Now....how could I be 'Frau Braun'?

She was a Nazi, and Nazism is joined at the hip with your doctrine, communism.
Both.....as well as Liberalism.....iterations of Leftism.




Call me Betsy Ross.