Unfortunately, Liberal Keep Being Liberals

[PoliticalChic]

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?

7. " Abbate, of course, was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed “offensive” and need to be shut up.


8. As Charles Krauthammer explained:

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students

 

[konradv]

]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.

Pointing out your whining is a thing, as much as your post deserves. Your attempt to drown out other people's opinions will not stand.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

Wow - right on target

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's, on the other hand, look at the OP's Republican Party's stance on same sex marriage:

We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

That's from the party platform.

Add some projection to the OP's anecdotal evidence fallacy, eh?

We The People A Restoration of Constitutional Government GOP

 

[Billy000]

It continues to astound me you don't know the simple, objective definition of American liberalism. Im sure it makes for a nice mental short cut for you to just lump it in with communism or totalitarianism but until you learn some basic critical thinking skills you will always be in the dark.

 

[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.

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.

Your premise was insufficiently supported by sufficient evidence to reach a valid general conclusion. You gave 2 examples of something and then leaped to the conclusion that those two prove a characteristic about thousands, or millions.

Do you not see the fallacy of that argument? Seriously? You don't?

 

[BlindBoo]

d

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"?

You used the debunked Goldberg work in the beginning of your post but when the subject of his validity arises you seem to what no part in that discussion. Hidden in there was a paragraph that explains my intentions and I should have made it bold from the start.

"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."

 

[Billy000]

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.

Your premise was insufficiently supported by sufficient evidence to reach a valid general conclusion. You gave 2 examples of something and then leaped to the conclusion that those two prove a characteristic about thousands, or millions.

Do you not see the fallacy of that argument? Seriously? You don't?

She can't see her fallacy because she never has a valid argument to compare it to.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"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?

I am absolutely not fine with "Liberalism," however you chose to define it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess another striking irony would be a thread like this coming just days after a massive conservative onslaught against those who expressed disagreement over the grand jury decision in the Garner incident,

to the point of accusing those who protested as having been responsible for killing two policemen.

I guess intolerance of opposing views becomes something altogether different if you cock your head far enough to the right.

 

[orogenicman]

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

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???

Calling liberals un-American is not a topic for discussion. It is an invitation to a flame fest. We already know you are friggin stupid. Don't make it worse for yourself by underlining it.

 

[orogenicman]

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???

Erm, you are repeating yourself. You know what Einstein said about doing something repeatedly, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

]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.

Pointing out your whining is a thing, as much as your post deserves. Your attempt to drown out other people's opinions will not stand.

This is the best defense you can come up with???

Twice now I've revealed you to be a coward, afraid to admit that Liberals behavior is indefensible....
....and, for a third time in a thread about atrocious Liberal behavior.....you fail to defend it.....and attempt to change the subject.


Gutless one....consider your Liberal credential burnished.

 

[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.

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???

Erm, you are repeating yourself. You know what Einstein said about doing something repeatedly, right?

PoliticalSpice is nothing if not consistent. This thread merely reinforces her track record of posting ideologically-driven threads using eXtreme sourcing that no one would accept as objective in any sense of the word.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

By "Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities", I am assuming you are referring to liberal arts, "a higher education school that instructs on academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects."

This is why I am opposed to home schooling. It often (but not always) produces people (like PC) who are, for all intents and purposes, pure (in)bred and raised to be complete and utter morons.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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???

Erm, you are repeating yourself. You know what Einstein said about doing something repeatedly, right?

PoliticalSpice is nothing if not consistent. This thread merely reinforces her track record of posting ideologically-driven threads using eXtreme sourcing that no one would accept as objective in any sense of the word.

It's called trolling.
and he/she reeled you in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's, on the other hand, look at the OP's Republican Party's stance on same sex marriage:

We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

That's from the party platform.

Add some projection to the OP's anecdotal evidence fallacy, eh?

We The People A Restoration of Constitutional Government GOP

So...you'd rather change the subject than admit that Liberal behavior is totalitarian, and anti-American?

Changing the subject: that's your other mode, after lying, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It continues to astound me you don't know the simple, objective definition of American liberalism. Im sure it makes for a nice mental short cut for you to just lump it in with communism or totalitarianism but until you learn some basic critical thinking skills you will always be in the dark.

How about you have someone with a third grade education or better explain the OP to you, BillyZeroIQ?

Then stop back when you can come up with a response.

 

[Ava]

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

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???

Let us just hope that Elizabeth Warren decides to throw her bonnet in in `16.

 

[PoliticalChic]

d

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"?

You used the debunked Goldberg work in the beginning of your post but when the subject of his validity arises you seem to what no part in that discussion. Hidden in there was a paragraph that explains my intentions and I should have made it bold from the start.

"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."

Censorship good?