Liberalism: Making the French Revolution Its Own.

[NYcarbineer]

Goldberg is wrong. End of that story.

There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support totalitarianism. There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support abandoning our system of constitutional democratic government.

These mythical creatures you rant about are all in your head.

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

I'm still waiting for you to name the Liberals in America who support totalitarianism.

Then you can name the Liberals in America who are fascists, if you care to prove that Goldberg isn't wrong in his nonsensical claim.

Did you read the book you claim to be 'wrong'?

Or, as is a main technique of Liberals....do you just make stuff up?

I said he was wrong on his specific accusation that American liberals are fascists. Since you cannot even name a single Liberal fascist in America,

you cannot get off even square one of making that generalization anything but completely wrong.

Reading books by idiots does not make you smarter. You are a prime example of that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

I'm still waiting for you to name the Liberals in America who support totalitarianism.

Then you can name the Liberals in America who are fascists, if you care to prove that Goldberg isn't wrong in his nonsensical claim.

Did you read the book you claim to be 'wrong'?

Or, as is a main technique of Liberals....do you just make stuff up?

I said he was wrong on his specific accusation that American liberals are fascists. Since you cannot even name a single Liberal fascist in America,

you cannot get off even square one of making that generalization anything but completely wrong.

Reading books by idiots does not make you smarter. You are a prime example of that.

I just love it when you Liberals try to pretend you actually have an education, and I catch you.


Don't ever change.

 

[francoHFW]

Wiki- French Revolution. To say it was savages, precursors of Nazis, is ignorant RW malarky, "Liberal Fascism" territory, hater dupe.

The French Revolution (French: Révolution française [ʁevɔlysjɔ̃ fʁɑ̃sɛːz]) was an influential period of social and political upheaval in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799, and was partially carried forward by Napoleon during the later expansion of the French Empire. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, experienced violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship by Napoleon that rapidly brought many of its principles to Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics. Through the Revolutionary Wars, it unleashed a wave of global conflicts that extended from the Caribbean to the Middle East. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.[1][2][3]
The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, the French government was deeply in debt and attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes. Years of bad harvests leading up to the Revolution also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy and the aristocracy. Demands for change were formulated in terms of Enlightenment ideals and contributed to the convocation of the Estates-General in May 1789. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate taking control, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and a women's march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of the first stage, in August 1789, was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules and privileges left over from the Ancien Régime. The next few years featured political struggles between various liberal assemblies and right-wing supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. The Republic was proclaimed in September 1792 after the French victory at Valmy. In a momentous event that led to international condemnation, Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.
External threats closely shaped the course of the Revolution. The Revolutionary Wars beginning in 1792 ultimately featured French victories that facilitated the conquest of the Italian Peninsula, the Low Countries and most territories west of the Rhine – achievements that had eluded previous French governments for centuries. Internally, popular agitation radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins. The dictatorship imposed by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror, from 1793 until 1794, established price controls on food and other items, abolished slavery in French colonies abroad, dechristianized society through the creation of a new calendar and the expulsion of religious figures, and secured the borders of the new republic from its enemies. Large numbers of civilians were executed by revolutionary tribunals during the Terror, with estimates ranging from 16,000 to 40,000.[4] After the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council known as the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795. The rule of the Directory was characterized by suspended elections, debt repudiations, financial instability, persecutions against the Catholic clergy, and significant military conquests abroad.[5] Dogged by charges of corruption, the Directory collapsed in a coup led by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1799. Napoleon, who became the hero of the Revolution through his popular military campaigns, went on to establish the Consulate and later the First Empire, setting the stage for a wider array of global conflicts in the Napoleonic Wars.
The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. Almost all future revolutionary movements looked back to the Revolution as their predecessor.[6] Its central phrases and cultural symbols, such as La Marseillaise and Liberté, égalité, fraternité, became the clarion call for other major upheavals in modern history, including the Russian Revolution over a century later.[7] The values and institutions of the Revolution dominate French politics to this day. French historian François Aulard comments that:
the Revolution consisted in the suppression of what was called the feudal system, in the emancipation of the individual, in greater division of landed property, the abolition of the privileges of noble birth, the establishment of equality, the simplification of life.... The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being not merely national, for it aimed at benefiting all humanity."[8]
Globally, the Revolution accelerated the rise of republics and democracies. It became the focal point for the development of all modern political ideologies, leading to the spread of liberalism, radicalism, nationalism, socialism, feminism, and secularism, among many others. The Revolution also witnessed the birth of total war by organizing the resources of France and the lives of its citizens towards the objective of military conquest.[9] Some of its central documents, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, expanded the arena of human rights to include women and slaves, leading to movements for abolitionism and universal suffrage in the next century.[10]

"To say it was savages, precursors of Nazis, is ignorant RW malarky, "Liberal Fascism" territory, hater dupe.."

Well, as I have proven....they were savages, behaved exactly so....and gave impetus and gave the template to the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and the Liberals/Progressives.


Just curious....are you the sort of windbag that has populated the thread, and pops up whenever Coulter's name is mentioned...

....or have you actually read Goldberg's classic best seller, "Liberal Fascism"?


The answer will go far in identifying your background....

Goldberg is wrong. End of that story.

There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support totalitarianism. There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support abandoning our system of constitutional democratic government.

These mythical creatures you rant about are all in your head.

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Idiot. lol. If you weren't so ignorant, you might know what bad propaganda is. Witnesses from the Monarchist Forum, "Liberal Fascism", Fox, Examiner, Breitbart etc etc etc.etc

 

[PoliticalChic]

"To say it was savages, precursors of Nazis, is ignorant RW malarky, "Liberal Fascism" territory, hater dupe.."

Well, as I have proven....they were savages, behaved exactly so....and gave impetus and gave the template to the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and the Liberals/Progressives.


Just curious....are you the sort of windbag that has populated the thread, and pops up whenever Coulter's name is mentioned...

....or have you actually read Goldberg's classic best seller, "Liberal Fascism"?


The answer will go far in identifying your background....

Goldberg is wrong. End of that story.

There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support totalitarianism. There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support abandoning our system of constitutional democratic government.

These mythical creatures you rant about are all in your head.

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Idiot. lol. If you weren't so ignorant, you might know what bad propaganda is. Witnesses from the Monarchist Forum, "Liberal Fascism", Fox, Examiner, Breitbart etc etc etc.etc

The misbelief exhibited in your post explains why you are widely acclaimed as one of the most ignorant posters on the board.

Let's go over sources. Some are more worthy as insightful and learned than others. I would be the top of the food chain in this regard....



1. ...Leftist propaganda sources the very opposite. I have seen Wikipedia in that vein, sadly, and of course the NYTimes is totally leftist and biased, and should be confronted and exposed with every lie they provide either of commission or omission.

So...let's do so.

2.Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, etc/

3. An idea of the danger to one’s education to rely on the New York Times can be found in this editorial: “In this millennium, documents like Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and the American Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 advanced the universality of human rights.” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/08/opinion/the-powerful-idea-of-human-rights.html

1. 
   
   
   • 1. Both the ignorance, and the bias, of the editors is clearly seen in the fact that they didn’t notice that America’s documents did win freedom and individual rights, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship.
     2. Further distortion from the NYTimes: “France helped launch the worldwide democracy movement with its 1789 Revolution against monarchy and feudal privilege. The ideas of freedom that drove that upheaval found expression in a charter of basic liberties issued the same year, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen….[and] inspired democrats throughout the late-18th-century world and reinforced the ideas of America's own, earlier revolution.” French Pique Of course, any sentient student of history knows that the only movements inspired by the French Revolution were those of other dictators who realized that they could slaughter without mercy, as long as they claimed to be acting in the name of the people.

No one believes that you would ever be mistaken for a sentient student of history. Your posts are evidence of the very opposite.

 

[francoHFW]

Sorry the world doesn't have an M.A. in RW propaganda, brainwashed Pub dupe. lol

 

[francoHFW]

Most of the world loves the French Revolution, not the terror, dingbat. And no one outside your dumbass bubble loves the TP "revolution"- Total ugly American BS and hate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of the world loves the French Revolution, not the terror, dingbat. And no one outside your dumbass bubble loves the TP "revolution"- Total ugly American BS and hate.

Let's remind all what the message of the French Revolution was, and, at the same time, reveal what a fool you are:

1. 1. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

That's right.....the message was that any citizen who does not conform to the wishes of the government "should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.”

That's right: put to death.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry the world doesn't have an M.A. in RW propaganda, brainwashed Pub dupe. lol

1. Did you notice that your post includes not one example of anything incorrect in the post to which you were ostensibly replying?
There's an obvious reason.


2. "...the world...."
That phrase in your lexicon refers only to the Liberal bubble in which you dwell.

The inhabitants of same are those who have imbibe the 'lessons' of Liberal professors, and have failed to do their own research and examination of the subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry the world doesn't have an M.A. in RW propaganda, brainwashed Pub dupe. lol

1. Did you notice that your post includes not one example of anything incorrect in the post to which you were ostensibly replying?
There's an obvious reason.


2. "...the world...."
That phrase in your lexicon refers only to the Liberal bubble in which you dwell.

The inhabitants of same are those who have imbibe the 'lessons' of Liberal professors, and have failed to do their own research and examination of the subject.

You've yet to show us one 'liberal' professor who teaches that the American and French revolutions were identical in their nature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of the world loves the French Revolution, not the terror, dingbat. And no one outside your dumbass bubble loves the TP "revolution"- Total ugly American BS and hate.

Let's remind all what the message of the French Revolution was, and, at the same time, reveal what a fool you are:

1. 1. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

That's right.....the message was that any citizen who does not conform to the wishes of the government "should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.”

That's right: put to death.

No liberals of any consequence in America want to kill everyone who disagrees with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Goldberg is wrong. End of that story.

There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support totalitarianism. There are no Liberals of consequence in America who support abandoning our system of constitutional democratic government.

These mythical creatures you rant about are all in your head.

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Idiot. lol. If you weren't so ignorant, you might know what bad propaganda is. Witnesses from the Monarchist Forum, "Liberal Fascism", Fox, Examiner, Breitbart etc etc etc.etc

The misbelief exhibited in your post explains why you are widely acclaimed as one of the most ignorant posters on the board.

Let's go over sources. Some are more worthy as insightful and learned than others. I would be the top of the food chain in this regard....



1. ...Leftist propaganda sources the very opposite. I have seen Wikipedia in that vein, sadly, and of course the NYTimes is totally leftist and biased, and should be confronted and exposed with every lie they provide either of commission or omission.

So...let's do so.

2.Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, etc/

3. An idea of the danger to one’s education to rely on the New York Times can be found in this editorial: “In this millennium, documents like Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and the American Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 advanced the universality of human rights.” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/08/opinion/the-powerful-idea-of-human-rights.html

1. 
   
   
   • 1. Both the ignorance, and the bias, of the editors is clearly seen in the fact that they didn’t notice that America’s documents did win freedom and individual rights, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship.
     2. Further distortion from the NYTimes: “France helped launch the worldwide democracy movement with its 1789 Revolution against monarchy and feudal privilege. The ideas of freedom that drove that upheaval found expression in a charter of basic liberties issued the same year, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen….[and] inspired democrats throughout the late-18th-century world and reinforced the ideas of America's own, earlier revolution.” French Pique Of course, any sentient student of history knows that the only movements inspired by the French Revolution were those of other dictators who realized that they could slaughter without mercy, as long as they claimed to be acting in the name of the people.

No one believes that you would ever be mistaken for a sentient student of history. Your posts are evidence of the very opposite.

Who teaches that the French Revolution was no different than the American Revolution?

Where? Anyone?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Goldberg is wrong. End of that story."

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Idiot. lol. If you weren't so ignorant, you might know what bad propaganda is. Witnesses from the Monarchist Forum, "Liberal Fascism", Fox, Examiner, Breitbart etc etc etc.etc

The misbelief exhibited in your post explains why you are widely acclaimed as one of the most ignorant posters on the board.

Let's go over sources. Some are more worthy as insightful and learned than others. I would be the top of the food chain in this regard....



1. ...Leftist propaganda sources the very opposite. I have seen Wikipedia in that vein, sadly, and of course the NYTimes is totally leftist and biased, and should be confronted and exposed with every lie they provide either of commission or omission.

So...let's do so.

2.Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, etc/

3. An idea of the danger to one’s education to rely on the New York Times can be found in this editorial: “In this millennium, documents like Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and the American Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 advanced the universality of human rights.” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/08/opinion/the-powerful-idea-of-human-rights.html

1. 
   
   
   • 1. Both the ignorance, and the bias, of the editors is clearly seen in the fact that they didn’t notice that America’s documents did win freedom and individual rights, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship.
     2. Further distortion from the NYTimes: “France helped launch the worldwide democracy movement with its 1789 Revolution against monarchy and feudal privilege. The ideas of freedom that drove that upheaval found expression in a charter of basic liberties issued the same year, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen….[and] inspired democrats throughout the late-18th-century world and reinforced the ideas of America's own, earlier revolution.” French Pique Of course, any sentient student of history knows that the only movements inspired by the French Revolution were those of other dictators who realized that they could slaughter without mercy, as long as they claimed to be acting in the name of the people.

No one believes that you would ever be mistaken for a sentient student of history. Your posts are evidence of the very opposite.

Who teaches that the French Revolution was no different than the American Revolution?

Where? Anyone?

I believe post #124 settles that question.

There is more disagreement in Stalin's Politburo than between the NYTimes and the inhabitants of academia.


Of course, based on your level of understanding, you probably imagine that 'academia' is a kind of nut.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Goldberg is wrong to call American liberals fascists. End of story.

But you don't read, do you.

And you haven't read the well documented tome you claimed 'wrong.'

So....actually, your credibility is 'the end of the story,' huh?


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter....nailed you again.

Idiot. lol. If you weren't so ignorant, you might know what bad propaganda is. Witnesses from the Monarchist Forum, "Liberal Fascism", Fox, Examiner, Breitbart etc etc etc.etc

The misbelief exhibited in your post explains why you are widely acclaimed as one of the most ignorant posters on the board.

Let's go over sources. Some are more worthy as insightful and learned than others. I would be the top of the food chain in this regard....



1. ...Leftist propaganda sources the very opposite. I have seen Wikipedia in that vein, sadly, and of course the NYTimes is totally leftist and biased, and should be confronted and exposed with every lie they provide either of commission or omission.

So...let's do so.

2.Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, etc/

3. An idea of the danger to one’s education to rely on the New York Times can be found in this editorial: “In this millennium, documents like Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and the American Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 advanced the universality of human rights.” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/08/opinion/the-powerful-idea-of-human-rights.html

1. 
   
   
   • 1. Both the ignorance, and the bias, of the editors is clearly seen in the fact that they didn’t notice that America’s documents did win freedom and individual rights, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship.
     2. Further distortion from the NYTimes: “France helped launch the worldwide democracy movement with its 1789 Revolution against monarchy and feudal privilege. The ideas of freedom that drove that upheaval found expression in a charter of basic liberties issued the same year, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen….[and] inspired democrats throughout the late-18th-century world and reinforced the ideas of America's own, earlier revolution.” French Pique Of course, any sentient student of history knows that the only movements inspired by the French Revolution were those of other dictators who realized that they could slaughter without mercy, as long as they claimed to be acting in the name of the people.

No one believes that you would ever be mistaken for a sentient student of history. Your posts are evidence of the very opposite.

Who teaches that the French Revolution was no different than the American Revolution?

Where? Anyone?

I believe post #124 settles that question.

There is more disagreement in Stalin's Politburo than between the NYTimes and the inhabitants of academia.


Of course, based on your level of understanding, you probably imagine that 'academia' is a kind of nut.

That post does not list any professors teaching that.

That's mainly because there are no such professors, your lie to the contrary in the OP notwithstanding.