What Leftism Does to People

[The T]

So Luissa admits the Occupy groups are leftist/liberal in their ideology because otherwise there would be no change at all. This only illustrates a very poor understanding of what Modern American Conservatism is all about--a conservatism that is universally pushed by the Tea Party and similar groups. Anybody want to suggest any of the Tea Party or similar groups are promoting the status quo or that they haven't proposed any change in what is going on now?

And yet they have been good citizens, good stewards and guests on the property where they held their rallies, they didn't destroy property or terrorize anybody, and they cleaned up after themselves when they left. Folks just about anybody would be happy to have around. The Tea Partiers are not demanding that the government GIVE them anything whatsoever, but rather are demanding that government be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar and treat it with the respect that the taxpayer does--in other words follow its Constitutional responsibilities.

Some of the Occupy groups haven't been all that violent or destructive, but many have been, have hurt businesses in the area, have destroyed, damaged, defaced property, left filth behind, and the few that can formulate a coherent sentence when asked all WANT somebody else to give them something that they want.

So how can anybody possibly say that Klaven's observations about that are in any way incorrect? And if his observations are therefore correct, is it leftism that produces groups like OWS and similar 'Occupy' groups? And do you condone that?

ATTENTION: Racism, GWB or any previous administration, abortion, sexism, gay rights, military action, etc. etc. etc. all make wonderful topics, but in this thread please focus on Klaven's thesis in the OP. And if all you are here is to bash somebody or make insulting remarks please mark the fourth poll option and advise us that you did so that we can save ourselves time by scrolling over your posts.

Liberty of the Individual and rule of Law geared to those ends, works every time it's tried...

 

[The T]

No offense, but your post doesn't make sense.

Most protests are about being liberal, because being conservative in the true sense of the word never brings change. If the revolutionist in our country had been true conservatives we would still be under British rule. And in today conservatives would view the Boston tea party as a bunch of ill mannered entitled protesters.

Why change was has worked...and just becuase a bunch of petulants that have a hard time running thier lives seek to destroy liberty of others by law, and at the point of a gun because they refuse to grow the Hell up and be responsible for themselves?

For someone that doesn't understand Individual responsibility, Liberty under rule of law? And champions leftist Government tyranny? Colour my ass surprised...*NOT*

 

[bripat9643]

Most protests are about being liberal, because being conservative in the true sense of the word never brings change. If the revolutionist in our country had been true conservatives we would still be under British rule. And in today conservatives would view the Boston tea party as a bunch of ill mannered entitled protesters.

We've seen this self-serving left-wing horseshit 10,000 times. It's still wrong.

In the modern context, a "conservative" is someone who believes in political liberty and economic freedom. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers believed in.

 

[Dragon]

I voted the first, but I could have voted the second as well; both are true. That is, I consider the statements "leftism is America's best hope" and "unchecked leftism will destroy the America we know" both to be true. Our political dialog is healthiest when it occurs between progressives, who push for reform, and conservatives, who defend tradition and question reform. Note that this leaves right-wing whack jobs, such as those who mislabel themselves "conservatives," out of the dialog altogether.

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I don't find it pertinent at all, and also find it based on factual mistatements and downright lies, to wit:

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy”

All of this is untrue. As the entire essay is based on this characterization, the entire essay is worthless. I need read no more.

 

[jillian]

another dumbass thread.

wtf is "leftism"?

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives clearly are throwing stones while living in a glass house; they’re in no position to criticize liberals.

Yes they are. Virtually everyone is in a position to criticize liberals. No group has been more wrong about everything than liberals.

 

[Luissa]

Funny thing is I don't think you understand the difference between libertarians and conservatives. There is a huge difference just a clue. And modern conservatives really don't want that much change. They just want more change and government for the people who do not think they way they do. Big hint Ron Paul and the original members of the tea party were not modern conservatives.

So Luissa admits the Occupy groups are leftist/liberal in their ideology because otherwise there would be no change at all. This only illustrates a very poor understanding of what Modern American Conservatism is all about--a conservatism that is universally pushed by the Tea Party and similar groups. Anybody want to suggest any of the Tea Party or similar groups are promoting the status quo or that they haven't proposed any change in what is going on now?

And yet they have been good citizens, good stewards and guests on the property where they held their rallies, they didn't destroy property or terrorize anybody, and they cleaned up after themselves when they left. Folks just about anybody would be happy to have around. The Tea Partiers are not demanding that the government GIVE them anything whatsoever, but rather are demanding that government be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar and treat it with the respect that the taxpayer does--in other words follow its Constitutional responsibilities.

Some of the Occupy groups haven't been all that violent or destructive, but many have been, have hurt businesses in the area, have destroyed, damaged, defaced property, left filth behind, and the few that can formulate a coherent sentence when asked all WANT somebody else to give them something that they want.

So how can anybody possibly say that Klaven's observations about that are in any way incorrect? And if his observations are therefore correct, is it leftism that produces groups like OWS and similar 'Occupy' groups? And do you condone that?

ATTENTION: Racism, GWB or any previous administration, abortion, sexism, gay rights, military action, etc. etc. etc. all make wonderful topics, but in this thread please focus on Klaven's thesis in the OP. And if all you are here for is to bash somebody or make insulting remarks please mark the fourth poll option and advise us that you did so that we can save ourselves time by scrolling over your posts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay let's refocus here just a tad.

Klaven's observation used the Occupy groups versus the Tea Party to illustrate the behavior of people who tilt left (the Occupy groups) versus those who tilt right (the Tea Party and similar groups.)

Those on the right obey the law, are civil, polite, and considerate of the rights and property of others.

Those on the left are lawless, uncivil, impolite, inconsiderate of the right of others and destructive of property of others.

So what makes the difference unless it is the difference in thinking and concepts of personal responsibility between the left and right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you have any real points other than name calling?

No.

another dumbass thread.

wtf is "leftism"?

Not sure, but it is ‘bad’ and ‘awful.’

 

[Luissa]

I think what modern conservatives are and what you think they are are two different things.
Which is why when the tea party was taken over by modern conservatives we saw candidates like Palin and Herman Cain emerge.

 

[Luissa]

I also stated very clearly I was referring to conservatives in the true sense of the word. Did I not say that? Or are you implying the OWS might be modern conservatives?

 

[Foxfyre]

Funny thing is I don't think you understand the difference between libertarians and conservatives. There is a huge difference just a clue. And modern conservatives really don't want that much change. They just want more change and government for the people who do not think they way they do. Big hint Ron Paul and the original members of the tea party were not modern conservatives.

So Luissa admits the Occupy groups are leftist/liberal in their ideology because otherwise there would be no change at all. This only illustrates a very poor understanding of what Modern American Conservatism is all about--a conservatism that is universally pushed by the Tea Party and similar groups. Anybody want to suggest any of the Tea Party or similar groups are promoting the status quo or that they haven't proposed any change in what is going on now?

And yet they have been good citizens, good stewards and guests on the property where they held their rallies, they didn't destroy property or terrorize anybody, and they cleaned up after themselves when they left. Folks just about anybody would be happy to have around. The Tea Partiers are not demanding that the government GIVE them anything whatsoever, but rather are demanding that government be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar and treat it with the respect that the taxpayer does--in other words follow its Constitutional responsibilities.

Some of the Occupy groups haven't been all that violent or destructive, but many have been, have hurt businesses in the area, have destroyed, damaged, defaced property, left filth behind, and the few that can formulate a coherent sentence when asked all WANT somebody else to give them something that they want.

So how can anybody possibly say that Klaven's observations about that are in any way incorrect? And if his observations are therefore correct, is it leftism that produces groups like OWS and similar 'Occupy' groups? And do you condone that?

ATTENTION: Racism, GWB or any previous administration, abortion, sexism, gay rights, military action, etc. etc. etc. all make wonderful topics, but in this thread please focus on Klaven's thesis in the OP. And if all you are here for is to bash somebody or make insulting remarks please mark the fourth poll option and advise us that you did so that we can save ourselves time by scrolling over your posts.

I know the difference. Do you? The Modern American Conservative is the epitome of the Classical Liberalism of the Founders that we think of as a more conservative libertarianism. The Left often tries to redefine that but they are always wrong or blatantly dishonest when they do so. It is a principle of a government that secures our rights and then leaves us alone to live our lives however we choose to do that.

The Modern American Liberal wants a strong central government that provides a safety net for ALL who need or ask for that and that requires people to live their lives as the liberal thinks is the most constructive and beneficial to all.

Now if you have better definitions let's have them. Otherwise, could we move on and look at Klaven's thesis in something more substantive than the right sucks and liberals are wonderful?

 

[Luissa]

Was the protest in 1773 considerate of others property? My problem with the OP is the man ignores American history.

Okay let's refocus here just a tad.

Klaven's observation used the Occupy groups versus the Tea Party to illustrate the behavior of people who tilt left (the Occupy groups) versus those who tilt right (the Tea Party and similar groups.)

Those on the right obey the law, are civil, polite, and considerate of the rights and property of others.

Those on the left are lawless, uncivil, impolite, inconsiderate of the right of others and destructive of property of others.

So what makes the difference unless it is the difference in thinking and concepts of personal responsibility between the left and right?

 

[Luissa]

Nothing has ever really got done in the country by being conservative.... In the true sense of the word.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those on the right obey the law, are civil, polite, and considerate of the rights and property of others.

Those on the left are lawless, uncivil, impolite, inconsiderate of the right of others and destructive of property of others.

Where on earth did you get this idiocy?

What sort of a moron would make such sweeping generalities?

Some of the most foul criminals I’ve encountered advocated conservative dogma; some of the most law-abiding liberal.

Your mind is so consumed by hate and ignorance you can’t think logically or objectively.

 

[Luissa]

I like your last paragraph. I don't thunk I have been doing that and have been polite. I have seen you try to condesending, and few righties in this thread pretty much only dog on the left while providing nothing to the debate. You obviously cannot handle other opinions.
And our founding father's spoke out avaunt a strong central goverment while enlarging our central goverment and making it stronger. Just saying.

Funny thing is I don't think you understand the difference between libertarians and conservatives. There is a huge difference just a clue. And modern conservatives really don't want that much change. They just want more change and government for the people who do not think they way they do. Big hint Ron Paul and the original members of the tea party were not modern conservatives.

So Luissa admits the Occupy groups are leftist/liberal in their ideology because otherwise there would be no change at all. This only illustrates a very poor understanding of what Modern American Conservatism is all about--a conservatism that is universally pushed by the Tea Party and similar groups. Anybody want to suggest any of the Tea Party or similar groups are promoting the status quo or that they haven't proposed any change in what is going on now?

And yet they have been good citizens, good stewards and guests on the property where they held their rallies, they didn't destroy property or terrorize anybody, and they cleaned up after themselves when they left. Folks just about anybody would be happy to have around. The Tea Partiers are not demanding that the government GIVE them anything whatsoever, but rather are demanding that government be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar and treat it with the respect that the taxpayer does--in other words follow its Constitutional responsibilities.

Some of the Occupy groups haven't been all that violent or destructive, but many have been, have hurt businesses in the area, have destroyed, damaged, defaced property, left filth behind, and the few that can formulate a coherent sentence when asked all WANT somebody else to give them something that they want.

So how can anybody possibly say that Klaven's observations about that are in any way incorrect? And if his observations are therefore correct, is it leftism that produces groups like OWS and similar 'Occupy' groups? And do you condone that?

ATTENTION: Racism, GWB or any previous administration, abortion, sexism, gay rights, military action, etc. etc. etc. all make wonderful topics, but in this thread please focus on Klaven's thesis in the OP. And if all you are here for is to bash somebody or make insulting remarks please mark the fourth poll option and advise us that you did so that we can save ourselves time by scrolling over your posts.

I know the difference. Do you? The Modern American Conservative is the epitome of the Classical Liberalism of the Founders that we think of as a more conservative libertarianism. The Left often tries to redefine that but they are always wrong or blatantly dishonest when they do so. It is a principle of a government that secures our rights and then leaves us alone to live our lives however we choose to do that.

The Modern American Liberal wants a strong central government that provides a safety net for ALL who need or ask for that and that requires people to live their lives as the liberal thinks is the most constructive and beneficial to all.

Now if you have better definitions let's have them. Otherwise, could we move on and look at Klaven's thesis in something more substantive than the right sucks and liberals are wonderful?

 

[Luissa]

Of couse if you did talk to liberals, you would know most realize we need a somewhat strong central government which was made clear during the first few years we were a country, while still protecting the people's rights and the states rights. Which our founding father's also knew.
And without a left or a right no one wins. We either end up like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. It's like some of you forget our country is good because of opposite political beliefs. The US Constitution is all about incorporating different political beliefs.

 

[The T]

I also stated very clearly I was referring to conservatives in the true sense of the word. Did I not say that? Or are you implying the OWS might be modern conservatives?

Stop trying to parse it. We get your meaning, and YOU continue to lie.

 

[The T]

Those on the right obey the law, are civil, polite, and considerate of the rights and property of others.

Those on the left are lawless, uncivil, impolite, inconsiderate of the right of others and destructive of property of others.

Where on earth did you get this idiocy?

What sort of a moron would make such sweeping generalities?

Some of the most foul criminals I’ve encountered advocated conservative dogma; some of the most law-abiding liberal.

Your mind is so consumed by hate and ignorance you can’t think logically or objectively.

Still haven't figured out the quote function properly, have you? Of course not. It suits your purposes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

Well said.

Sad, but too true