George Zimmerman

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Warrior102, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. THORAX
    Offline

    THORAX Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages:
    359
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +61
    They've regressed into Marxist unfortunately. Not entirely, but they're getting there.

    Just look at England. The Marxist have gotten so out of control that you have nationalist parties cropping up one after the next in British politics.
     
  2. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,705
    Thanks Received:
    12,584
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,671
    1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would :(

    That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.

    Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.

    Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.

    But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.

    (rant off/offtopic)
     
  3. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    65,362
    Thanks Received:
    8,400
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +29,737
    The term "liberal" was highjacked by the Fabians in the 1910's. Woodrow Wilson, father of the modern American left, called himself and his movement "liberals." Wilson was a collectivist authoritarian who worked to promote a centrally planned and managed economy with national control over all aspects of life.

    Then there was FDR, a Stalinist who openly subverted the Constitution (court stuffing) and implemented collectivist programs who also used the term "liberal."

    The shake-up in the democratic party between the extreme left and the rational democrats came in 1968, during the Chicago convention. In 1972, the democrats ran a Marxist for president. It's pretty clear who won. Since 1968, the democrats have been and continue to be a leftist party - there is nothing even slightly "liberal" about them.

    The liberals who founded this nation were proponents of freedom, including free enterprise. The centrally managed economy of Obama and the extreme left is the polar opposite of liberalism. Liberalism cannot exist separated from Laissez Faire Capitalism.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2013
  4. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,705
    Thanks Received:
    12,584
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,671
    That (bold) may be the first thing you've said that was right -- even if you've put the cart before the horse. Liberalism begets Capitalism, not the other way around.

    Unfortunately it's mitigated by the wackitude immediately preceding. "Centrally managed economy"? Really? [​IMG]

    I often bring up the analogy of the Soviet Union (speaking of a geniune centrally planned economy) - some wags in here, especially in the "Hitler was a liberal" revisionist threads, will point to the USSR as some kind of "liberal" example, when it was anything but. In truth it was Leftism gone wild, or at least a veneer of Leftism laboring under a yoke of the major dynamic: Authoritarianism.

    As noted at the beginning, distinctions are lost on the partisanly-obsessed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2013
  5. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    62,057
    Thanks Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +26,830
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    65,362
    Thanks Received:
    8,400
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +29,737
    Murray Rothbard wrote that the quest for economic freedom is the foundation for liberalism, i.e. the desire for liberty.

    So you know nothing about Wilson - that is pretty common, especially for those on the left.

    Walter Lippmann served as Wilson's chief economic adviser. Now this was prior to the Marxist revolution in Russia, prior to the mass murders by Lenin and Stalin; furthermore, Fabian thought is collectivist, but not Marxist. With all this in mind, understand that the Fabian influence was no covert, Wilson was open about his desire to centralize economic affairs and establish collectivist programs.

    progressingamerica: Who founded Fabian Socialism in the United States?

    {We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

    Woodrow Wilson “The Meaning of a Liberal Education”, Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association (9 January 1909).

    Collectivism and liberalism cannot coexist. The promoter of Obamacare or the Obamunist state, cannot be a liberal. Only through the curtailing of liberty can the goal of taking from some, to give to others, be achieved.
     
  7. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,705
    Thanks Received:
    12,584
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,671
    Nice attempt at goalpost-switching but you were referring to O'bama, not Wilson. It's right here on this page. Should I quote it before you go back and edit-revise?

    How can you purport to respond to my posts when you can't even follow your own?
     
  8. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    65,362
    Thanks Received:
    8,400
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +29,737
    You are confused.

    You ignorantly claimed that "liberal" became a derogatory term, due to leftism, in 1988. I pointed out that it actually was 1910, when New Jersey Gov. Wilson began promoting a national collectivist nation with mandated castes and assigned work details managed by federal overlords. Wilson went on to become president and to promote internationalism.

    Have you been drinking heavily, this morning?
     
  9. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,705
    Thanks Received:
    12,584
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,671
    I don't drink. But if I ever start I'll know where to go for advice.

    Wrong again Buzzo. I clearly said (and this is still on the page too) that in my observation it started in 1988, and I gave political campaign dumb-down sound bites as the reason. I also opened the question as to whether I had missed something before. But you read what you want to read and disregard the rest. Like you misspelled Wilson as "Obama".

    Now you offered a possibly plausible alternative to that open question with a reference to a hundred years ago, but you're too intellectually dishonest to frame it logically. So I'll peruse it on my own and give it all the attention it deserves. Screwball.

    This is all off topic anyway. One thing we can all agree on (except Pop23) is that none of this relates to George Zimmerman. So back to your regularly scheduled Bullshit News.
     
  10. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    65,362
    Thanks Received:
    8,400
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +29,737
    A distinction without a difference.

    You claim not to be drinking, so I must conclude that you're huffing spray paint.

    What I wrote was;

    {The term "liberal" was highjacked by the Fabians in the 1910's. Woodrow Wilson, father of the modern American left, called himself and his movement "liberals." Wilson was a collectivist authoritarian who worked to promote a centrally planned and managed economy with national control over all aspects of life.

    Then there was FDR, a Stalinist who openly subverted the Constitution (court stuffing) and implemented collectivist programs who also used the term "liberal."

    The shake-up in the democratic party between the extreme left and the rational democrats came in 1968, during the Chicago convention. In 1972, the democrats ran a Marxist for president. It's pretty clear who won. Since 1968, the democrats have been and continue to be a leftist party - there is nothing even slightly "liberal" about them.
    }

    As usual, you spew off with ignorance, then when confronted, respond with hostility.
     

Share This Page