Caption this picture if you dare, Marxist liberal spoiled brats

[Foxfyre]

Marxist liberal

More ignorance from the right: you have no idea what ‘Marxist’ is, much less ‘liberal.’ If you did you wouldn’t have put the two together.

Nonsense. Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as Modern American liberal define it. Take down the authoritarian government and rewrite the rules so that the wealthy are brought down and the poor brought up to all the same level. And then eliminate government altogether and the people, now all equal, will live together in Utopian harmony forever.

But first somebody has to take down the bad government and install one that can take down the wealthy and bring about the changes necessary to create the Utopia.

Unfortunately, no government who ever got to that point was then willing to give up the power it had achieved. And instead of Utopia, the wealth of the rich was just shifted to those in government and the people were even more poor and oppressed and less free

Funny how that works. Every single time.

 

[daveman]

Marxist liberal

More ignorance from the right: you have no idea what ‘Marxist’ is, much less ‘liberal.’ If you did you wouldn’t have put the two together.

Nonsense. Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as Modern American liberal define it. Take down the authoritarian government and rewrite the rules so that the wealthy are brought down and the poor brought up to all the same level. And then eliminate government altogether and the people, now all equal, will live together in Utopian harmony forever.

But first somebody has to take down the bad government and install one that can take down the wealthy and bring about the changes necessary to create the Utopia.

Unfortunately, no government who ever got to that point was then willing to give up the power it had achieved. And instead of Utopia, the wealth of the rich was just shifted to those in government and the people were even more poor and oppressed and less free

Funny how that works. Every single time.

 

[francoHFW]

Absolute gibberish. LOL

 

[Luissa]

Marxist liberal

More ignorance from the right: you have no idea what ‘Marxist’ is, much less ‘liberal.’ If you did you wouldn’t have put the two together.

Nonsense. Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as Modern American liberal define it. Take down the authoritarian government and rewrite the rules so that the wealthy are brought down and the poor brought up to all the same level. And then eliminate government altogether and the people, now all equal, will live together in Utopian harmony forever.

But first somebody has to take down the bad government and install one that can take down the wealthy and bring about the changes necessary to create the Utopia.

Unfortunately, no government who ever got to that point was then willing to give up the power it had achieved. And instead of Utopia, the wealth of the rich was just shifted to those in government and the people were even more poor and oppressed and less free

Funny how that works. Every single time.

Yeah, because that is what most liberals want.

Like he said, the two should not have been put together.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

 

[skookerasbil]

Tea.........fear not my friend. These absurd protests will be ending soon and you can mark my words. When business in lower Manhattan is getting slammed, there are people who are not going to be happy and they're not Wall Street guys. Anybody with half a brain about how shit really works knows there is a tragedy coming down there.........and real soon.............and will have nothing to do with the cops.

You fuckk with certain groups like the carting business or the restaurant business..........theres some people behind those businesses that these park assholes have no clue about. City gangs can be bought for cheap and these people have deep pockets. You want to talk ruthless? And you can bet your bottom dollar it will ALL be caught on video and you'll see these morons scatter like a bunch of cockroaches inside an hour. 90% of them are thatched cottage dwellars their whole lives. They know nothing outside of their iPhone existence. But they will...........

 

[Luissa]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

You really don't know what most liberals want, do you?
Try talking to a few average liberals before you start speaking for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

You really don't know what most liberals want, do you?
Try talking to a few average liberals before you start speaking for them.

I work with liberals, worship with liberals, and have numerous liberals among my friends, family, and neighbors. And I don't presume to speak for a single one of them.

I do hold my own opinion about the definitions of liberal and conservative in modern America and feel on pretty solid ground since I am allowed to teach it now and then by people who consider themselves to be liberals.

 

[Sky Dancer]

As if spoiled brats don't come in the conservative category.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

You really don't know what most liberals want, do you?
Try talking to a few average liberals before you start speaking for them.

That would be reasonable. Ms Foxfyre thinks that SHE has the ONLY valid definition of liberal and conservative. She fashions herself the board teacher. Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[Luissa]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

You really don't know what most liberals want, do you?
Try talking to a few average liberals before you start speaking for them.

I work with liberals, worship with liberals, and have numerous liberals among my friends, family, and neighbors. And I don't presume to speak for a single one of them.

I do hold my own opinion about the definitions of liberal and conservative in modern America and feel on pretty solid ground since I am allowed to teach it now and then by people who consider themselves to be liberals.

If that was true you would not have made the above statement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

As with the OP you elect to exhibit your ignorance of the subject. The right’s penchant for demagoguery is consistent.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't say anything about most liberals. I said Marxism is the ultimate liberalism as liberal is defined in Modern America. At least up to the point that a government is installed that is strong enough to take away people's wealth and property. Modern American Liberalism is all about a big, strong, ever more encompassing 'benevolent' government that will bring about justice, equality, and compassion in all aspects of life. At least in the eyes of the liberal. The function of government to the liberal is to accomplish that as much as is reasonably possible.

And of course Marxism takes it to the extreme by disallowing anybody to own anything but all share everything, each according to his/her needs.

The goals of the conservative, of which Marx could NEVER be confused with modern American conservatism, are actually not all that much different. But the conservative sees the way to get there is through allowing people to form the society they want rather than have the government do that for them. The function of government to the conservative is to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

As with the OP you elect to exhibit your ignorance of the subject. The right’s penchant for demagoguery is consistent.

Well like I said, the intelligent liberals I discuss this stuff with pretty much agree with my definitions even though they disagree with conservatism as opposed to liberalism. That of course is why they are liberals.

However, the unintelligent liberal would rather criticize me and call me ignorant or stupid or some other charming adjective rather than challenge the definitions themselves, or perhaps without having a clue what the definitions are.

Takes all kinds though I guess.

 

[eots]

99%.... .001% ?... You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

 

[Chris]

I have never met any Marxists.

But the Republicans like to make up fake enemies.

 

[eots]

well you must admit what is being released to the media as goals and demands is pretty much a Marxist manifesto

 

[Chris]

well you must admit what is being released to the media as goals and demands is pretty much a Marxist manifesto

Who cares?

They are focusing attention on where the real problem is.....Wall Street and the big banks.

What we need now is another Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust Buster.

 

[Chris]

Teddy Roosevelt was one American who believed a revolution was coming.

He believed Wall Street financiers and powerful trust titans to be acting foolishly. While they were eating off fancy china on mahogany tables in marble dining rooms, the masses were roughing it. There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Although he himself was a man of means, he criticized the wealthy class of Americans on two counts. First, continued exploitation of the public could result in a violent uprising that could destroy the whole system. Second, the captains of industry were arrogant enough to believe themselves superior to the elected government. Now that he was President, Roosevelt went on the attack.

The President's weapon was the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed by Congress in 1890. This law declared illegal all combinations "in restraint of trade." For the first twelve years of its existence, the Sherman Act was a paper tiger. United States courts routinely sided with business when any enforcement of the Act was attempted.

For example, the American Sugar Refining Company controlled 98 percent of the sugar industry. Despite this virtual monopoly, the Supreme Court refused to dissolve the corporation in an 1895 ruling. The only time an organization was deemed in restraint of trade was when the court ruled against a labor union

Roosevelt knew that no new legislation was necessary. When he sensed that he had a sympathetic Court, he sprung into action.

The Trust Buster [ushistory.org]

 

[Foxfyre]

You really don't know what most liberals want, do you?
Try talking to a few average liberals before you start speaking for them.

I work with liberals, worship with liberals, and have numerous liberals among my friends, family, and neighbors. And I don't presume to speak for a single one of them.

I do hold my own opinion about the definitions of liberal and conservative in modern America and feel on pretty solid ground since I am allowed to teach it now and then by people who consider themselves to be liberals.

If that was true you would not have made the above statement.

Yes I would have. Because I did. And I stand by it and I can defend it.

You however seem to be focused on criticizing me and have not offered any rebuttal or your own definition for why or how mine is wrong. Why dont you try that and you might really have a leg to stand on then.

 

[Political Junky]

Republicans are stuck in the 1950s, with their talk of Communism. The Tea Party is nothing more than recycled John Birchers.