Dear "Liberal" Why I'm so Hostile.

[PokeyNews]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

 

[DarkFury]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )
I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis...

...

Bring it.

Identity crisis? You think it is liberals suffering an identity crisis? Have you been paying attention lately? Like in the last 30 years or so?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

as if on cue...

 

[DarkFury]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )
I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis...

...

Bring it.

Identity crisis? You think it is liberals suffering an identity crisis? Have you been paying attention lately? Like in the last 30 years or so?

No its a valid point. You did just have two called out for being fake Negro's. That is confused by most medical standards.

 

[Pogo]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

There's no such thing as a "classical" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. That whole "classical" bullshit was invented by the Jonah McCarthys of the world to smokescreen the fact that they're conflating "Liberal" and "leftist", hoping nobody will notice that they're trying to morph a single word to mean two different things. You don't get to do that.

I stopped reading right there.

But then I went back and went down two more lines to "Progressive".

Far as I know the Progressive movement was at the turn of the 19th-20th century and the last guy to call himself that was Bob LaFollette. I've asked numerous posters here that insist on using the term to define it. No one has been able to.

Labels...

 

[DarkFury]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

There's no such thing as a "classical" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. That whole "classical" bullshit was invented by the Jonah McCarthys of the world to smokescreen the fact that they're conflating "Liberal" and "leftist", hoping nobody will notice that they're trying to morph a single word to mean two different things. You don't get to do that.

I stopped reading right there.

A "classic" liberal seeks to extends rights and liberties pushing for new ones. Today's liberal is equality by mandate and regulation NOT education and effort.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Horowitz, Beck & The Lunatic Right Wing | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the OP and his socks claim the left -- liberals are having an identity crisis?

:cukoo:

Tuesday, September 08, 2009 FOX News

HOROWITZ: Well, I have watched the growth of the left, you know, for 40 or 50 years, and this presence of movement to the left started in 1972 with McGovern. There used to be a communist party, and that communist party imploded.

Most of the people who created this new left, this — we'll call it the Alinsky left era, after its guru Saul Alinsky, supported the communists. They supported the communists. They still think that America should have pulled out of Vietnam and let 2.5 million people be slaughtered, but I have never seen it so powerful and it has never controlled a major party.

BECK: They are in control.

HOROWITZ: They are in control. The Democratic Party is no longer the party — certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy who had the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

BECK: Yes.

they go on...

HOROWITZ: It's the great thing about this country. Everybody gets a second and a third chance, but it's becoming increasingly dangerous with these people. You have to take them at their word. What we're seeing here is what I have called — I wrote a book about it called "The Shadow Party," which has been put together by George Soros. So, you get billionaires, you get unions — radical unions, the head of the SEIU is an old SDS radical with a Leninist perspective, and you get street radicals — and Soros put them together in a coalition.

And you see it embodied in a Van Jones, a street radical who graduated from Yale Law School, and who's a protege of the Center for American Progress, which is run by Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta. That alliance was put together about five years ago, and what you are seeing unfold now are the plans that Soros laid for the 2004 election. He was defeated then when Bush unexpectedly won.

BECK: Tell me — tell me, David, when you hear — it sounds crazy and it's almost like these things are ghosts, you know? It's like you are chasing ghosts. Well, OK, he was in STORM. Big deal, that's over. Now, he's in the Apollo Alliance. There is credible people there, credible businesses.

HOROWITZ: Yes.

BECK: The Center of American Progress — I mean, it's John Podesta, he's worked in the White House.

HOROWITZ: Yes. The Apollo Alliance is a broad coalition to advance very radical agendas. And it includes very respectable businessmen, powers in the Democratic Party, but its muscle is unions and radicals. And it was created out of Rob Borosage's the Center for the American Future. Borosage is an old SDS radical.

When you become disillusioned with the left and you see its destructive agendas and you see the way it supports America's enemies abroad and you see the way it doesn't really advance the interests of...people...when you become disillusioned, you turn, and you — because you are very political person, you want to tell other people.

And that's been my career and other people like me, but it's not Van Jones' career. And it's not Rob Borosage's. They buy the agenda...seeking to overthrow the system and to create a socialist future.

BECK: Do you think the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama has that agenda?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely. I have no doubt about it. You have to see where he came from. First of all, he was an operative for ACORN. He's out of the Alinsky school. He worked for the Gamaliel Foundation.

and on and on and on...Reformed Radical on Militant Movement - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

What is there to say? They go on and on about crazy shit. Horowitz himself is a former commie who is stuck in a world where he views what others do through a prism of his former life. He's a nut, but where does that leave Beck? Maybe Beck is just a phony and a dry drunk who is out to make a buck while playing everyone for the dupes they are?

 

[DarkFury]

Horowitz, Beck & The Lunatic Right Wing | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the OP and his socks claim the left -- liberals are having an identity crisis?

:cukoo:

Tuesday, September 08, 2009 FOX News

HOROWITZ: Well, I have watched the growth of the left, you know, for 40 or 50 years, and this presence of movement to the left started in 1972 with McGovern. There used to be a communist party, and that communist party imploded.

Most of the people who created this new left, this — we'll call it the Alinsky left era, after its guru Saul Alinsky, supported the communists. They supported the communists. They still think that America should have pulled out of Vietnam and let 2.5 million people be slaughtered, but I have never seen it so powerful and it has never controlled a major party.

BECK: They are in control.

HOROWITZ: They are in control. The Democratic Party is no longer the party — certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy who had the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

BECK: Yes.

they go on...

HOROWITZ: It's the great thing about this country. Everybody gets a second and a third chance, but it's becoming increasingly dangerous with these people. You have to take them at their word. What we're seeing here is what I have called — I wrote a book about it called "The Shadow Party," which has been put together by George Soros. So, you get billionaires, you get unions — radical unions, the head of the SEIU is an old SDS radical with a Leninist perspective, and you get street radicals — and Soros put them together in a coalition.

And you see it embodied in a Van Jones, a street radical who graduated from Yale Law School, and who's a protege of the Center for American Progress, which is run by Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta. That alliance was put together about five years ago, and what you are seeing unfold now are the plans that Soros laid for the 2004 election. He was defeated then when Bush unexpectedly won.

BECK: Tell me — tell me, David, when you hear — it sounds crazy and it's almost like these things are ghosts, you know? It's like you are chasing ghosts. Well, OK, he was in STORM. Big deal, that's over. Now, he's in the Apollo Alliance. There is credible people there, credible businesses.

HOROWITZ: Yes.

BECK: The Center of American Progress — I mean, it's John Podesta, he's worked in the White House.

HOROWITZ: Yes. The Apollo Alliance is a broad coalition to advance very radical agendas. And it includes very respectable businessmen, powers in the Democratic Party, but its muscle is unions and radicals. And it was created out of Rob Borosage's the Center for the American Future. Borosage is an old SDS radical.

When you become disillusioned with the left and you see its destructive agendas and you see the way it supports America's enemies abroad and you see the way it doesn't really advance the interests of...people...when you become disillusioned, you turn, and you — because you are very political person, you want to tell other people.

And that's been my career and other people like me, but it's not Van Jones' career. And it's not Rob Borosage's. They buy the agenda...seeking to overthrow the system and to create a socialist future.

BECK: Do you think the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama has that agenda?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely. I have no doubt about it. You have to see where he came from. First of all, he was an operative for ACORN. He's out of the Alinsky school. He worked for the Gamaliel Foundation.

and on and on and on...Reformed Radical on Militant Movement - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

What is there to say? They go on and on about crazy shit. Horowitz himself is a former commie who is stuck in a world where he views what others do through a prism of his former life. He's a nut, but where does that leave Beck? Maybe Beck is just a phony and a dry drunk who is out to make a buck while playing everyone for the dupes they are?

Having more then one account is ban worthy. Care to state WHO exactly here has more then one account?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Having more then one account is ban worthy. Care to state WHO exactly here has more then one account?

The position of school yard monitor has been taken. You may apply for School Hall Beatch after class

 

[DarkFury]

Having more then one account is ban worthy. Care to state WHO exactly here has more then one account?

The position of school yard monitor has been taken. You may apply for School Hall Beatch after class

Just saying if YOU are going to be running around claiming it YOU might want to be able to prove it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DankFurball. the last of the mouth-she-gans

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're in control of our feelings. What one feels is a choice.

===
Dorko - you're transparent - as always.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

There's no such thing as a "classical" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. That whole "classical" bullshit was invented by the Jonah McCarthys of the world to smokescreen the fact that they're conflating "Liberal" and "leftist", hoping nobody will notice that they're trying to morph a single word to mean two different things. You don't get to do that.

I stopped reading right there.

A "classic" liberal seeks to extends rights and liberties pushing for new ones. Today's liberal is equality by mandate and regulation NOT education and effort.

look up Satire

then look at where you are posting

what forum/board

 

[DarkFury]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

There's no such thing as a "classical" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. That whole "classical" bullshit was invented by the Jonah McCarthys of the world to smokescreen the fact that they're conflating "Liberal" and "leftist", hoping nobody will notice that they're trying to morph a single word to mean two different things. You don't get to do that.

I stopped reading right there.

A "classic" liberal seeks to extends rights and liberties pushing for new ones. Today's liberal is equality by mandate and regulation NOT education and effort.

look up Satire

then look at where you are posting

what forum/board

Oh I saw it but satire often contains a grain of truth. And a confused liberal? EASY to picture.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh I saw it but satire often contains a grain of truth. And a confused liberal? EASY to picture.

cowardly confused conservative -- has sweeter ring to it. dontja think

 

[DarkFury]

Oh I saw it but satire often contains a grain of truth. And a confused liberal? EASY to picture.

cowardly confused conservative -- has sweeter ring to it. dontja think

I would never call you conservative.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would never call you conservative.

I would never call you

 

[Pogo]

( I tossed up a poll, as to gauge this board a bit. I am new here. )


I use the word "Liberal" loosely. They suffer from an identity crisis, or perhaps they knew all along what they are, Fascist-Marxists. . A classical Liberal, Such as Thomas Jefferson, is fine. These nowdays hijacked the term,... called themselves progressives... Hippies, Democrats, Renaissance thinkers... Communists..

I found a great little piece of writing that sums things up nicely. Figured I'd share.

Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be "fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
.
.
.
.
...one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.
.
.
.
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, we say here in real America, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

There's no such thing as a "classical" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. That whole "classical" bullshit was invented by the Jonah McCarthys of the world to smokescreen the fact that they're conflating "Liberal" and "leftist", hoping nobody will notice that they're trying to morph a single word to mean two different things. You don't get to do that.

I stopped reading right there.

A "classic" liberal seeks to extends rights and liberties pushing for new ones. Today's liberal is equality by mandate and regulation NOT education and effort.

That's hilarious Pinkie. Your first sentence doesn't even make coherent sense in English but the second one describes leftism, not Liberalism. Next time try actually reading the post instead of just hitting "reply".

 

[Pogo]

Horowitz, Beck & The Lunatic Right Wing | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the OP and his socks claim the left -- liberals are having an identity crisis?

:cukoo:

Tuesday, September 08, 2009 FOX News

HOROWITZ: Well, I have watched the growth of the left, you know, for 40 or 50 years, and this presence of movement to the left started in 1972 with McGovern. There used to be a communist party, and that communist party imploded.

Most of the people who created this new left, this — we'll call it the Alinsky left era, after its guru Saul Alinsky, supported the communists. They supported the communists. They still think that America should have pulled out of Vietnam and let 2.5 million people be slaughtered, but I have never seen it so powerful and it has never controlled a major party.

BECK: They are in control.

HOROWITZ: They are in control. The Democratic Party is no longer the party — certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy who had the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

BECK: Yes.

they go on...

HOROWITZ: It's the great thing about this country. Everybody gets a second and a third chance, but it's becoming increasingly dangerous with these people. You have to take them at their word. What we're seeing here is what I have called — I wrote a book about it called "The Shadow Party," which has been put together by George Soros. So, you get billionaires, you get unions — radical unions, the head of the SEIU is an old SDS radical with a Leninist perspective, and you get street radicals — and Soros put them together in a coalition.

And you see it embodied in a Van Jones, a street radical who graduated from Yale Law School, and who's a protege of the Center for American Progress, which is run by Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta. That alliance was put together about five years ago, and what you are seeing unfold now are the plans that Soros laid for the 2004 election. He was defeated then when Bush unexpectedly won.

BECK: Tell me — tell me, David, when you hear — it sounds crazy and it's almost like these things are ghosts, you know? It's like you are chasing ghosts. Well, OK, he was in STORM. Big deal, that's over. Now, he's in the Apollo Alliance. There is credible people there, credible businesses.

HOROWITZ: Yes.

BECK: The Center of American Progress — I mean, it's John Podesta, he's worked in the White House.

HOROWITZ: Yes. The Apollo Alliance is a broad coalition to advance very radical agendas. And it includes very respectable businessmen, powers in the Democratic Party, but its muscle is unions and radicals. And it was created out of Rob Borosage's the Center for the American Future. Borosage is an old SDS radical.

When you become disillusioned with the left and you see its destructive agendas and you see the way it supports America's enemies abroad and you see the way it doesn't really advance the interests of...people...when you become disillusioned, you turn, and you — because you are very political person, you want to tell other people.

And that's been my career and other people like me, but it's not Van Jones' career. And it's not Rob Borosage's. They buy the agenda...seeking to overthrow the system and to create a socialist future.

BECK: Do you think the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama has that agenda?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely. I have no doubt about it. You have to see where he came from. First of all, he was an operative for ACORN. He's out of the Alinsky school. He worked for the Gamaliel Foundation.

and on and on and on...Reformed Radical on Militant Movement - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

What is there to say? They go on and on about crazy shit. Horowitz himself is a former commie who is stuck in a world where he views what others do through a prism of his former life. He's a nut, but where does that leave Beck? Maybe Beck is just a phony and a dry drunk who is out to make a buck while playing everyone for the dupes they are?

Having more then one account is ban worthy. Care to state WHO exactly here has more then one account?

"Yo".

"GFY".