The Need To Destroy America

[PoliticalChic]

c. Liberal democratic sovereignties, e.g., the United States

LIBERAL? OMG, say it ain't so!

Sit down before you have the vapors.....

"Liberal" as in classical liberal....not the modern, totalitarian version.


Here:

1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

2.Classical liberalism
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp



Again?
Liberal as in classical liberal, today called conservatives... based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


That hurt, didn't it.

 

[mjollnir]

Is the OP citing Francis Fukuyama, the repentant ex-neocon, because of his wisdom and insight?

The Fukuyama who said in 2008

"It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush."


that Fukuyama?

I can't stand George W. Bush - he paved the way for the Marxist peice of shit we have to deal with now!

"Marxist"? Don't use words you don't understand, schicksa.

You just look more stupid than you already do.

 

[FJO]

Is the OP citing Francis Fukuyama, the repentant ex-neocon, because of his wisdom and insight?

The Fukuyama who said in 2008

"It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush."


that Fukuyama?

Actually, that is what liberals tell to their mothers, when she advises them to work hard:

Fuku You Momma!

 

[g5000]

So no specifics then.

As I figured.

.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Actually shithead....there is a huge difference between the US working with the UN to remove a crazy dictator with WMDs from the planet compared to the US handing over its legal authorities to the UN.

But this is too deep for your caveman brain.

Didn't Bush justify the invasion of Iraq by citing UN sanction violations by Saddam?

The ONLY liberal response so far that wasn't nothing more than a fresh steaming pile of dog dump.

The answer to the best of my knowledge is yes, that and WMD's, which all parties involved admitted Sadam had.

But he didn't have any.

The point is, when people who on one page vilify the United Nations as the great Satan of the coming apocalyptic globalism,

and then on another page are waving around a UN seal of approval of your nation's actions when it happens to suit your agenda,

well,

you look silly.

 

[boedicca]

Liberals have always intended to destroy the United States. We are too concerned with individual rights that suppress public needs. We are arrogant and violent. We have spread our filthy culture all over the world bringing big macs and Starbucks everywhere we go.

Why is "The Post American World" obama's favorite book?

Not exactly accurate. Classical Liberalism is at the heart of founding values of the United States: limited government and civil liberties. What is call Liberalism today is really Progressive Statism.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Since you didn't go to college, you have no clue what real liberalism is....idiot.

c. Liberal democratic sovereignties, e.g., the United States

LIBERAL? OMG, say it ain't so!

 

[g5000]

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

Here is the context of that speech: NEW IDEAS FOR COLLEGE LIFE. - President Garfield Will Dine with Students -- Wilson Attacks New York. - View Article - NYTimes.com

Wilson was saying that the citizens of our nation were provincial. This was a result of the mostly rural nature of our country up to that time.

There was no common "American" ethic yet. He wanted to create one.

You got his meaning completely backwards.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Is the OP citing Francis Fukuyama, the repentant ex-neocon, because of his wisdom and insight?

The Fukuyama who said in 2008

"It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush."


that Fukuyama?

I can't stand George W. Bush - he paved the way for the Marxist peice of shit we have to deal with now!

"Marxist"? Don't use words you don't understand, schicksa.

You just look more stupid than you already do.

Leninist is probably more accurate.....

but don't have a fucking cow about it......the term Marxist is widely used....

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what, exactly, is underway to transform America into a "subordinate state"?

.

Spending billions militarily defending other countries' interests, while those countries use the savings they get from that - from not having to defend themselves - to better their nations in other areas,

many of which make them more economically competitive against us.

So every President since World War I has been seeking to transform America into a "subordinate state"? That's when we started with foreign aid.

That's funny. Our standing on the world stage has been greatly amplified since WWI. Our largesse had a great deal to with that.

Giving money to another country does not affect my right to bear arms or free speech or a trial by a jury of my peers.

Try again.



.

WWI is when we made the big plunge into the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against.

We spend far more on the military than any other nation. That is money that cannot go for education, research, infrastructure, etc., etc. It is claimed that we need to do it to survive,

but no other nations do it. And still, they survive. What is the point?

 

[GoneBezerk]

mjollnir is too busy eating its feces and meth to know what is going on.

I can't stand George W. Bush - he paved the way for the Marxist peice of shit we have to deal with now!

"Marxist"? Don't use words you don't understand, schicksa.

You just look more stupid than you already do.

Leninist is probably more accurate.....

but don't have a fucking cow about it......the term Marxist is widely used....

 

[NYcarbineer]

c. Liberal democratic sovereignties, e.g., the United States

LIBERAL? OMG, say it ain't so!

Sit down before you have the vapors.....

"Liberal" as in classical liberal....not the modern, totalitarian version.


Here:

1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

2.Classical liberalism
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp



Again?
Liberal as in classical liberal, today called conservatives... based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


That hurt, didn't it.

Ron Paul conservatism is not modern mainstream conservatism, nor is it your version of conservatism.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck...after millions were killed worldwide by WWI and WWII.....the US figured out it needed to be the world police as the strongest country on the planet.

Of course, idiots like you think that is a bad thing.

Peace and security around most parts of the planet because of the US military.....that is soooooooo terrible.

Spending billions militarily defending other countries' interests, while those countries use the savings they get from that - from not having to defend themselves - to better their nations in other areas,

many of which make them more economically competitive against us.

So every President since World War I has been seeking to transform America into a "subordinate state"? That's when we started with foreign aid.

That's funny. Our standing on the world stage has been greatly amplified since WWI. Our largesse had a great deal to with that.

Giving money to another country does not affect my right to bear arms or free speech or a trial by a jury of my peers.

Try again.



.

WWI is when we made the big plunge into the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against.

We spend far more on the military than any other nation. That is money that cannot go for education, research, infrastructure, etc., etc. It is claimed that we need to do it to survive,

but no other nations do it. And still, they survive. What is the point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually shithead....there is a huge difference between the US working with the UN to remove a crazy dictator with WMDs from the planet compared to the US handing over its legal authorities to the UN.

But this is too deep for your caveman brain.

The ONLY liberal response so far that wasn't nothing more than a fresh steaming pile of dog dump.

The answer to the best of my knowledge is yes, that and WMD's, which all parties involved admitted Sadam had.

But he didn't have any.

The point is, when people who on one page vilify the United Nations as the great Satan of the coming apocalyptic globalism,

and then on another page are waving around a UN seal of approval of your nation's actions when it happens to suit your agenda,

well,

you look silly.

Saddam had no WMD's. Ironically, Colin Powell was sent TO the United Nations with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's to win that body's blessing on the war of aggression that GW Bush wanted to conduct against Iraq's

sovereignty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbfuck...after millions were killed worldwide by WWI and WWII.....the US figured out it needed to be the world police as the strongest country on the planet.

Of course, idiots like you think that is a bad thing.

Peace and security around most parts of the planet because of the US military.....that is soooooooo terrible.

So every President since World War I has been seeking to transform America into a "subordinate state"? That's when we started with foreign aid.

That's funny. Our standing on the world stage has been greatly amplified since WWI. Our largesse had a great deal to with that.

Giving money to another country does not affect my right to bear arms or free speech or a trial by a jury of my peers.

Try again.



.

WWI is when we made the big plunge into the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against.

We spend far more on the military than any other nation. That is money that cannot go for education, research, infrastructure, etc., etc. It is claimed that we need to do it to survive,

but no other nations do it. And still, they survive. What is the point?

The Europeans were fighting themselves into an exhausted stalemate in WWI until we intervened.

We managed to destroy the balance of power, which ended in Germany's humiliation, which created the necessary conditions for the rise of Nazism and WWII.

We, in effect, started WWII.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Idiot your point was the US gave its power to the UN, not that Saddam moved his WMDs with Russia's help.

You need to figure out your own argument before you mess with me.

Actually shithead....there is a huge difference between the US working with the UN to remove a crazy dictator with WMDs from the planet compared to the US handing over its legal authorities to the UN.

But this is too deep for your caveman brain.

But he didn't have any.

The point is, when people who on one page vilify the United Nations as the great Satan of the coming apocalyptic globalism,

and then on another page are waving around a UN seal of approval of your nation's actions when it happens to suit your agenda,

well,

you look silly.

Saddam had no WMD's. Ironically, Colin Powell was sent TO the United Nations with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's to win that body's blessing on the war of aggression that GW Bush wanted to conduct against Iraq's

sovereignty.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck....so you think Germany with nukes, the V2, bombers that could reach the eastern US...weren't going to eventually attack us???

Uh, Japan attacking the US Navy in Hawaii kinda ensured we joined the war and that move was eventually going to happen if Japan had visions of invading Australia.

You are not only an idiot on modern day politics, but also an idiot on history too.

Dumbfuck...after millions were killed worldwide by WWI and WWII.....the US figured out it needed to be the world police as the strongest country on the planet.

Of course, idiots like you think that is a bad thing.

Peace and security around most parts of the planet because of the US military.....that is soooooooo terrible.

WWI is when we made the big plunge into the foreign entanglements that George Washington warned against.

We spend far more on the military than any other nation. That is money that cannot go for education, research, infrastructure, etc., etc. It is claimed that we need to do it to survive,

but no other nations do it. And still, they survive. What is the point?

The Europeans were fighting themselves into an exhausted stalemate in WWI until we intervened.

We managed to destroy the balance of power, which ended in Germany's humiliation, which created the necessary conditions for the rise of Nazism and WWII.

We, in effect, started WWII.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

And we're off. Diane Feinstein unveiled her gun grabbing proposals today. Not good. The better it will be for Barack Obama's Muslim Holy Warrior brethren to round up all American males for the purposes of resettlement in the East when the time comes. Ahem. I think we've heard that somewhere before.
You are well aware that the potential existence of Mr Obama himself is the reason why the Founders gave America its Second Amendment in the first place letting trivial little things like Universal Suffrage wait nigh on a hunnert years or so.
Has anyone even considered whether Barry's bros in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Somalia etc even noticed the events in Newtown and just how vulnerable schools here in general are. I don't think Val Jarret and Janet Napolitano even gave it so much as a nod of their heads, considering their biggest concern is the threat the returning Iraq War veterans pose to America's security. Mebbe its because these guys pose the biggest threats to Barry's and Val's plans for America and the reason they were painted large on Big Sis's bogeyman poster. Myself, I think Barry's bros, the God Is Great Boys noticed and noticed hard.
Mankind is one of the few animal species that delights in the killing of members of his own species and the subgroup of man that has repeatedly and consistently gone out of its way to prove this little behavioral idiosyncrasy has been none other than the Allahu Akhbar Boys. Beslan and Mumbai come to mind. Twenty minutes for an armed police response from 4 miles and four minutes away, 1.3 newly created corpses a minute, these blood thirsty followers of the Prophet Mohammed are going to have a field day, especially after Barry's stripped the every day folks of their weapons. The better to subdue you by, natch, followed of course by the infamous Barry wink and broad Cheshire Cat smile. "We're working on it (Gun Control), but under the radar" Pedro gives us his South Of The Border fireworks, we send some 2,000 heavy weapons, most of them would have been banned by Feinsteins proposal, south of the border in exchange.

Dem Sen. Dianne Feinstein Unveils “Assault Weapons” Ban Legislation, Includes Handguns, Requires Certain Weapons Be Registered With The Federal Government… | Weasel Zippers

Yano, lookin' at zip's pic of Senator Diane, it might not be a bad idee to put age limits on these Senators, the recent late Daniel Inouye f'rinstance. Just think of how much money the gummint can save if they didn't have to come up with portable defibrillators and oxygen tanks for each and every Senator in office. Oh yeah, and the Viagra for the males, too.

Values, hmmm? I think this is the guy who sodomizes kids for a hobby. Barry's appointees all have some strange qualifications for their respective jobs, a Secretary of The Treasury that didn't pay his taxes, a Secretary of State nominee that tried, while still eligible to wear the uniform of the United States Navy, to unconstitutionally and illegally negotiate with the head of the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris for the surrender of American forces in South Vietnam. I suppose it would be hard for someone to collapse and destroy the United States when the heads of the various departments of government are uptight and fanatical about maintaining the country's laws and traditions. Obama's DNI James Clapper "The Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular progressive bunchaguys" Ambassador Chris Stevens unavailable for comment.

Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan: Americans “Common Values” Trump Second Amendment Rights… | Weasel Zippers

 

[bitterlyclingin]

The Senate, in its advise and consent role on Obama's Cabinet appointees, was behaving like the ENRON board of directors were rubber stamping all of Skillings operating practices while Jeff Skilling and Co were raping ENRON's employees, customers and stockholders with their accounting chicanery.

 

[mjollnir]

I can't stand George W. Bush - he paved the way for the Marxist peice of shit we have to deal with now!

"Marxist"? Don't use words you don't understand, schicksa.

You just look more stupid than you already do.

Leninist is probably more accurate.....

but don't have a fucking cow about it......the term Marxist is widely used....

Hey, it's the plagiarizing dipshit!

No, neither applies, poor, stupid child. But I understand that it is incorrectly and widely used by idiots like you.

It's like The Idiot's Calling Card.