We should stop calling them "Liberals!"

[Boss]

Nothing came of any of that stupid, private idiocy, dupe.

Well it just got leaked the other day. And I've already said... nothing "legal" will come from it because there's no law against being racist as fuck. Even if you are a political party.

 

[francoHFW]

As if someone named LaQueenia isn't good for a joke in the RNC, dupe. Another ridiculously overblown GOP/corporate scandal. These e-mails are a joke- talk is cheap.

I know that if the stuff I heard had been said by ANY Republican, we'd never hear the end of it.

But for some reason, "Taco Bowl outreach" is not supposed to be offensive to Latinos when Dems say it. The emails are full of cringe-worthy nuggets, making fun of black names, discussions on whether they should go after Bernie as an Atheist or a Jew in the south. But like I said, there's nothing illegal about them. It just looks REALLY bad. It exposes the innermost thoughts of Democrat Party leadership and their closeted racism. This doesn't surprise a lot of us, the Democrats have been the racist party since their inception.

It was a Democrat president who stripped the pride from Native Americans.
It was a Democrat president who refused to do something about slavery and avert a Civil War.
It was a Democrat president who stripped the dignity of Japanese-Americans during WWII.
It was a Democrat president who destroyed the black family with institutionalized poverty known as welfare.

All through your deplorable history you've been racists and you continue to try and throw that off onto someone else. Like smart little plantation masters you've convinced minorities, through your liberal white guilt, that you are there to fight for them and make their lives better. There is a reason the "benevolent master" idea worked so well across the large plantations in the south. It kept them loyal.

The GOP would have done worse since the Civil War, and of course the GOP has been run by southern conservatives since 1980 at least. Minorities know which party is full of bigots. sorry about your luck.

 

[francoHFW]

Nothing came of any of that stupid, private idiocy, dupe.

Well it just got leaked the other day. And I've already said... nothing "legal" will come from it because there's no law against being racist as fuck. Even if you are a political party.

It's already yesterday's bs hysteria, dupe. Except in the GOP hate/bs bubble, dupe.

 

[imawhosure]

The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty.

Uh, no, guy. A bunch of rich slave owners didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes fought against a parliamentary democracy. the revolution saved us from the horror of being- Canadians.

Your rantings about Mao are equally silly. Mao took a war-wracked country which had been in a state of anarchy for 50 years and turned it into a major power.

One that is eating our lunch right now.

I only got this far, in this thread, read this, and almost fell off my chair.

Now anyone reading this can plainly see by this lefty post, that they ARE Marxist, Socialist, and want America to be the same. They want to confiscate YOUR stuff, and give it to who/whom they deem fit.

A very wise saying is-----------------> In a capitalistic country, the rich become powerful! In a Socialistic/Marxist country, the powerful become rich! This is the shortcut these lefties want. They are to dumb to be successful, so they want power to take your success from you!

 

[Zander]

Great post from the past by Boss!

They aren't liberals - they are LEFT WING NUT JOBS. I call them " LWNJ's" for short.

 

[Boss]

Except the GOP is based on extremist crap/lies and hate and runs with it. What extremists are in charge of the Dems? LOL. No one like the Kochs/Murdoch/Moon/Adelson brainwashers with billions spent on brainwashing channel and orgs, institutes, papers, covert ops that make up the bs circle jerk propaganda machine that the dupes can't exit without getting the bends..

Translation: Moon circle jerk machine extremist charge Kochs crap lies hate brainwash dupes billions covert propaganda of papers getting spent hate hate hate spew and spit hate can't exist without extremist dupe Murdock Adelson brainwashers and circle jerk machine extremist charge Kochs crap lies hate brainwash dupes billions covert propaganda of papers getting spent hate hate hate spew and spit hate can't exist without extremist dupe Murdock Adelson brainwashers and circle jerk machine. What it's except dupe extremist runs with it, and charge is in with Dems? LOL... No one like. brainwashing channel crap lies.

 

[regent]

Or as General MacArthur summed it up:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

 

[Skylar]

Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.

For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.

The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.

We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.

Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.

The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.

It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.

It was defined in that fashion. Not its left leaning politics.

 

[regent]

Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.

For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.

The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.

We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.

Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.

The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.

It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.

It was defined in that fashion. Not its left leaning politics.

Jefferson changed the definition a mite, wonder why?

 

[Skylar]

Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.

For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.

The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.

We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.

Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.

The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.

It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.

It was defined in that fashion. Not its left leaning politics.

Jefferson changed the definition a mite, wonder why?

And folks that followed Jefferson changed it again. So?

The idea that the usage of words should never, ever change is a losing battle.

 

[Boss]

Jefferson changed the definition a mite, wonder why?

Well, Jefferson started the Democrat party because he felt democracy was more important than republicanism. His primary reason was probably slavery. He wanted "the people" to have more of a voice in their persons and property than the republic. He knew that the system we adopted threatened controversial things like slavery. He wanted to be able to preserve that by taking up the mantle of "power of the people" and he did so successfully.

Ben Franklin had a quote to the woman who asked him, following the Constitutional Convention, "What form of government have you given us?" ..."A republic, if you can keep it!" was his reply. And no sooner than the ink was dry, we began to try and change it to a democracy.

 

[regent]

Jefferson changed the definition a mite, wonder why?

Well, Jefferson started the Democrat party because he felt democracy was more important than republicanism. His primary reason was probably slavery. He wanted "the people" to have more of a voice in their persons and property than the republic. He knew that the system we adopted threatened controversial things like slavery. He wanted to be able to preserve that by taking up the mantle of "power of the people" and he did so successfully.

Ben Franklin had a quote to the woman who asked him, following the Constitutional Convention, "What form of government have you given us?" ..."A republic, if you can keep it!" was his reply. And no sooner than the ink was dry, we began to try and change it to a democracy.

Mrs. Powel was asking Franklin if they had brought a monarchy to America.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I don't support Trump.

The emails are not a big deal because it's not illegal to be racist as fuck. But they totally expose the hypocrisy of the progressive left.

Except that those e-mails aren't even close to what you portray them as. But never mind, I know you guys are kind of desperate. You nominated an Orange Nazi Hairpiece most of you don't support.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.

For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.

The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.

We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.

Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.

The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.

It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.

Our modern Progressives are philosophically closer to Hitler, Stalin and Mao than to any true limited government Liberal

 

[JoeB131]

Now, Democrats are promoting hard line Marxist Socialism and I don't know what Republicans are promoting... Nationalist-Populist Agrarianism? Fascism? I'm not really sure how to define it. But both parties shut down opposition voices within the party. You can't disagree anymore. You have to walk the party line. If you step out of line, you're destroyed politically.

Guy, this is where you are in denial. Trump is the LOGICAL CONCLUSION of what you guys have been preaching for the last 40 years.

Here's the thing. Republicans realized they really couldn't win on the economic argument. Nobody in his right fucking mind would vote to "Work Harder for Less Money so that Rich guy can buy a new Dressage Horse". So how do you get those White Working Class Voters, who did pretty well under Progressive Democrats from FDR to LBJ (and a very sensible Republican named Ike) to give up all those working class rights and entitlements?

By playing on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

Oh, no, those Negroes and Feminists and Gays want to take away your stuff. and White WOrking Class males lost their nice middle class, union wages and pensions and worker protections- but they didn't go to the gays and the darkies.

They went to the guy who is riding around on his million dollar dancing horse.

But Nixon employed the Southern Strategy of talking about the "Silent Majority" who was scared by all those things the hippies were talking about, and Reagan Talked about Welfare Queens and Young Bucks, and Bush the Elder said that Willie Horton was going to break into your house and rape you!!!

And Trump says that Mexicans are all Murderers and Rapists and Muslims are going to kill us all.

Trump isn't that big of a departure, he's just louder and more obnoxious about it.

 

[Boss]

Except that those e-mails aren't even close to what you portray them as.

Feel free to prove anything I said wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

It was a Democrat president who stripped the pride from Native Americans.

Actually, both parties did that. But never mind.

It was a Democrat president who refused to do something about slavery and avert a Civil War.

Um, guy, Lincoln promised to not end slavery when he ran for President, (unlike Fremont who did), but the South broke away anyway.

It was a Democrat president who stripped the dignity of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Republicans actually objected to that. They didn't. Nobody did, that was part of the problem.

It was a Democrat president who destroyed the black family with institutionalized poverty known as welfare.

Uh, guy, nobody is having babies for the welfare benefits. You are once again engaging in base, racist stereotypes.

Reality-
Most people on welfare are White.
Most black folks have jobs.
Most people who are on assistance are only on it for a short time.
If marriage is on the decline, it's because it's not seen as necessary to spend the rest of your life with someone who wasn't the same person they were 10 years ago.

 

[Boss]

It was a Democrat president who stripped the pride from Native Americans.

Actually, both parties did that. But never mind.

It was a Democrat president who refused to do something about slavery and avert a Civil War.

Um, guy, Lincoln promised to not end slavery when he ran for President, (unlike Fremont who did), but the South broke away anyway.

It was a Democrat president who stripped the dignity of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Republicans actually objected to that. They didn't. Nobody did, that was part of the problem.

It was a Democrat president who destroyed the black family with institutionalized poverty known as welfare.

Uh, guy, nobody is having babies for the welfare benefits. You are once again engaging in base, racist stereotypes.

Reality-
Most people on welfare are White.
Most black folks have jobs.
Most people who are on assistance are only on it for a short time.
If marriage is on the decline, it's because it's not seen as necessary to spend the rest of your life with someone who wasn't the same person they were 10 years ago.

Sorry, I'm not in any mood to argue with a racist today.

 

[JoeB131]

Except that those e-mails aren't even close to what you portray them as.

Feel free to prove anything I said wrong.

others have already done it. Nope, pointing out that Laqueenia is a silly name isn't racist.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, I'm not in any mood to argue with a racist today.

Yes, I imagine given all the times I've left your dumb cracker ass a greasy smear on the pavement, you probably aren't up for that kind of beating.