Unfortunately, Liberal Keep Being Liberals

[Mad_Cabbie]

I would simply state that comparing "liberalism" (whatever the hell that means) to totalarianism, does not make any sense, politically. Liberals are all about social freedom, this would never fly in a socialist government.

The far right (proponents of fiscal freedom) has a far more progovernment platform, despite efforts to convince us otherwise.

Psychical freedoms? ..Like loosing your employment for disagreeing with gay marriage? Loosing your business for refusing to do work for gay "weddings" Totalitarians want to stifle dessent which is want liberals want. They wanna shut you up and destroy you if you disagree with their views

You want me address every stupid thing liberals have ever done?

Sorry, not today - just expressing my opinion of what they supposedly stand for.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

PC, how are we preventing discussion?

You are blowing up your own thread with spam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

She keeps upping the hyperbole and hysteria in her threads for some reason. I think she learned that from talk radio.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And per the title....that means not being Americans.


Seems to raise hackles when I point out that Liberalism is simply one more iteration of the totalitarian political persuasion.
And, yes, I do mean that Liberalism belongs in the same family with communism, socialism, Nazism, etc.

And no, I don't mean that Liberalism is about gulags and concentration camps, FDR's efforts toward the Japanese notwithstanding, because the American version is suffused through, and extenuated by, America's history.



"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Jonah Goldberg

Modern Liberalism is not guided by such American concepts as unalienable rights.
Liberalism, and institutions pervaded by its tenets, accept the silencing of those with opposing views.

Yes, they do.
Most especially universities, the monasteries of Liberalism....as you will find below.




1. " Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

2. A student ... in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. ...She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.”

She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”




3. The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage).... told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

4. The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, ... Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

5. Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage?

The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.





6. .... as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.

She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”

She then invited the student to drop the class."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

Okay, so if we take your TWO professors, or one or three or however many are in the above word salad,

who don't want debate over gay rights/marriage, and compare them to the thousands of professors/teachers who DO allow it,

what do we conclude is the overall picture?

Anyone want to try a reasoned answer to that? The OP will provide the snark and deflection.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jonah Goldberg tells us he wrote this book to get even. The liberals started it by “insist[ing] that conservatism has connections with fascism” (p. 22). Conservatives “sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander” (p. 1). “The left wields the term fascism like a cudgel” (p. 3). So Jonah Goldberg has decided it is time to turn the tables and show that “the liberal closet has its own skeletons” (p. 22). After years of being “called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings” he decides that “responding to this slander is a point of personal privilege” (p. 392).

Feeling oneself a victim is wonderfully liberating. Anything goes. So Jonah Goldberg pulls out all the stops to show that fascism “is not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left” (p. 7). The reader perceives at once that Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. Thus Father Coughlin was always a man of the left, and so was Mussolini (Giacomo Matteotti or the Rosselli brothers, leaders of the Italian left whom Mussolini had assassinated, would have been scandalized by this view). The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box.

That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project. It is not Jonah Goldberg’s project.

The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration.

- See more at: History News Network The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism

OMG!

Another one!

Now...focus like a laser:
Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

 

[PoliticalChic]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

She keeps upping the hyperbole and hysteria in her threads for some reason. I think she learned that from talk radio.

I expect nothing less from an inveterate totalitarian and congenital liar, like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And per the title....that means not being Americans.


Seems to raise hackles when I point out that Liberalism is simply one more iteration of the totalitarian political persuasion.
And, yes, I do mean that Liberalism belongs in the same family with communism, socialism, Nazism, etc.

And no, I don't mean that Liberalism is about gulags and concentration camps, FDR's efforts toward the Japanese notwithstanding, because the American version is suffused through, and extenuated by, America's history.



"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Jonah Goldberg

Modern Liberalism is not guided by such American concepts as unalienable rights.
Liberalism, and institutions pervaded by its tenets, accept the silencing of those with opposing views.

Yes, they do.
Most especially universities, the monasteries of Liberalism....as you will find below.




1. " Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

2. A student ... in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. ...She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.”

She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”




3. The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage).... told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

4. The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, ... Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

5. Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage?

The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.





6. .... as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.

She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”

She then invited the student to drop the class."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

Okay, so if we take your TWO professors, or one or three or however many are in the above word salad,

who don't want debate over gay rights/marriage, and compare them to the thousands of professors/teachers who DO allow it,

what do we conclude is the overall picture?

Anyone want to try a reasoned answer to that? The OP will provide the snark and deflection.

No, liar...I'm the only one not deflecting, obfuscating, changing the subject.



And....I will show that it is hardly one or two exhibiting this Liberal censorship.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

She keeps upping the hyperbole and hysteria in her threads for some reason. I think she learned that from talk radio.

I expect nothing less from an inveterate totalitarian and congenital liar, like you.

And yet you don't deny it. Maybe you should try starting an argument some time where your premise is based on something more than one or two anecdotal examples,

since, as you should know, that is not really an argument at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And per the title....that means not being Americans.


Seems to raise hackles when I point out that Liberalism is simply one more iteration of the totalitarian political persuasion.
And, yes, I do mean that Liberalism belongs in the same family with communism, socialism, Nazism, etc.

And no, I don't mean that Liberalism is about gulags and concentration camps, FDR's efforts toward the Japanese notwithstanding, because the American version is suffused through, and extenuated by, America's history.



"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Jonah Goldberg

Modern Liberalism is not guided by such American concepts as unalienable rights.
Liberalism, and institutions pervaded by its tenets, accept the silencing of those with opposing views.

Yes, they do.
Most especially universities, the monasteries of Liberalism....as you will find below.




1. " Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

2. A student ... in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. ...She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.”

She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”




3. The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage).... told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

4. The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, ... Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

5. Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage?

The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.





6. .... as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.

She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”

She then invited the student to drop the class."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

Okay, so if we take your TWO professors, or one or three or however many are in the above word salad,

who don't want debate over gay rights/marriage, and compare them to the thousands of professors/teachers who DO allow it,

what do we conclude is the overall picture?

Anyone want to try a reasoned answer to that? The OP will provide the snark and deflection.

No, liar...I'm the only one not deflecting, obfuscating, changing the subject.



And....I will show that it is hardly one or two exhibiting this Liberal censorship.

Fine, then rebut my point.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There are certainly authoritarian elements among the left just as there are authoritarian elements in the right, but see it more in terms of a continuum than sole province of either. As I see it, intolerance rises more or less according to distance from the center as well as degree to which people invest a sense of identity in their political affiliation.

If I were to comment on the left specifically, here, I would try to distinguish between liberal and leftist, though. They are oft confused, but the problem here is really more a matter of all the rigid leftists who have turned political correctness into an Orwellian nightmare where the demands are such that people have to deny what they see with their own eyes in order to avoid ostracism..

 

[konradv]

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums. Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

Oh my, are we feeling oppressed? Classical conservatives weren't such whiners. Every time you turn around these days the so-called conservatives of today are offended by something!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

Jonah Goldberg tells us he wrote this book to get even. The liberals started it by “insist[ing] that conservatism has connections with fascism” (p. 22). Conservatives “sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander” (p. 1). “The left wields the term fascism like a cudgel” (p. 3). So Jonah Goldberg has decided it is time to turn the tables and show that “the liberal closet has its own skeletons” (p. 22). After years of being “called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings” he decides that “responding to this slander is a point of personal privilege” (p. 392).

Feeling oneself a victim is wonderfully liberating. Anything goes. So Jonah Goldberg pulls out all the stops to show that fascism “is not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left” (p. 7). The reader perceives at once that Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. Thus Father Coughlin was always a man of the left, and so was Mussolini (Giacomo Matteotti or the Rosselli brothers, leaders of the Italian left whom Mussolini had assassinated, would have been scandalized by this view). The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box.

That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project. It is not Jonah Goldberg’s project.

The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration.

- See more at: History News Network The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism

OMG!

Another one!

Now...focus like a laser:
Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

Afraid to discuss what motivated Jonah Goldberg into writing such a hack job you quoted and obviously believe?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

My point is that you have an imaginary definition of liberals, you further imagine them as your mortal enemies, and further still, you imagine them in a context that is so utterly ubsurd, that I have no clue of how to even begin to engage you.

 

[Dot Com]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

She keeps upping the hyperbole and hysteria in her threads for some reason. I think she learned that from talk radio.

or CrusaderFrank

And yet you don't deny it. Maybe you should try starting an argument some time where your premise is based on something more than one or two anecdotal examples,

since, as you should know, that is not really an argument at all.

Agreed. She would have been summarily tossed from any self-respecting university for using anecdotal evidence, an eXtreme Right source no less, like she did in the OP. Jonah Goldberg. Thats like sourcing Hannity

 

[NYcarbineer]

Follow closely on this one:

The OP is claiming that liberals are anti-American totalitarians because she found a couple professors who won't allow same sex marriage debate in class, but,

the OP supports the anti-same sex marriage party, the Republicans. The GOP, in fact, wants to BAN same sex marriage outright,

and fights to do so at every turn. And that's not one or two anecdotal Republicans. That's a national party.

So who are the un-Americans here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums. Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

Oh my, are we feeling oppressed? Classical conservatives weren't such whiners. Every time you turn around these days the so-called conservatives of today are offended by something!!!

Still nothing, huh?

Grow a pair, wimp......admit how disgusting the behavior of Liberals is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jonah Goldberg tells us he wrote this book to get even. The liberals started it by “insist[ing] that conservatism has connections with fascism” (p. 22). Conservatives “sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander” (p. 1). “The left wields the term fascism like a cudgel” (p. 3). So Jonah Goldberg has decided it is time to turn the tables and show that “the liberal closet has its own skeletons” (p. 22). After years of being “called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings” he decides that “responding to this slander is a point of personal privilege” (p. 392).

Feeling oneself a victim is wonderfully liberating. Anything goes. So Jonah Goldberg pulls out all the stops to show that fascism “is not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left” (p. 7). The reader perceives at once that Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. Thus Father Coughlin was always a man of the left, and so was Mussolini (Giacomo Matteotti or the Rosselli brothers, leaders of the Italian left whom Mussolini had assassinated, would have been scandalized by this view). The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box.

That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project. It is not Jonah Goldberg’s project.

The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration.

- See more at: History News Network The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism

OMG!

Another one!

Now...focus like a laser:
Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

Afraid to discuss what motivated Jonah Goldberg into writing such a hack job you quoted and obviously believe?

1. You voluntarily signed on to a specific thread, one with a specific point of view....yet you are tap dancing as fast as you can to change the subject.

That tells the tale, doesn't it.


2. Start your own thread about the brilliant Jonah Goldberg.
BTW....just to verify your creds.....did you read the well-documented "Liberal Fascism"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

My point is that you have an imaginary definition of liberals, you further imagine them as your mortal enemies, and further still, you imagine them in a context that is so utterly ubsurd, that I have no clue of how to even begin to engage you.

"In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt."


Wanna answer the question...or you gonna keep running?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

She keeps upping the hyperbole and hysteria in her threads for some reason. I think she learned that from talk radio.

or CrusaderFrank

And yet you don't deny it. Maybe you should try starting an argument some time where your premise is based on something more than one or two anecdotal examples,

since, as you should know, that is not really an argument at all.

Agreed. She would have been summarily tossed from any self-respecting university for using anecdotal evidence, an eXtreme Right source no less, like she did in the OP. Jonah Goldberg. Thats like sourcing Hannity

I figure you'd be down with censorship, as you keep avoiding the premise.

Coward.