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.
Fox actually scores pretty well on their "news" segments but they constitute < hr of their daily programming. The rest is what you'd expect from them starting w/ Fox & Friends
Fox & Friends AKA two airheads and a blond AKA between two vegetables.
I'm already having a nice day watching you squirming to dodge my challenge to you to come up with a list of conservatives on MSNBC or any liberal media. Looks like all you can do is utter a laughble LIE that Fox News isn't balanced, after I just proved (with your help) that not only is it very balanced, with a lengthy list of liberals on its shows, creating serious DIalogue, but it is extremely balanced, relative to the pathetically UNbalanced MSNBC and many other liberal laughingstocks, and the MONOlogues they present.Using degrading language doesn't constitute an effective dodge. Yeah, I'm interested in seeing who has the longer list of right AND left on air personalities, that's right. That's what makes BALANCE in a cable news show.. So, longer list. You got one ?So you are only interested in a pissing contest to see who has the longer list?
Thanks for tacitly admitting that all you are interested in is a pissing contest.
If you were genuinely interested there would be absolutely nothing stopping you from doing your own research into the guest lists on MSNBC.
But I suspect that isn't your honest intention at all.
Anyone who starts out trumpeting FauxNoise obviously has an agenda.
And there is absolutely nothing "balanced" about the mindless entertainment on FauxNoise. It is there purely to incite the emotions of it's gullible viewers.
Oh, and research has established that FauxNoise viewers are the most ignorant and misinformed.
Have a nice day.
As for research, you just got it, and your lack of words contributed to it. Thanks, man.
Joe Scarborough has a 3 hour show in MSNBC. He is a conservative.
What liberal has a 3 hour show on Foxnews?
Hitler sound EXACTLY like Mitt Romney and his 47%...
Hitler...a socialist who despised Marx...
The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:
1. The merit of their own race;
2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;
3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.
Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.
The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.
And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.
These three outrages against mankind, which we can recognize throughout all history as the true signs of decadence in folk groups and states, and whose most zealous propagandist is the international Jew, are the characteristic symptoms of the Marxism which is progressively gaining a hold on our folk. I say, our folk, for Marxism, while clearly defined and delineated as an organization, has, like a spiritual plague, taken hold of practically all our folk, though many are not aware of it. Once a folk has fallen prey to these vices, however, there can be no more talk of a "resurgence." And so in reality the stabilization of the existing state means only that our folk is slowly becoming accustomed to wholesale corruption and a general decline in standards. Indications of widespread degeneracy are hence innumerable and strike the eye of the attentive and upright observer from all spheres of activity. While our independent economy is being crushed, and our political foundations and even the folk's natural instincts are being destroyed, our art is becoming a laughingstock, our language warped, our soul corroded, and our general culture poisoned. The dwarfishness of the political leaders of our folk fits well into this general milieu, for it is a product of it.
And for this reason I reject the frivolous optimism shared by the mob and its present leaders.
Adolf Hitler The Road to Resurgence
Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.
NONE of that is socialism...
You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.
THIS Milton Friedman?
THIS William F. Buckley?
COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.
You ARE an idiot.
Basic economics lesson for you...You're not too bright are you?
Milton Friedman is your hero?
The Milton Friedman who supported the legalization of drugs and prostitution?
The Milton Friedman who supported gay rights and specifically supported same sex marriage?
The Milton Friedman who said "market forces ... accomplish wonderful things", they "cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs"?
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Here is a real classical liberal...
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom
"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom
Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.
Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.
Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.
Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.
I'm out
Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.
Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.
You prove my point for me and I'm the idiot? Don't think so.Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.What you dont know would fill the internet.Hitler preached ULTRA-nationalism, not socialism. He DESPISED Marxists. Hitler BANNED trade unions and union leaders were arrested.
Socialism is NOT a dictatorship...it is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
You clearly don't understand the difference between socialism, communism and fascism.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.
NONE of that is socialism...
You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.
THIS Milton Friedman?
THIS William F. Buckley?
COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.
You ARE an idiot.
Socialism and communism differ only on ownership of the means of production.
Or that hating Karl Marx means you arent a socialist.Hitler sound EXACTLY like Mitt Romney and his 47%...
Hitler...a socialist who despised Marx...
The survival and the future of the various folk groups on this earth depend on:
1. The merit of their own race;
2. The extent to which they accord significance to the role of the individual personality;
3. Recognition of the fact that life in this universe is synonymous with struggle. It is, however, precisely the repudiation of these three great laws to which I attribute our present-day decline rather than to all the petty failures of our current political leadership.
Instead of raising aloft the merits of race and folk, millions of our folk pay homage to the idea of internationality.
The strength and genius of the individual personality are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favor of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity.
And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations, and eternal peace.
These three outrages against mankind, which we can recognize throughout all history as the true signs of decadence in folk groups and states, and whose most zealous propagandist is the international Jew, are the characteristic symptoms of the Marxism which is progressively gaining a hold on our folk. I say, our folk, for Marxism, while clearly defined and delineated as an organization, has, like a spiritual plague, taken hold of practically all our folk, though many are not aware of it. Once a folk has fallen prey to these vices, however, there can be no more talk of a "resurgence." And so in reality the stabilization of the existing state means only that our folk is slowly becoming accustomed to wholesale corruption and a general decline in standards. Indications of widespread degeneracy are hence innumerable and strike the eye of the attentive and upright observer from all spheres of activity. While our independent economy is being crushed, and our political foundations and even the folk's natural instincts are being destroyed, our art is becoming a laughingstock, our language warped, our soul corroded, and our general culture poisoned. The dwarfishness of the political leaders of our folk fits well into this general milieu, for it is a product of it.
And for this reason I reject the frivolous optimism shared by the mob and its present leaders.
Adolf Hitler The Road to Resurgence
None of that proves Hitler hated Karl Marx or that he wasn't a socialist.
Yes, communism means state ownership, socialism means state control. There is a difference.You prove my point for me and I'm the idiot? Don't think so.Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.What you dont know would fill the internet.
Hitler banned unions that were not the official approved one, the Nazi Party one.
I dont know what "ultra nationalism" is. Neither do you. His socialism was a national socialism, that socialism should be implemented in each country, rather than the Soviet kind which envisioned an international socialist regime. (Bonus question: What was the anthem of the Communism?)
Co operative management of the economy is exactly what Nazism was. You got that part right.
If anyone does not understand the differences, it is you.
NONE of that is socialism...
You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.
THIS Milton Friedman?
THIS William F. Buckley?
COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.
You ARE an idiot.
Socialism and communism differ only on ownership of the means of production.
Actually, they don't differ on that either.
Yes, communism means state ownership, socialism means state control. There is a difference.You prove my point for me and I'm the idiot? Don't think so.Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.NONE of that is socialism...
You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
What is so hard to understand about ULTRA -nationalism...Hitler promoted a German racially homogeneous population : a state having ethnic purity.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.
THIS Milton Friedman?
THIS William F. Buckley?
COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.
You ARE an idiot.
Socialism and communism differ only on ownership of the means of production.
Actually, they don't differ on that either.
No. Profits flow to the owners. It is a small detail.Yes, communism means state ownership, socialism means state control. There is a difference.You prove my point for me and I'm the idiot? Don't think so.Socialism is not liberal. Liberalism means private property rights, laissez faire economic policies,and individual liberty. Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal. William F Buckley did too.
Socialism is about state control over the economy. Socialism is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. Socialism is all about government control.
By your reasoning Japan is an ultra nationalist society. Hint: It isnt.
THIS Milton Friedman?
THIS William F. Buckley?
COMMUNISM is about state control over the economy. COMMUNISM is about dictating what individuals can and cannot do. COMMUNISM is all about government control.
You ARE an idiot.
Socialism and communism differ only on ownership of the means of production.
Actually, they don't differ on that either.
State control is state ownership in everything but name.
Shut up, asshole. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're a reckless, idiot poster in this forum. Next to my conservative positions (Iran, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, Affirmative Action, Immigration, death penalty, etc) , you look like Nancy Pelosi. You're the kind dumbshit that causes Republicans to lose elections uneceassarily. You're worthless baggage.You are no conservative. You're a boot-licking liberal.
Shut up, asshole. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're a reckless, idiot poster in this forum. Next to my conservative positions (Iran, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Islam, Affirmative Action, Immigration, death penalty, etc) , you look like Nancy Pelosi. You're the kind dumbshit that causes Republicans to lose elections uneceassarily. You're worthless baggage.You are no conservative. You're a boot-licking liberal.
When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.
Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.
Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...
I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.
Your second post:
.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.
When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.
Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.
Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...
I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.
Your second post:
.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.
When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.
Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.
Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.
Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.
Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.
Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.
Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.
Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.
Not enough folks calculate the damage done to American children by the Liberal 'educators' who use the the communist American-hater Howard Zinn's history texts as the basis for what is taught.
And I use 'taught' in only the most pejorative sense.
The problem your argument presents is that it lacks any discernible depth.
Neither Friedman, nor Buckley were limited by colloquial expressions... when they referred to themselves as liberal, they did so in the true sense of the word, which as even you might guess, represents the pure antithesis of what you actually 'believe' the word means.
What the colloquial liberal 'believes' 'liberal' means, is a lie... a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to mislead the ignorant.
Liberal literally means the advocate of liberty.
The Liberal-ism they believe, contests liberty. It runs from it, rejecting the responsibilities that are essential to liberty.
Liberals are, in every sense of the word: Communists... children who need others to chronically fulfill your endless needs and, fools who believe that just because they reject the responsibilities that sustain freedom, that shouldn't mean they can't be free... .
In short, Liberals are delusional.
Old time liberals thought the private sector could protect society from government. The Industrial Revolution and its attendant horrors - of laissez-faire capitalism - proved them wrong.
Modern liberals think the government needs to try to protect society from the private sector. They are right.
Gilligan, you truly are an abyss of ignorance.
Why don't ya just go dig up Zinn and let him speak for himself. That way I could refute his sorry ass first hand and wouldn't have to tear through it with you as dead weight.
When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.
Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.
Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...
I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.
Your second post:
.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.
When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
When without argument, invoke Hitler. Reduction ad Hitlerum. Works every damn time.
Godwin is taking all of this to the bank.
Pay attention pea brain. Hitler has been part of the discussion for pages...
I know. Having commented on this thread previously, I see only the liberals invoking Hitler in their arguments.
Your second post:
.... battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to “live and let live”—to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality.
When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other."
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
I'd be remiss not to point out that it is only due to the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it is Hitler whose name is a metonym for evil, and not the far more evil Joseph Stalin.
Liberals are so very proud of Roosevelt.
'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crimes is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."
Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!
September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137
So, because of FDR, there are jokes about 'soup Nazi' or 'grammar Nazi,' but not 'soup commie,' or 'grammar commie.'
And Liberals buy it like it was on sale.
