Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party...
Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?
How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party...
Ready to admit that you've been euchred into supporting communism?
Not hardly since your case is very weak.
ObamaCare is not government healthcare. The VA is and is very popular with the GOP. Are they commies?
Increased cap gains and inheritance tax are supported by Warren Buffet. Is he a commie?
How can anyone object to President Barack Obama suggesting we “just choose from what works.” Is that communism or just common sense? Or are you so much an ideologue that results don't matter? Are you a commie?
(Thanks for not trying to insult me this time.)
My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...Off topic Frau BraunClassic 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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 BraunClassic 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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.
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.
I did get a huge laugh out of reading how conservatives are the traditional liberals now a days...Off topic Frau BraunPretty 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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.
Conservatives backed the king during the revolution
Our founders were the greatest liberals of the day and some of the greatest liberals in history. All men are created equal was quite a concept......a concept that conservatives of the day despised
Off topic Frau BraunPretty 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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.
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.
Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
Off topic Frau BraunI 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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.
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.
Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
Stalin was the Nazi sympathizer
Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer
If a = b and b = c, then a = c
So...you failed math as well as honesty?
Don't forget....either Betsy Ross, or Princess.
None of which are life.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.
Off topic Frau BraunPoint 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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’.
- 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.”
- 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.
- [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.
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.
Nazi sympathizer who still opposes US involvement to stop Hitler
Stalin was the Nazi sympathizer
Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer
If a = b and b = c, then a = c
So...you failed math as well as honesty?
Don't forget....either Betsy Ross, or Princess.
Both opposed Hitler
You do not Frau Braun
But that is still far far away from even a simple virus.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.
Why do all Christian haters think they are Bible scholars?Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
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.
He has no need to.
So again, atoms are sentient?I'm sentient, and I'm made of atoms.You think atoms are sentient?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?
lolIt can be argued that they are more sentient than YOU!Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.Hmmm. So bacteria are sentient. I didn't know that.
Sentience - Wikipedia
He was priming the pump with His first human being.Actually the bible says the first breath, but the Right ALWAYS rewrite the bible to suite their political needs.Correct, there is debate as to when we become a person. Bible says in the womb, but not a specific age.
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.
Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.Has this topic strayed seriously off course?
Basic question why you believe a carbon atom is interested in writing poetry.
