How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[P@triot]

I hope school children don't read your posts with this type of history, they might believe it and then get a fail on their tests, and worse feel like fools before the class.

And yet I’m always 100% correct and you’re never able to articulate how or why I am wrong. In fact, you don’t even try because you realize the indisputable data I provide buries your propaganda. So instead, you just resort to trolling like your post here.

 

[Pogo]

Progressives teaching the polar opposite of reality. They support and want to bring back the ideology that resulted in the horrific murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people.

“There’s this myth of the free market, but Marx shows very clearly that capitalism emerged through a state of violence.”

The reality is, the free market ermerged through complete and total freedom, while marxism/communism/socialism/etc. emerged through extreme violence and oppression.

Teen Vogue glorifies Karl Marx – the reactions are what you might expect

Marxism/"communism" is an economic system, Spunkles. Economic systems don't "murder" jack shit.

Of course, distinguishing between "Marxism" and "a dictatorial authoritarian government that also employs a form of Marxism" is an exercise well beyond your tiny little mind, so I don't expect you to get an iota of what I just posted.

Composition Fallacies -- Rhetorical crutch of the Fucking Moron.

 

[Pogo]

How EEBIL is Liberalism anyway?

So EEBIL that it kicked off the status quo of Clergy and Aristocracy from their dominant political position and awarded it to We the People, formerly known as "serfs".

Lie #1 right there. The revolution was lead by the ultimate small government conservatives. To the point that your side of the aisle now denounces them and refers to them as “slave rapists”. Oops.

Ah yes, Revisionist History Myth #54884. A moldy oldie.

The 'conservatives' of the era were called "Loyalists", those who favoured retaiing (conserving) colonial status under the British Crown That's your Aristocracy right there Gummo.

Those fighting them off for Independence were the radicals, looking to UPSET that apple cart (which is anything but 'conservative') with the, no pun intended, revolutionary idea that governmental power derives from the consent of the governed, i.e. ""We the People", and NOT, as had been the case to that point, from some hereditary upper class that's been sprinkled with a holy water imprimatur from some guy in a dress --- which is what the 'conservatives' of the day wanted to conserve.

The hierarchical striation of classism, wherein is defined some entitled "upper crust" to control the rabble (lest they overthrow said upper crust) is the 'conservative' inclination. The contrary egalitarian influence that decreed such an inbred hierarchy to be illegitimate, and codified that philosophy in the Constitution, were codifying what is called Liberalism.

There's nothing you can do about that Buttsoiler. You can start all the bullshit revisionist history threads you like and play "let's pretend" to your tiny little mind's content, but this is recorded history and beyond your control.

Semifinally, I have no "side of the aisle" unless you mean Liberalism as described above, but that doesn't fit into an "aisle" anyway. Liberalism is neither "right" nor "left" but a third dimension. As such it's not so much on a "side of an aisle" as "overhead of it". And finally I've never heard nor used the term "slave rapists", whatever the fuck that means.

This post also covers your 5 and 6, since those are empty reiterations of "IS TOO!" Pee Wee Hermanesque sounds and furies told by an idiot signifying nothing, so we kill three birds with one stone here. Your remaining fake-history hallucinations will be dispatched with a gleeful aplomb separately but decisively, so assume the position and kiss your mendacity song and dance goodbye.

"Oops" indeed.

 

[Pogo]

How EEBIL is Liberalism anyway?

So EEBIL it finally got, after shaking off the institution of slavery like a case of fleas, the franchise to black people, non-property owners, women --- the actual people.

Lie #2 right there. Democrats launched an attack on the U.S. to keep black people in slavery. It was the small government Republican Party once again, that ended slavery. Sadly, to this day the left attempts to keep slavery alive and well through a multitude of different tactics. Everywhere that Democrats are in charge (Detroit, New Orleans, etc.) the African-American toils in misery (poverty, drugs, prostitution, crime, etc.).

Prevaricationist History Myth #863739. Seen it many times.

I know of no "attack on the US to keep black people in slavery" other than the Civil War, which was not waged by "Democrats" or by any other political party. It was in fact initiated by a rich, élite, lazy fat-fuck Planter Aristocracy (there's your conservative hierarchy again) looking to keep itself in the status of rich fat-fuck, using, as always, the poorer working classes (such as the then-population here in Appalachia) who largely despised them and wanted no part of such a war, and where they could voted against it and where they were overruled often insurged against it.

Were these rich fat-fuck aristocrat instigators "Democrats"? Some of them, surely. Others were Whigs or Know Nothings --- or had no party at all as none was needed to run a rich fat-fuck plantation. In the crucial 1860 election, the Democratic Party candidate came in dead last in a field of four, and after Lincoln's triumph he worked on Lincoln's behalf to attempt to reconcile the sides and prevent secession -- and when that failed, Douglas advised Lincoln on how best to put the insurrection down. And once the Confederacy did break off --- it abolished all political parties.

As for your self-delusionary Cherrypicking about cities (which happen to trend to Democrats everywhere -- the rich ones, the poor ones, the newer ones, the older ones, the sleek ones, the sleazy ones etc) -- you don't know the "toils of the African American" any more than I know the embroidery patterns of Sri Lanka but I do know New Orleans way better than you do particularly after you already admitted believing you could hurricane-evacuate in twenty minutes, and the countless African Americans I lived and worked with (and still work with to this day) would be not only alarmed but insulted by your patronizingly ignorant characterization of them into "poverty, drugs, prostitution, crime etc". Obviously they are not on this thread, so I am insulted for them, as I know them and you don't.

I guess the short way of expressing all that would be: "Fuck You".

---- **NONE** of which is the topic here anyway, since the post, and supposedly your own thread here, were supposed to be about "Liberals", which for lack of a being able to come up with a point you morphed here into "Democrats" at one point and into "the left" at another point (pity you can't even figure out what your target is).

That the distinction between a political party, and a political philosophy that predates it, sails blithely over your head is as unsurprising as it is pathetic.

As for your hallucinations of a "small government Republican Party", the direct opposite was the case in the mid-1800s. The RP drew its membership largely from the Whigs, at least the contingent of that dying party which favored Abolition, when that party was unable to come to a consensus on that issue, which broke its back.. The Whigs were already the party of doing big things with government, which they carried over into the new RP for the rest of the century, while the Democrats of the era were the party of "states' rights" and decentralization. The Republicans as a whole were also the Liberals of the day, to the extent such could be represented by a political party, simply on the basis of pushing for Abolition, which is a directly and emphatically Liberal idea*,

That's a generalized statement of course; Abolition was an ongoing divisive issue that had its champions and its detractors across many parties, and in some cases (as the Whigs) caused them to collapse for lack of direction. Meanwhile the Democratic Party had been organized into being a party by another abolitionist, one Martin van Buren, who was defeated in a re-election bid by a Whig (and another in a succession of Southern slaveowners that dominated the first dozen Presidents). So while there was definitely a 'party of Abolition" once the RP took up the cause, there was no equivalent "party of slavery". The issue divided strictly along geographical-economic lines --- which is exactly why neither the RP's first POTUS candy John Frémont, nor its second Abraham Lincoln, ran for office at all ital in the South (matter of fact Lincoln didn't even appear on a ballot in his home state of Kentucky until 1864 and even then it was under banner of the "National Union Party" which was a fusion between the unionist Republican Lincoln and the unionist Democrat Johnson.

Bottom line here: Liberalism is neither "left" nor "right" nor "Democrat" nor "Republican". Political parties exist to facilitate the consolidation of political power, and not to represent an ideology. While they may originate with the latter purpose, ideologies change with the times and the political winds and the avenues of opportunity. The former motive NEVER changes.

* Again, "all men are created equal": egalitarian. Liberalism.
Hierarchy of the privileged Rulers over the Ruled --- authoritarian and conservative. You know, like the British Crown; like the fat-fuck indolent planter aristocracy. That whole crowd.
Whelp -- the former... the Liberals... defeated the latter, the fat-fucks. And good riddance.

"Democrats" through all this were on both sides (before the war) and exclusively in the Union once it began, including the Vice President by the time it ended.

History lesson, Buttsoiler. Learn it.

 

[Pogo]

How EEBIL is Liberalism anyway?

So EEBIL that it allowed free enterprise to flourish. .

Lie #3 right there. Progressives resist “free enterprise” every single day. With each free enterprise policy implemented by Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, the left protested, resorted to violence, and undermined their own leaders.

--- aaaaand now we're on to "Progressives", a socilo-political movement of the turn of the 19th/20th century.(and certainly carrying its own ideology of hierarchy). Not satisfied with moving the goalposts to a political party, Buttsoiler lunges back a hundred years hoping nobody will notice. And a reprise surprise appearance by "the left", not only irrelevant to the topic but nicely packaged in yet another Blanket Generalization Fallacy.

Back at the actual topic of Liberalism, which went untouched by Buttsoiler's various tangents onto irrelevant shiny objects to get the spotlight off his own thread theme, Liberalism upset the traditional feudalistic model of a hereditary Aristocracy that owned the land and sat back collecting rent, tolls and tariffs (the Fat-Fucks) while the People worked that land and paid all the taxes.

>> The aristocracy are not the farmers who work the land, and raise the produce, but are the mere consumers of the rent; and when compared with the active world, are the drones, a seraglio of males, who neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but exist only for lazy enjoyment. << --- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791)​

By overthrowing the duopoly of that Fat-Fuck Aristocracy that owned the land but did no work coupled with the fearmonger enforcer institution of the Church (which was propped up by the Aristocracy for its own self-perpetuation interest and which paid no taxes at all) to keep the proles from bubbling over, Liberalism wrested control of mercantilism FROM that duopolistic authority and allowed a merchant class to practice what's now known as "free enterprise" -- the latitude to run one's own trade without incessant tribute to, and interference by, those First and Second Estates, the then-traditional Clergy and Aristocracy.

Liberalism gave you that, which is why you're not a serf right now. You're welcome, ingrate.

 

[Pogo]

So EEBIL that it allows demagogues and Klanners and Joe McCarthys to have their say in a free marketplace of ideas and lets them dig their own holes.

Lie #4 right there. Aside from the fact that the Democrats formed the KKK in Tennessee, every single day in the U.S., the left attempts to oppress ALL forms of thought, free speech, etc.

Bullshitious Template #1873337. Seen it many times, shot it down the same number of times, yet here it is again to play whack-a-mole featuring yet another set of cameos by those tireless red herrings of the Irrelevancy Central Casting Department, "Democrats'" and "the left", neither of which have in the last five minutes managed to overcome the fact that neither is "Liberalism".

Not content to openly display his abject ignorance on what Liberalism is, what the topic is, what Progressivism was, and the quaint "sides of the aisle", Buttsoiler now regresses into an even deeper historical rewrite, and even then his only goal in doing so is to nudge the ball toward the goal of Association Fallacy. And does so with a historical ignorance on which he's already been schooled, yet here he is running the same myth expecting different results.

The facts that still haven't changed are, first of all that there have been TWO Klans (and some historians will mark three, or even four but two formal organizations), the original one of which was founded Christmas 1865 by (Maj.) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt.) John B. Kennedy, (Capt.) John Lester, Frank O. McCord and Richard Reed, all of whom were ex-Confederate soldiers and *none* of whom had any known political party (which didn't exist in 1865 Tennessee anyway).

That Klan lasted less than a decade before it withered and evaporated. The second iteration, which grew far FAR larger and more widespread, the one that invented cross-burning, the one for which we have the overwhelming body of evidence and documentation, was started by one William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons on Stone Mountain Georgia on Thanksgiving of 1915. Simmons was a salesman, inveterate club-starter, former Methodist minister and sleazy opportunist who tried (and did) milk an income out of the controversial film "Birth of a Nation" which depicted a romanticized version of the Klan -- by then forty-plus years in the past --- by reviving the Klan into a real thing that people could join, for a fee of course which would go into Simmons' pocket.

Simmons also had no known political party. Nor has political association ever been necessary to either found, or join, the Klan in any iteration, ever.

Oh and that iteration of the Klan that spread its membership into the millions coast-to-coast, dabbled in political elections to the point where it helped elect Senators (Means-CO, Brewster-ME), Governors (Paulen-KS, Jackson-IN) Mayors and other local officials (Baker-Portland OR, four of five city council seats in Anaheim), all as Republicans. Perhaps you'd like to take yet-another opportunity to essplain to the class why a "Democrat" organization would be (a) supporting Republicans over Democrats, (b) ousting a Democratic governor who tried to expel them from his state (Walton-OK) and (c) persecuting Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions, all of whom are Democratic Party constituents.

And oh by the way the KKK's endorsement of Coolidge (1924) and Hoover (1928) and it's vicious smear campaign against Al Smith (D) might be another minor inconvenience.

Of course, you've had this invitation for literally years on this board and have yet to come up with any answer at all, not that there is one.

And just in case we wish to entertain those historians who feature a "third" Klan -- after the Simmons one had been officially shut down in the early 1940s by the IRS and having its charter revoked by the (Democratic) governor of Georgia, that would be one Samuel Green in 1946 who attempted another re-start but immediately ran into legal barriers over questions of whether in so starting he would be responsible for the back taxes of 1943. Green, who happily keeled over and died from a heart attack in (1949) --- also had no known political party.

There's eight Klan founders/re-founders for your ass with zero political parties if you're scoring at home, not that the presence of which, if there, would have amounted to a point that was not a blatant Composition Fallacy.

That probably sails over your head, so here's a parable:

• Joe Blow is a plumber who drives a brown Chevy.
  
• Joe Blow is a registered Democrat.
• Therefore all Democrats are plumbers who drive brown Chevys.

Yanno what, that probably sails over your head too.

None of which is to suggest the Klan were Republicans of course. Here in the real world where grown adults don't imprison themselves in hapless juvenile False Dichotomy Fallacies where everybody has to fit into one of your two cute little boxes (SMH), the sentient realize that not everything derives from a fucking political party.

But you go ahead and prove me wrong about one iota of what I just laid out, Buttsoiler. ANY of it.

That inability to sustain your fiction aside, once again the topic was supposedly about "Liberalism" -- not political parties and not "the left". You're not even capable of following your own topic. ital

So EEBIL that those fascists threatened by it have to make up fake whine threads claiming to lambast "Liberals" while failing to cite examples of any.

Whelp, this continues to be the case. OP wets his pants continually about "Democrats"... "the left"... even "Progressives". Liberalism however remains untouched by the thread-plopper who claimed to be posting a thread about it, yet has utterly failed to touch his own topic.

 

[P@triot]

I do know New Orleans way better than you do particularly after you already admitted believing you could hurricane-evacuate in twenty minutes

One would have to be astoundingly incompetent or severely physically disabled to be incapable of evacuating in 20 minutes. It just doesn’t take that long to grab meds, important documents, and a few other items.

 

[P@triot]

Typical left-wing lunatic. Irrational. Unstable. Violent.

VIDEO: Unhinged woman spits on police officer at protest; cops offer reward in effort to find her

 

[Kosh]

Liberalism is not the problem is the far left religion that has hijacked it.

Get rid of the far left and the Human race would prosper like never before!

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is....advocating for extreme violence against law enforcement agents.

Occupy Wall Street promotes killing ICE agents in gory, step-by-step cartoon

 

[P@triot]

Vintage modern day left-wing hatriot. Uneducated. Violent. Disgusting.

Democrat Volunteer Threatens To Kill Republican Reps' Kids Over 'Zero Tolerance' Immigration Policy, Report Says

 

[P@triot]

This is who they are...a bunch of violent thugs who advocate for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and rights such as the 1st Amendment.

Felarca — a well-known Antifa activist who advocates violence and squashing free speech — has been arrested for riot-related offenses a couple times herself.

I marvel at the restraint that conservatives display all over the nation on a daily basis. If this is me, there would be teeth all over the ground and a shit-ton of unconscious progressive fascists in my wake.

Antifa activists accused of beating up Trump supporter at Berkeley rally receive their verdicts

 

[Pogo]

Whelp --- five MORE posts from Buttsoiler not a single one of which are anywhere near his own topic of "Liberalism".

Wassamatta Buttsoiler? Afraid to answer since the last sixteen times you got called out for the same thing?

 

[regent]

This is who they are...a bunch of violent thugs who advocate for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and rights such as the 1st Amendment.

Felarca — a well-known Antifa activist who advocates violence and squashing free speech — has been arrested for riot-related offenses a couple times herself.

I marvel at the restraint that conservatives display all over the nation on a daily basis. If this is me, there would be teeth all over the ground and a shit-ton of unconscious progressive fascists in my wake.

Antifa activists accused of beating up Trump supporter at Berkeley rally receive their verdicts

The party that canceled the Free Speech amendment was the Federalist Party under John Adams. The cancellation led to Jefferson's election and the period known in history as the Era of Good Feelings.

 

[P@triot]

This is who they are...a bunch of violent thugs who advocate for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and rights such as the 1st Amendment.

Felarca — a well-known Antifa activist who advocates violence and squashing free speech — has been arrested for riot-related offenses a couple times herself.

I marvel at the restraint that conservatives display all over the nation on a daily basis. If this is me, there would be teeth all over the ground and a shit-ton of unconscious progressive fascists in my wake.

Antifa activists accused of beating up Trump supporter at Berkeley rally receive their verdicts

The party that canceled the Free Speech amendment was the Federalist Party under John Adams. The cancellation led to Jefferson's election and the period known in history as the Era of Good Feelings.

No surprise there. The federalist were a nightmare back then and they are a nightmare today.

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil the left is...

 

[Pogo]

This is who they are...a bunch of violent thugs who advocate for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and rights such as the 1st Amendment.

Felarca — a well-known Antifa activist who advocates violence and squashing free speech — has been arrested for riot-related offenses a couple times herself.

I marvel at the restraint that conservatives display all over the nation on a daily basis. If this is me, there would be teeth all over the ground and a shit-ton of unconscious progressive fascists in my wake.

Antifa activists accused of beating up Trump supporter at Berkeley rally receive their verdicts

The party that canceled the Free Speech amendment was the Federalist Party under John Adams. The cancellation led to Jefferson's election and the period known in history as the Era of Good Feelings.

No surprise there. The federalist were a nightmare back then and they are a nightmare today.

And John Adams was considered the "model of the American Conservative".

>> Historian A. Owen Aldridge places Adams, "At the head of the conservative ranks in the early years of the Republic and Jefferson as the leader of the contrary liberal current."[294] << --- Wiki​

By the way Buttsoiler, I know news takes a while to seep into your swamp and this only happened about nine hundred years ago but we now form plurals in English using the letter S. Therefore, you can't say "the federalist [sic] were [sic]". You could however say "the Federalists were..."

 

[P@triot]

The left is nothing but a bunch of lawless thugs...

The doxxing of ICE agents isn't oversite — it's insurrection

 

[P@triot]

The left is nothing but a bunch of lawless thugs...

REIGN OF TERROR? Maxine Waters calls for more mob violence: ‘You ain’t seen nothin’ yet’

 

[Clementine]

I have long been acquainted with liberalism and use to find them kind of adorable in a naive, idealistic, immature, yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about freedom, hating the U.S. Constitution, and insisting that whatever anyone else had they somehow deserved at least half of, if not more.

Well, now we have a blend of liberalism and communism that many people confuse with 'true' liberalism, but it is NOT liberalism. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant that lowering taxes was the only way to get a stagnant economy back on track. In addition, he famously stated in a speech "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". However, anybody today who express those John F. Kennedy liberal views is labeled by the left as "radical". Radical. It is "radical" in the minds of the modern day unhinged lefties to lower taxes or ask people to sacrifice for their country, rather than the country sacrificing everything for them. It is the putrid ideology from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All modern day liberals want is rampant sexual deviance, the total destruction of a civilized society, and the permanent destruction of God. The deepest thought they are capable of producing is simpleton and irrational arguments for why they don't have to produce but have every right to be a parasite to society.

Modern day liberals have been completely exposed for the loveless and evil bitches that they are deep in their dark and disturbing souls. None of them will share what they have. None. Place a liberal on a polygraph and ask if they ever paid for the health insurance policy for an uninsured child and the answer will unequivocally be a resounding "no" each and every time. Likewise, ask them if they ever went without a meal to ensure that their fellow man had a hot meal, and once again the answer will unequivocally be a resounding "no" each and every time. Yet they will sit all day in a forum (such as USMB), refusing to work, refusing to hold a job and be a productive member of society, pretending to care sooo deeply about their fellow man. But as history has already proven and many have pointed out - the modern day liberal is quite generous with someone else's money. When it comes to their own, they won't share a damn thing.

Today's modern day liberal sells communism under the guise of liberalism - and it is not only rotting liberalism from the inside, like a cancer, but it's doing the same thing to America. $19 trillion in debt (on the verge of collapse). More people on food stamps than any time in U.S. history. Detroit - under total Democrat rule (both mayor and city council) for 60 years and now bankrupt. Just like the U.S.S.R. before, ignorant left-wing policy is collapsing the country, creating decay, dilapidation, poverty, and misery.

The take over of the Democrat Party movement by socialists/marxists/communists is a real disaster for the America as we enter a new age of technology in which jobs can easily and quickly be moved overseas because of ignorant liberal policies creating taxes and regulations too costly to keep the jobs here in America. Liberals pretend to care for other Americans, but at the end of the day, focus on brining everyone down into poverty because they are envious of anyone who has more than they do or does better than they do. It has never been about others for them - it has always been envy driving them to undermine and harm their fellow man.

America, if she is to survive, must find a way to shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on America's ass or the America will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies ($19 trillion in debt and massive loss of freedoms because of communist liberalism has proven as much).

This is a great explanation of why liberals do what they do. Yes, they are seriously messed up. They blast Christians and things that are good yet go out of their way to defend terrorists, evil dictators and even common criminals. It's clear that they really hate America. Their actions show that liberalism is truly a mental illness.

Long video but even if you get through 15 minutes, you will have a better understanding of how modern liberals think.