Time To Change Direction

[PoliticalChic]

You should change direction, PC.

Get out of New York.

Move to Florida or Mississippi.

Or Austria!

How unusual for a Leftist to desire the silencing of opposing voices.


Could that be because of how badly you do in the marketplace of ideas?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should change direction, PC.

Get out of New York.

Move to Florida or Mississippi.

Or Austria!

She's already perfected her arm salute.

Since the Nazi and the communist doctrines are the provenance of those of the Liberals and Progressives, your ignorant post borders on amusing.


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without inflationary monetary policy, the welfare/warfare state would have ended already from a lack of real capital revenue to support it. Which is the real problem we face. Everything else is a symptom of the disease.

No it wouldn't.

The instruction manual for Liberals/Progressives/DeathPanelDemocrats can be found here:"The Communist Manifesto," the 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Without inflationary monetary policy, the welfare/warfare state would have ended already from a lack of real capital revenue to support it. Which is the real problem we face. Everything else is a symptom of the disease.

No it wouldn't.

The instruction manual for Liberals/Progressives/DeathPanelDemocrats can be found here:"The Communist Manifesto," the 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Sure it would. In an environment of sound currency, we would have either defaulted on our enormous debt from lack of being able to print up the interest by now, or have done so long ago. The ONLY reason we can sustain the welfare/warfare state that we have is through inflationary monetary policy. Sound money would have checked the over spending and ponzi schemes of war and welfare programs. But instead, we continue to mountain up debt as if it doesn't matter. True sound money environments do not allow for that. It's a mathematical certainty.

 

[Mojo2]

Rush Limbaugh on Evan Sayet's Speech discussing exactly HOW Liberals are Screwed Up

"The modern liberal, there’s something about his ideology that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."

Is that not true? It is. Every word of it's true. "The modern liberal, there’s something about his ideology that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."

[...]

Mr. Sayet: "If no religion, no culture, no person, if no behavior, if no form of governance -- if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust." And there it is. "If no religion, no culture, no person, if no behavior, if no form of governance -- if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust. Why should a person, a nation, a government, religion succeed, if it’s not better than any other? So that liberalism says 'everything is equally good, man, coexist -- doesn’t make everything meet in the middle. It makes the better, bad."

If no religion or no culture or no person, if no behavior, if no form of government, if nothing is better than anything else, and that, by the way, manifests itself often in liberalism. It's how you arrive at believing success is unjust. Why should a person succeed, if that person's not better than anybody else? And a person can't succeed by being better because he's not permitted to be better, because that's unfair, that is itself unjust.

So when liberalism, in order to make things right, that says, "Everything's equally good; you can't condemn anything we do." It doesn't make everything equal meeting in the middle. What it does is enable the bad to triumph, and it also stigmatizes the better by making it bad. "Failure as proved by nothing other than the fact that it has failed is proof positive that some injustice has taken place." Failure alone -- in an individual, in a government program, in anything -- just the fact that there is failure, means that some injustice has taken place.

"Why should a person, a country, a nation, a business -- why should it fail, if it's not worse than anything else? And by the same logic, just by extension, if success and failure are proof of injustice, then great success and great failure is proof of great injustice, and at a certain point, great and sustained success and failure -- 6,000 years of Jewish survival, thriving when it's not oppressed; America, the longest surviving and most successful democracy -- you wonder why they hate America and Israel most? ...

"Great and sustained success and failure is proof positive not just of great and sustained injustice, but that this injustice is intentional, and part of an evil conspiracy." In other words, there is no difference in good, evil, or bad. Bad's not worse than good. Good's not better than evil. Because the lesser the failure, the injustice is always going to get the attention or the excuse or the sympathy, because there's always injustice to explain it. People do not fail because they didn't try. They didn't fail because they weren't prepared. They failed because of an ingrained injustice, an unfair set of circumstances, an imbalance, a rigged game, or what have you.

And because this is the case, you cannot say that failure is bad. You can't say that good is better than evil, because good is biased against evil. That's why you can't be an objective journalist without being a bigot, because you cannot exist as a journalist without favoring the failure, favoring the evil, because it is only failure and only evil because of the injustice of the good and the successful and the long surviving and the thriving.

There wouldn't be any evil if not for the good. There wouldn't be any failure if not for the successful engineering it. You may think this sounds convoluted -- and, by the way, I'll submit here that 70/80% of people who vote for liberal don't think this way at all. Don't misunderstand. They can be moved by it. They can be led to believe that this kind of convoluted thinking is rooted in compassion and fairness and diversity and equality and all. That's what all this really means.

To synthesize this to the modern liberal vernacular, all this is talking about is the justification for the liberal pursuit, like Obama's on this inequality pursuit now. Oh, it's all rooted in this. "There shouldn't be any failure, and because there is, it's success's fault, and so we're gonna side with the failure. We're gonna side with the lesser over the better. We're gonna side with the profane."

Take a look at pop culture. What's loved and adored? What is given all the sympathy? Minorities, downtrodden, failure, Democrat Party, they rise to the top. That's the resume enhancement. "He compared the liberal view to a game of roulette, where no number is better than any other, that 'you can't say the winners are smarter or work harder or are better than the losers, it’s just pure luck.'

"'After the same people win and the same people lose repeatedly, You can see the losers looking over at the winners' pile and saying, '"You didn't build that,"'" which is the manifestation of built-up resentment over the fact that success always succeeds. And then at the end of the day, to put this all in focus, who are we to judge, anyway? And that's why it's bigoted to be objective, because the judgment must always favor the profane, the failed, the evil.

Because those properties exist as the result of injustice borne of the majority, success, happiness. This is the perverted, convoluted view goes. This is the way the true believers who are teaching your kids on college campi, who are working in the basements at think tanks, devising Democrat policy papers, think. This is how you get the Obamacare health care bill, by the way.

Evan Sayet on How Liberals Think - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without inflationary monetary policy, the welfare/warfare state would have ended already from a lack of real capital revenue to support it. Which is the real problem we face. Everything else is a symptom of the disease.

No it wouldn't.

The instruction manual for Liberals/Progressives/DeathPanelDemocrats can be found here:"The Communist Manifesto," the 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Sure it would. In an environment of sound currency, we would have either defaulted on our enormous debt from lack of being able to print up the interest by now, or have done so long ago. The ONLY reason we can sustain the welfare/warfare state that we have is through inflationary monetary policy. Sound money would have checked the over spending and ponzi schemes of war and welfare programs. But instead, we continue to mountain up debt as if it doesn't matter. True sound money environments do not allow for that. It's a mathematical certainty.

Time for you to review the events that took place in Russia/the Soviet Union 1905-1953.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No it wouldn't.

The instruction manual for Liberals/Progressives/DeathPanelDemocrats can be found here:"The Communist Manifesto," the 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Sure it would. In an environment of sound currency, we would have either defaulted on our enormous debt from lack of being able to print up the interest by now, or have done so long ago. The ONLY reason we can sustain the welfare/warfare state that we have is through inflationary monetary policy. Sound money would have checked the over spending and ponzi schemes of war and welfare programs. But instead, we continue to mountain up debt as if it doesn't matter. True sound money environments do not allow for that. It's a mathematical certainty.

Time for you to review the events that took place in Russia/the Soviet Union 1905-1953.

no need. Not the same circumstances, but the outcomes will be similar.

 

[Synthaholic]

You should change direction, PC.

Get out of New York.

Move to Florida or Mississippi.

Or Austria!

She's already perfected her arm salute.

Since the Nazi and the communist doctrines are the provenance of those of the Liberals and Progressives, your ignorant post borders on amusing.


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

Yet, you're the corporatist who closely parrots Fascism in your economics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She's already perfected her arm salute.

Since the Nazi and the communist doctrines are the provenance of those of the Liberals and Progressives, your ignorant post borders on amusing.


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

Yet, you're the corporatist who closely parrots Fascism in your economics.

"Fascism"???


"Corporatism"???


Try not to use terms, such as these two, that you don't understand.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since the Nazi and the communist doctrines are the provenance of those of the Liberals and Progressives, your ignorant post borders on amusing.


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

Yet, you're the corporatist who closely parrots Fascism in your economics.

"Fascism"???


"Corporatism"???


Try not to use terms, such as these two, that you don't understand.

OK. Do you agree with Mitt that "corporations are people"? And I mean in the way that he meant it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet, you're the corporatist who closely parrots Fascism in your economics.

"Fascism"???


"Corporatism"???


Try not to use terms, such as these two, that you don't understand.

OK. Do you agree with Mitt that "corporations are people"? And I mean in the way that he meant it.

Are "unions" people?

 

[Synthaholic]

"Fascism"???


"Corporatism"???


Try not to use terms, such as these two, that you don't understand.

OK. Do you agree with Mitt that "corporations are people"? And I mean in the way that he meant it.

Are "unions" people?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK. Do you agree with Mitt that "corporations are people"? And I mean in the way that he meant it.

Are "unions" people?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

 

[Synthaholic]

Are "unions" people?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

I love it when you surrender.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

Why can't you answer a simple, straight question?

I love it when you surrender.

I love it when you reveal yourself to be a liar.....it's so very.....Liberal.