What Leftism Does to People

[Sky Dancer]

It doesn't bother me a bit that OWS is shaking some of you up. You need it. People sitting around and knitting is real disturbing.


Sitting in chairs with their laps filled with wool were two women who had been in this park from the start, 37 days as of yesterday. Here is Marsha Spencer who lives in Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattan. She sits with hardly a word out of her as these big needles in her hands work on thick wool face masks, knitting colorful lines of red and blue into a white background.

Sitting a couple of feet away with the same concentration was Karin, and her last name is hers and not yours. She is from the East Village and knits here every day.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...fice-article-1.972785?localLinksEnabled=false

DAMN these are dangerous people! Lock em up!

 

[Avatar4321]

It doesn't bother me a bit that OWS is shaking some of you up. You need it.

I would hope that the violence and depravity of OWS would shake up alot more than a some. But unfortunately many seem to be justifying that behavior and acting like there isnt anything wrong with it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It doesn't bother me a bit that OWS is shaking some of you up. You need it.

I would hope that the violence and depravity of OWS would shake up alot more than a some. But unfortunately many seem to be justifying that behavior and acting like there isnt anything wrong with it.

I don't justify bad behavior on either side. "I sympathize with their concerns," which is a long way from "I'm one of them."

The RW is intent on bashing ANYONE who agrees with the principles of this spontaneous grassroots uprising, whether we are there, or not. This is a flame thread.

 

[chanel]

Bullshit. I haven't seen anyone on here saying that people should be denied their right to protest. But they do not have the right to break the law and all kinds of laws are being broken.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Did you read Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"?


"I have a masters in History/ French Civilisation,..."


I didn't know that Clown College actually handed out degrees.


I've seen the quality of your writing, and there is a great deal of money in your future: simply threaten to reveal the name of the 'college'.....
...out of court settlement without a doubt.

When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

Progressives are fascists - they've demonstrated that by their actions of blocking and degrading all ideas and people they don't agree with..

Hell, just yesterday they were blocking individuals from leaving a conservative conference using their own children as human shields.

Liberals are not fascists. Nazi's are fascist. Pol Pot and Mao were fascists. These are demonstrators.

Some of them aren't "behaving" themselves. It has NOTHING to do with political views. It does speak to how unnerved some people are who eat a steady diet of TV news.

It speaks to how much hate the right has, that they would malign ALL people with liberal views for the actions of some who the rest of us have NO control over.

Certainly you are - you believe your progressive ideas are superior to conservative ideas...

I would certainly label progressives socioeconomic ideas fascist....

Don't confuse totalitarian with fascism...

 

[The Gadfly]

"Marxism", "Progressivism", "Communism"; by whatever name you call it, it is the most evil, degenerate, and dangerous plague to ever infect the human race, toxic to all that is good and virtuous in man. Its appeal is to the lowest forms of human vice and human depravity. It is incompatible with liberty, and utterly destructive of it. We have defeated it abroad, and I hope for the day when we eradicate its foul stench from America forever, when its last root and branch is ripped out of this society, and cast on the dungheap of history where it justly belongs! I have a dream too!

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Tea Party siege of the Capitol, complete with spitting and obscene racist and bigotted chants, was athe biggest disgrace I've ever seen.True moronic, brainwashed fanatics. Scary stuff. The world is aghast at the violent angry ignorami...

for a guy with a "masters" you sure as hell must have paid someone to do your homework for your English Classes....to keep from looking stupider than what you appear here .....learn to use the spell checker....

 

[Harry Dresden]

And the reason I know what most are protesting is because I listen to what they ate saying. By this I also know your view of them is mostly wrong. You ate judging them by what you have seen on Fox. The movements are mostly non violent, not anti semantic, along with whatever you are spouting. The right just has a habit of judging many by a few. You do the same thing with so called welfare moms.
You might not be controlled by your government, but you are controlled by your stereotypes.

She had a ton of stereotypes about Katrina survivors. Big surprise that the flame thread now moves to OW protestors stereotypes.

Bad behavior has nothing to do with political views. Klavan and FF have no argument.

WTF!....WAKE UP !.......Would ya'!?

Christ, one of your fellow liberal loons brought her under 5 year old kids to a violent protest, and watched them get knocked to the fucking ground by her fellow loony liberal protesters.......O'Reilly showed the entire video tonight.

Bottom line, LIBERALS ARE FUCKIN' DOUCHEBAGS!

WJ.....there are Conservative Douche Bags out there too....and you can spot them just like you can the Liberal ones.....ME and my Party before this Country.....they just go about it differently....examples on this board are...Liberal Douche Bag.....Dean and conservative Douche Bag..... USAR....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Did you read Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"?


"I have a masters in History/ French Civilisation,..."


I didn't know that Clown College actually handed out degrees.


I've seen the quality of your writing, and there is a great deal of money in your future: simply threaten to reveal the name of the 'college'.....
...out of court settlement without a doubt.

When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

did you notice PC that he spelled CIVILIZATION wrong.........if you have a degree in something,you know how to spell it....

It is an accepted form of spelling...

World English Dictionary:LINK




civilization or civilisation (ˌsɪvɪlaɪˈzeɪʃən)

its accepted because dipshits like this guy kept on misspelling it.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Respectfully, I don't think that Mr. Loughner represented the left or the right. He had characteristics of both, as well as being batshit crazy.

1. During his formative high school years, Jarod Lee Loughner attended the Mountain View High School, in Arizona…a school whose curriculum was designed by Mike Klonsky, friend and associate of Bill Ayers and Barack Obama…

a. “The Loughner they met when he was a freshman at Mountain View High School may have been socially awkward, but he was generally happy and fun to be around. The crew smoked marijuana every day, and when they weren’t going to concerts or watching movies they talked about the meaning of life and dabbled in conspiracy theories.” Shooting suspect?s Shooting-suspect

b. Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in Saturday's Arizona shooting, attended a high school that is part of a network in which teachers are trained and provided resources by a liberal group founded by Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and funded by President Obama, WND has learned.
Bill Ayers, communist provided Arizona shooter's curriculum?


While the MSM jumped at the opportunity to paint the right as instigators that fueled Loughner's rage, it was clearly the left wing that had the opportunity to do that...

Obama to Ayers to Klonsky to Loughner.

2. From his friends:
1. @lakarune I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. less than 5 seconds ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to lakarune
2. @noboa more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. 2 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to noboa
3. @antderosa he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. 3 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa [More...]
4. @antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. 8 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
5. @antderosa he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class 10 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
6. @antderosa He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent" 12 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
Jared Loughner's "Friends" on Twitter Discuss Him - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Quotes by Loughner:

"I can't trust the current government because of fabrications," Loughner wrote in a YouTube slide presentation. "The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." (USA Today 01/09/2011)

"What is government if words have no meaning?' " (ubiquitous)

The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!

"If 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,987,618 is the year in B.C.E then the previous year of 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 B.C.E is 987,123,478,967,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,619, B.C.E." (Loughner's Myspace quotes)

He seems psychotic to me. I'm not a psychiatrist, but it looks like schizophrenic word salad.


I recall that when this happened, MSNBC made several references to Sarah Palin's crosshairs on the U.S. map. And FNC claimed that Loughner was "left-wing" and "quite liberal".

I suppose that one could come to both conclusions; that is, if you can find something discernible in his writings. It seems to me that he wasn't really sure what he believed in. He doesn't seem to be capable of reason at all. Do you disagree with that?

"He seems psychotic to me."

100%!

But his school background was in Left-wing precincts, as my post documents, and his friends, those who spoke with him and knew him said same.

Imagine, had he been schooled in, say, Oral Roberts or Brigham Young Universities, what the verdict would have been.

He was not right wing.

That being said, his criminality was based on mental aberration, not political perspective.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's the French spelling. I'm just slumming here. Been on political message boards for 4 years, and despite the excruciatng ignorance of Pub dupes, I've never seen one learn anything. Now I just yell and laugh at them. LOL Their heroes are about to get their azzes handed to them. Their idiocy, hate, and BS are just too blindingly obvious to all but brainwashed Ugly 'Merican assholes like yourselves. The world is aghast. tyvm LOL!

so in other words.....be like your butt buddy Dean and throw a blanket over every Republican because i have run into a few Dipshits.....an Education hasn't done much for you has it?...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Liberal Fascism" is drivel for morons- Right up your alley. Tell us how Hitler was a socialist LOL

1. First, let me congratulate you for revealing your fear of standing up alone, but, rather, hiding behind the oh-so-Liberal "us," as in "Tell us...."

It's 'Tell me"...unless you have a tapeworm.
Hoping for your recovery.

2. And, Tugboat, I'm so pleased that you have put on your 'big boy pants,' and requested the remediation that you so clearly require: "Tell us how Hitler was a socialist."

Now, pay attention...and there may be a short quiz at the conclusion.
The premise is that the economic policies of FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini were, for the most part, consubstantial.

1. The propaganda of the New Deal (“malefactors of great wealth”) to the contrary, FDR imply endeavored to re-create the corporatism of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated. Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another: the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers.

a. The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.’

2. In an even more eerie echo of Italian Fascist corporatist thought, corporations would replace “geographic jurisdictions as conduits of government support for economic and human development.” Social services- health care, day care, education, and so forth- would all be provided by your employer.
Beginning to see the socialism of the three administrations?
Good boy!

3. Another early policy given high priority by the Nazi government was the organizing of all German businesses into cartels. The argument was that—in contrast to the disorderliness and egoism of free market capitalism—centralization and state control would increase efficiency and a sense of German unity. In July of 1933, membership in a cartel became compulsory for businesses, and by early 1934 the cartel structure was re-organized and placed firmly under the direction of the German government. Stephen Hicks, Ph.D. » Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz


b. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

c. In Germany, workers would become de factor citizens of their companies, in a relationship similar to Krupp’s General Regulations. “The Krupps feared the Social Democrats and to keep them out of their facilities, they used repression and a compensation package that many German workers found quite acceptable. If you worked for Krupp, your children were born in a Krupp hospital, educated in a Krupp school, played on a Krupp playground, etc. You shopped in a Krupp store. It was cradle-to-grave security of sorts. Women advertising for husbands would specify employees of Krupp.”
Chapter Four: notes

4. There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general. The ends remain the same.

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").

5. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ that FDR demanded, and got, in ways you will recognize:

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”

b. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his [Roosevelt's] book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”

d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”


So, unless you are prepared to argue that FDR was not a socialist, it would be difficult to argue that his economic 'partner' in Germany was not also socialist.

Now, your homework, Tugboat, is to get and study Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," and "Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939," by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.


Better get to work!

 

[Foxfyre]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

"leftism" wouldn't be an accurate description.

The "New Left" or progressivism would be a better and more accurate terminology.

I got sidetracked but didn't want this post to slide by without comment too. It is an excellent observation but I think in Klavan's view, based on this essay and others he has written that focus more on history, there are some fundamental principles that apply. He is looking at statism in general whether that was in Mao's China, Lenin's Russia, in the European nations, or the USA.

Whenever the people look to government as their cradle to grave protector and provider rather than looking to their own blessings and creativity for their destiny, you have a nation in which the people become enslaved and/or dependent. They begin to lose their will for self sufficiency and will worship and defend the state at ever increasing levels.

Then when the state disappoints them or runs out of resources, you have an immature dependemt people who pull a temper tantrum because they aren't getting what they want.

The 'meat' is here and again I took the liberty to create an additional paragraphs for emphasis:

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants.

When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I think rightwingers (i.e. Tea Partiers, Tax reformers, 9/12ers and groups such as that) do not respond to their disappointment and disatisfaction with government in that way because these groups want to be free of unnecessary or counterproductive interference of government and reclaim their right to govern themselves. They are grown ups and neither inclined to temper tantrums nor disrespect for the rights of others.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Bullshit. I haven't seen anyone on here saying that people should be denied their right to protest. But they do not have the right to break the law and all kinds of laws are being broken.

The OP states that "leftist" are "awful people" and that they become so due to left wing ideology. That's bullshit.

This is flame thread to bash ALL whose poltics happen to lean left, whether they are OWS demonstrators or merely sympathetic to their cause.

My point is whether someone is an "awful person" or not has nothing to do with politics.

Disagreeing with RW posters on USMB gets you put in the category of "awful person." It's really no different that saying the Black Panthers are "awful people".

MLK, was considered an awful person, because his protests challenged the status quo. Gandhi was similiarly viewed by those in power. Caesar Chavez leading the farmworkers, again viewed in a very negative light. Nelson Mandela imprisoned. Malcolm X murdered. Bobby Kennedy assassinated. Aung Sang Suu Kyii house arrest.

Those who'd like to mow down the crowd, and "check" the rise of leftist politcs are no better than fascists, IMO.

I'm not at the wall st occupation but I sympathize with their cause. Any time the populace wakes up politically is a cause for celebration, not condemnation.

Frankly, I don't care if OWS doesn't resemble the Tea Party. They're not supposed to.

Taking Klavan's hate manifesto as serious debate material can only happen with RWNJs. This thread is NOT open to discussion with posters whose politics lean left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you are just trolling. At least one troll had the integrity to admit it up there on the poll.

And some of you are making some excellent points, both for the left and right, but I still ask everybody to repackage those points to address the thesis.

One more time:

Andrew Klavan suggests that after observation of the mob behavior of leftists, it is mostly bad behavior, disrespectful of the rights and property of others, sometimes violent, destructive and damaging.

He has observed that those on the right (here in America) don't seem to engage in antisocial, violent, destructive, and damaging behavior and they go the second and third mile to be respectful of the rights and property of others.

Is he right?

If so, why do leftists behave that way and Tea Partiers do not?

Is he wrong?

How?

The Boston Tea Party was outright lawlessness and destruction.

How much lawlessness and destruction is allowable before a movement goes from being an inspiration to being an object of ridicule?

Explain that to us.

We have ways to make changes. They are clearly defined, so today break the law and get ridiculed. It is nothing short of insurrection when they do and should be put down accordingly.

So the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that the Tea Partiers haven't hesitated to invoke,

have now expired?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when Jesus wreaked havoc on the money changers in the Temple,

where does that act of lawlessness and destruction fall on the okay not okay scale?

If some people came into your house and set up different businesses, wouldn't you bodily throw them out? What if they came into your father's house?

If one is forced to accept a rather absurd premise that Jesus was in fact the divinely sired son of a supernatural being whose existence, not to mention ownership of all places of worship,

is an indisputable fact, i.e., proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then yeah,

I suppose you have a point.

I doubt however that anyone nowadays who vandalized a church would get very far with the claim that he was the divine Jesus, or the equivalent.

So, given that, would you like to try another answer?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The idea that anyone on the left who is sympathetic to OWS cause would approve of shitting in public, wanton destruction of property, or anything else against the law is bullshit.

I am sympathetic to their cause, not to their methods. I have no control over a crowd in another part of the country.

I disagree with the OP, that OWS demonstrators are inferior human beings to Tea Party members.

This hasn't been organized nice and tight or funded by the Koch brothers like the Tea Party has.

Their goal is to make their voices known. Has it been skillful or not? The elections will tell. At the very least, I bet more people get out to vote than ever before.

This started spontaneous and from everyday people and the character of the group is changing, not for the better.

Let you ALL think that EVERY SINGLE person whose politics lean left is a criminal that should be mowed down and imprisoned.

This is where I stand, since the 1960s, I have sought liberal reform through the democratic process and nonviolent protest. Period. The OP lumps us all together and has a harsh fascist tone to the OP essay.

I don't agree with tactics of destroying property, public urination and defecation, rape, assault or anything else. It's a complete lie to lump all liberals together with the bad behavior of some of the OWS demonstrators.

I'm not a militant, an anarchist, or a revolutionary. I have marched for civil rights in Washington with MLK and Coretta Scott King, I've joined Caesar Chavez in boycotts, I've marched against the Vietnam War. I never broke the law. I grieved the Kent State massacre. In those days, civil disobedience worked. I resent the OP and her tone of putdown for ALL liberals.

She's as bad as Ann Coulter.

If OWS was meeting quietly in Starbucks, they'd be ignored or put down for other reasons, like being spoiled, baby boomers. I don't agree with every bad behavior OWS has collectively displayed, but I agree with the right of the people to assemble and make concerns known. The haughtiness of the right, that they are "cvilized" and OWS are "animals" would be called racism if all the demonstrators were black. Instead it's just anti-democratic bigotry.

 

[mskafka]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

"leftism" wouldn't be an accurate description.

The "New Left" or progressivism would be a better and more accurate terminology.

I got sidetracked but didn't want this post to slide by without comment too. It is an excellent observation but I think in Klavan's view, based on this essay and others he has written that focus more on history, there are some fundamental principles that apply. He is looking at statism in general whether that was in Mao's China, Lenin's Russia, in the European nations, or the USA.

Whenever the people look to government as their cradle to grave protector and provider rather than looking to their own blessings and creativity for their destiny, you have a nation in which the people become enslaved and/or dependent. They begin to lose their will for self sufficiency and will worship and defend the state at ever increasing levels.

Then when the state disappoints them or runs out of resources, you have an immature dependemt people who pull a temper tantrum because they aren't getting what they want.

The 'meat' is here and again I took the liberty to create an additional paragraphs for emphasis:

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants.

When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I think rightwingers (i.e. Tea Partiers, Tax reformers, 9/12ers and groups such as that) do not respond to their disappointment and disatisfaction with government in that way because these groups want to be free of unnecessary or counterproductive interference of government and reclaim their right to govern themselves. They are grown ups and neither inclined to temper tantrums nor disrespect for the rights of others.

I don't entirely agree that tea partiers respect the rights of others, or don't throw temper tantrums. There were plenty who were disrespectful from the tea party, just as there are goobers from OWS.

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS4MI8fuXzw"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS4MI8fuXzw[/ame]

I'm sure that this isn't the first time that you've seen this video. Neither side has the moral high ground.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the few hypocritical, cognizantly challenged, reading dysfunctional, and brainwashed among us, Klavan did NOT say that leftists are awful people. (The scary thing as that some of these people that can't seem to read and comprehend claim to have college degrees, teachers of children, or be engaged in other careers that influence minds. Shudder.)

Again Klavan did NOT say that leftists are awful people.

What he did say is:
Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

There is a huge difference in those two things.

In the illustration he is using in his thesis, conservatism provokes courtesy, good citizenship, respect for the rights and property of others, and other behavior that responsible grown ups teach and promote. Pretty much without exception the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, and similar groups have produced such exemplary behavior.

Leftism, however, has produced people such as we see in some of the Occupy groups who are defecating in the street, littering and trashing public and private properties, defacing, damaging, and destroying public and private property, and disrupting the livelihoods of people in the area. In other words, leftism produces spoiled, hateful, insensitive, selfish, bratty, immature human beings demanding that others give them what they want and don't give a flying fig about the rights of anybody else.

Who any sense of propriety would not call that awful?

The conservatives on this thread continue to appreciate the behavior of the Tea Partiers et al and condemn the behavior of the Occupy groups.

The leftists on this thread continue to scorn the Tea Partiers and defend, make excuses for, or deflect from the behavior of the Occupy groups and call this a flame thread. Almost no effort whatsoever to reflect on the topic. Just condemnation for those who think we need to have a conversation about it.

I wonder if we have arrive at a point in which leftism has made it impossible to even have a conservation about this. Or are we already too far gone?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Klavan does NOT making a convincing argument that "leftism" makes people awful.

Post after post of stereotypes and nonsense pretending to be "scholarly". This thread is flame bait, pure and simple. It is NOt designed to have a respectful converssation between liberals and conservatives.

The OP's argument is that leftism causes people to be awful and she points to anyone who challenges her view as an example of an "awful person".

I certainly don't scorn the Tea Party, I just don't agree with them. Disagreement equals "scorn" to FF.

Klavan claims conservatism breed good manners. That may be true but it has also bred some of the worst scoundrels in history.

FF cannot read. I have condemned the bad behavior of the OWS protestors. She ignores that because it doesn't fit her stereotype. Here stereotype is that all leftists become awful people who pee and shit in public and deface property. When any of us call that bullshit, she connects that to her premise that we are awful people.

Just as the RW condemns ALL Muslims for the behavior of terrrorists, who they have no control over, the RWNJs condemn all "leftists" for the behavior of those across the country that we have no control over.

The OP is NOT interested in a conversation with people on the left, only with condemning ALL of us, and pretending that the RW are superior human beings by virtue of their ideology.

Bullshit.

The OP finds one big biased article written in a style she likes and organizes her posting life around it. She is unwilling to consider this essay as flawed, and failing to make the case of it's premise.

FF is a haughty woman. Not to be confused with hawtie. I wouldn't sexually or metaphorically hit on her. EVER. Her views are bigoted. I don't find bigotry attractive, I don't find her steel trap closed mind attractive.

In my RL, I work with Republicans all the time, and we're friends. We rarely discuss politics and when we do, we light heartedly tease each other. That's the kind of relationships I enjoy in the community.

Here is a sample of FF hate:

"leftism produces spoiled, hateful, insensitive, selfish, bratty, immature human beings demanding that others give them what they want and don't give a flying fig about the rights of anybody else."

She doesn't attack the politics of the left, but the PEOPLE on the left. Her essays are pure ad hominem.