What's Wrong With Liberalism?

[PoliticalChic]

Seems to be a regular objection to my OPs by my Leftwing pals that I'm constantly carping about Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.....trying to connect same with communism, Marxism.....

Guilty as charged.
And not by accident.





1. Liberalism is popular because of the things it gives folks. But...is that bad?
Let's see....

The progressive era was the origin of the income tax. It was all about 'take from the rich.' And there were enormously rich folks who used monopolies to prevent others from obtaining the same level of wealth.
In other words, there was a basis for progressive reform. Taxation was used ....




2. But the progressive reform was married to a worldview popularized by Karl Marx and Engels...the taxation was to take from those with the ability to pay.....and 'give to each according to his need.'

a. Of course, the IRS has been corrupted even further today.....

3.The problems were multiple. First of all, once government saw how easy the 'taking' was....by 1913, the 16th amendment....the income tax.
The reform of monopolies became corrupted by joining the idea with equalizing income. As a function of government??
Really....what does one have to do with the other?
Giving opportunity to all shouldn't mean mandating equality of outcome....but one can see why it would be popular.




4. So, for Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, the scheme was to grow government so as to have more power to give more away to those who hadn't yet earned same, ...but the by-product of this plan was to remove the incentive to achieve, to earn, to become wealthy. It tamps down ambition.
The motto became "You didn't build that," which means 'you didn't earn your success.'





5. In order to give things away to people, the early Progressives actually went to the trouble of changing the Constitution, amending it as was required. The result was, as above, the 16th amendment.
And to move influence out of the grasp of the states, as originally designed by the Founders, Progressives passed the 17th amendment to prevent state legislatures from choosing Senators; so much for federalism, hello, big national government.





6. But by the 1930's, the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats had a President who considered the Constitution merely a suggestion. Roosevelt decided that he could give people homes via government grasp of the private market. Fannie Mae established in 1938. Perhaps part of the reasoning, flawed though it turned out to be, was that home ownership would change people.
Changing human nature was the cornerstone of communism.

a. "Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union..." New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. "We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
Hillary Rodham

c. Roosevelt simply ignored the enumerated powers; he felt it unnecessary to attempt to amend the Constitution.





7. LBJ channeled Roosevelt's New Deal with his War on Poverty. At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.
Between then and now, the federal government gave away roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade.
Scribd

But sure was popular with a lot of folks getting the 'givings.'





8. Obama has gone way beyond the needs of the current recession to give more things away. "..., since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year.... ….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007..." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News






Above, I said Liberalism is popular because of what it gives folks.

Look closely.....what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats give is what Marxism is based on: Materialism.



Note what is not only not given...but what is taken away: accomplishment, the need for hard work, self-respect, spirituality, the can-do attitude that Americans were once famous for.....



That's where conservatism comes in.

 

[peach174]

Seems to be a regular objection to my OPs by my Leftwing pals that I'm constantly carping about Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.....trying to connect same with communism, Marxism.....

Guilty as charged.
And not by accident.





1. Liberalism is popular because of the things it gives folks. But...is that bad?
Let's see....

The progressive era was the origin of the income tax. It was all about 'take from the rich.' And there were enormously rich folks who used monopolies to prevent others from obtaining the same level of wealth.
In other words, there was a basis for progressive reform. Taxation was used ....




2. But the progressive reform was married to a worldview popularized by Karl Marx and Engels...the taxation was to take from those with the ability to pay.....and 'give to each according to his need.'

a. Of course, the IRS has been corrupted even further today.....

3.The problems were multiple. First of all, once government saw how easy the 'taking' was....by 1913, the 16th amendment....the income tax.
The reform of monopolies became corrupted by joining the idea with equalizing income. As a function of government??
Really....what does one have to do with the other?
Giving all opportunities shouldn't mean mandating equality of outcome....but one can see why it would be popular.




4. So, for Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, the scheme was to grow government so as to have more power to give more away to those who hadn't yet earned same, ...but the by-product of this plan was to remove the incentive to achieve, to earn, to become wealthy. It tamps down ambition.
The motto became "You didn't build that," which means 'you didn't earn your success.'





5. In order to give things away to people, the early Progressives actually went to the trouble of changing the Constitution, amending it as was required. The result was, as above, the 16th amendment.
And to move influence out of the grasp of the states, as originally designed by the Founders, Progressives passed the 17th amendment to prevent state legislatures from choosing Senators; so much for federalism, hello, big national government.





6. But by the 1930's, the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats had a President who considered the Constitution merely a suggestion. Roosevelt decided that he could give people homes via government grasp of the private market. Fannie Mae established in 1938. Perhaps part of the reasoning, flawed though it turned out to be, was that home ownership would change people.
Changing human nature was the cornerstone of communism.

a. "Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union..." New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. "We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
Hillary Rodham

c. Roosevelt simply ignored the enumerated powers; he felt it unnecessary to attempt to amend the Constitution.





7. LBJ channeled Roosevelt's New Deal with his War on Poverty. At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.
Between then and now, the federal government gave away roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade.
Scribd

But sure was popular with a lot of folks getting the 'givings.'





8. Obama has gone way beyond the needs of the current recession to give more things away. "..., since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year.... ….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007..." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News






Above, I said Liberalism is popular because of what it gives folks.

Look closely.....what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats give is what Marxism is based on: Materialism.



Note what is not only not give...but what is taken away: accomplishment, the need for hard work, self-respect, spirituality, the can-do attitude that Americans were once famous for.....



That's where conservatism comes in.

They hide behind the words Liberal/Progressives in order to hide what they really are.
Which is Socialists Marxists. None of them could get elected if they called themselves what they really are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

 

[percysunshine]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What liberals believe, support, and advocate for is never what they achieve. Liberalism is a utopian dream world that some people never escape from.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Seems to be a regular objection to my OPs by my Leftwing pals that I'm constantly carping about Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.....trying to connect same with communism, Marxism.....

Guilty as charged.
And not by accident.

1. Liberalism is popular because of the things it gives folks. But...is that bad?
Let's see....

The progressive era was the origin of the income tax. It was all about 'take from the rich.' And there were enormously rich folks who used monopolies to prevent others from obtaining the same level of wealth.
In other words, there was a basis for progressive reform. Taxation was used ....

2. But the progressive reform was married to a worldview popularized by Karl Marx and Engels...the taxation was to take from those with the ability to pay.....and 'give to each according to his need.'

a. Of course, the IRS has been corrupted even further today.....

3.The problems were multiple. First of all, once government saw how easy the 'taking' was....by 1913, the 16th amendment....the income tax.
The reform of monopolies became corrupted by joining the idea with equalizing income. As a function of government??
Really....what does one have to do with the other?
Giving opportunity to all shouldn't mean mandating equality of outcome....but one can see why it would be popular.

4. So, for Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, the scheme was to grow government so as to have more power to give more away to those who hadn't yet earned same, ...but the by-product of this plan was to remove the incentive to achieve, to earn, to become wealthy. It tamps down ambition.
The motto became "You didn't build that," which means 'you didn't earn your success.'

5. In order to give things away to people, the early Progressives actually went to the trouble of changing the Constitution, amending it as was required. The result was, as above, the 16th amendment.
And to move influence out of the grasp of the states, as originally designed by the Founders, Progressives passed the 17th amendment to prevent state legislatures from choosing Senators; so much for federalism, hello, big national government.

6. But by the 1930's, the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats had a President who considered the Constitution merely a suggestion. Roosevelt decided that he could give people homes via government grasp of the private market. Fannie Mae established in 1938. Perhaps part of the reasoning, flawed though it turned out to be, was that home ownership would change people.
Changing human nature was the cornerstone of communism.

a. "Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union..." New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. "We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
Hillary Rodham

c. Roosevelt simply ignored the enumerated powers; he felt it unnecessary to attempt to amend the Constitution.


7. LBJ channeled Roosevelt's New Deal with his War on Poverty. At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.
Between then and now, the federal government gave away roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade.
Scribd

But sure was popular with a lot of folks getting the 'givings.'

8. Obama has gone way beyond the needs of the current recession to give more things away. "..., since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year.... ….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007..." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News

Above, I said Liberalism is popular because of what it gives folks.

Look closely.....what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats give is what Marxism is based on: Materialism.

Note what is not only not give...but what is taken away: accomplishment, the need for hard work, self-respect, spirituality, the can-do attitude that Americans were once famous for.....

That's where conservatism comes in.

You are mostly talking about fiscal liberalism.

I'm a social Liberal (for the most part) and a fiscal conservative.

One of my beefs with the tax code (aside from it deciding how much we pay based on what they think we should pay) Is that it unfairly rewards poor people, while punishing the middle class.

You cannot blame that on "Liberals" if conservatives in office did nothing to change things when they had the chance.

 

[Jroc]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]

 

[deltex1]

Seems to be a regular objection to my OPs by my Leftwing pals that I'm constantly carping about Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.....trying to connect same with communism, Marxism.....

Guilty as charged.
And not by accident.





1. Liberalism is popular because of the things it gives folks. But...is that bad?
Let's see....

The progressive era was the origin of the income tax. It was all about 'take from the rich.' And there were enormously rich folks who used monopolies to prevent others from obtaining the same level of wealth.
In other words, there was a basis for progressive reform. Taxation was used ....




2. But the progressive reform was married to a worldview popularized by Karl Marx and Engels...the taxation was to take from those with the ability to pay.....and 'give to each according to his need.'

a. Of course, the IRS has been corrupted even further today.....

3.The problems were multiple. First of all, once government saw how easy the 'taking' was....by 1913, the 16th amendment....the income tax.
The reform of monopolies became corrupted by joining the idea with equalizing income. As a function of government??
Really....what does one have to do with the other?
Giving opportunity to all shouldn't mean mandating equality of outcome....but one can see why it would be popular.




4. So, for Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, the scheme was to grow government so as to have more power to give more away to those who hadn't yet earned same, ...but the by-product of this plan was to remove the incentive to achieve, to earn, to become wealthy. It tamps down ambition.
The motto became "You didn't build that," which means 'you didn't earn your success.'





5. In order to give things away to people, the early Progressives actually went to the trouble of changing the Constitution, amending it as was required. The result was, as above, the 16th amendment.
And to move influence out of the grasp of the states, as originally designed by the Founders, Progressives passed the 17th amendment to prevent state legislatures from choosing Senators; so much for federalism, hello, big national government.





6. But by the 1930's, the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats had a President who considered the Constitution merely a suggestion. Roosevelt decided that he could give people homes via government grasp of the private market. Fannie Mae established in 1938. Perhaps part of the reasoning, flawed though it turned out to be, was that home ownership would change people.
Changing human nature was the cornerstone of communism.

a. "Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union..." New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. "We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
Hillary Rodham

c. Roosevelt simply ignored the enumerated powers; he felt it unnecessary to attempt to amend the Constitution.





7. LBJ channeled Roosevelt's New Deal with his War on Poverty. At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.
Between then and now, the federal government gave away roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade.
Scribd

But sure was popular with a lot of folks getting the 'givings.'





8. Obama has gone way beyond the needs of the current recession to give more things away. "..., since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year.... ….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007..." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News






Above, I said Liberalism is popular because of what it gives folks.

Look closely.....what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats give is what Marxism is based on: Materialism.



Note what is not only not given...but what is taken away: accomplishment, the need for hard work, self-respect, spirituality, the can-do attitude that Americans were once famous for.....



That's where conservatism comes in.

We are one with your analysis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

PoliticalSpice puts the RANT in intolerant!

lib•er•al (ˈlɪb ər əl, ˈlɪb rəl)

adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
n.
11. a person of liberal principles or views.

​

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What liberals believe, support, and advocate for is never what they achieve. Liberalism is a utopian dream world that some people never escape from.

Good lord, so you are saying that there are NO REPUBLICANS on the dole? That they would be "closet liberals" or that no welfare folks vote republican? Give me a break - I've been all over this country and poor people in every state vote either way.

Dems in the inner city vote democrat and poor people in the sticks vote republican. You cannot in good conscience blame all fiscal woe's on "Liberalism."


Time for republicans to have a little bit of accountability and intellectual honesty.

 

[peach174]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What are the Liberal Dem's policies?
Class struggles
Capitalism is bad and must be heavily managed though regulations.
Heavy Taxes
National Bank (Federal Reserve Bank)
Content control in news, education and entertainment.
Equal equality (redistribution of wealth).
The very same policies of Communist Marxists.

 

[percysunshine]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What liberals believe, support, and advocate for is never what they achieve. Liberalism is a utopian dream world that some people never escape from.

Good lord, so you are saying that there are NO REPUBLICANS on the dole? That they would be "closet liberals" or that no welfare folks vote republican? Give me a break - I've been all over this country and poor people in every state vote either way.

Dems in the inner city vote democrat and poor people in the sticks vote republican. You cannot in good conscience blame all fiscal woe's on "Liberalism."


Time for republicans to have a little bit of accountability and intellectual honesty.

Did you read the post? Just asking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

"If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for....."

Okey doke....






Here are some of the issues Liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for.....


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

a. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."





10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.


Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal ....I understand how that omits your input.....agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and desires of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?


I mean, seriously......


QED?






Oh...wait.....did I say Democrats/Liberals/Progressives????
Silly me....I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals






'don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.'

You must be looking for the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[Rozman]

7. LBJ channeled Roosevelt's New Deal with his War on Poverty. At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.
Between then and now, the federal government gave away roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade.
Scribd

War on poverty and what to do about education.

The first one the war on poverty has been waged for decades and boatloads of money spent.
The same with education.

The real true Liberals will answer that it has failed because we just didn't spend enough on it.
The same with education.

But that's the liberal answer for everything isn't it.
If they feel not enough money is being spent on these issues no one is stopping them from donating
whatever is needed to fix the problems.

But that's not liberalism.
Liberalism is pointing out what "they " feel are the problems and then demand that other people pay for it.

 

[freedombecki]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What liberals believe, support, and advocate for is never what they achieve. Liberalism is a utopian dream world that some people never escape from.

Good lord, so you are saying that there are NO REPUBLICANS on the dole? That they would be "closet liberals" or that no welfare folks vote republican? Give me a break - I've been all over this country and poor people in every state vote either way.

Dems in the inner city vote democrat and poor people in the sticks vote republican. You cannot in good conscience blame all fiscal woe's on "Liberalism."

Time for republicans to have a little bit of accountability and intellectual honesty.

Suits me. I'm a Republican. Here's some honesty fer ya....

[ame=http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]​

​

[ame=http://youtu.be/TB1dG1Bg1xM]Longer Version: Obama Calls Wealth Distribution 'Neighborly' - YouTube[/ame]​

​

Income redistribution is not very neighborly, imho.
​

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

"If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for....."

Okey doke....






Here are some of the issues Liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for.....


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Show me one measure of American liberal public opinion that supports the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalSpice puts the RANT in intolerant!

lib•er•al (ˈlɪb ər əl, ˈlɪb rəl)

adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
n.
11. a person of liberal principles or views.

​

Why must you choose Sunday to embarrass yourself thusly?


Aren't the other six days enough time for you to identify yourself as a dunce?


Bet you don't even know that John Dewy lobbied the Socialists to change their name to 'Liberal' due to the terrible defeat that Woodrow Willson's successor received.


And why does it fall to moi to educate fools like you???


Well....OK:

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.

[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. Ending the Liberal Confusion, by Jim Peron

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

What liberals believe, support, and advocate for is never what they achieve. Liberalism is a utopian dream world that some people never escape from.

So the best measure of how evil a person is is to what extent they are idealists?

Heaven is the ultimate utopia. I thought conservatives owned the dream of someday getting to Heaven.

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for;

don't construct a Marxist strawman, stick a 'Liberal' nametag on him, and then argue against that.

If you want to argue with Marxists, go argue with Marxists.

"If you want to argue against Liberalism, argue against what liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for....."

Okey doke....






Here are some of the issues Liberals actually believe, support, and advocate for.....


1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Show me one measure of American liberal public opinion that supports the above.

So....we're stipulating that all of the rest of the list are correct?

Good start.



Now for this one:

"NORTH: The Obama administration plan to disarm America
Nuclear plan is reckless lunacy
Americans following this year’s presidential campaign would never know it from mainstream media coverage, but the commander in chief we hired nearly four years ago has set the United States on a course for unilateral disarmament."

Read more: NORTH: The Obama administration plan to disarm America - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

 

[Derideo_Te]

PoliticalSpice puts the RANT in intolerant!

lib•er•al (ˈlɪb ər əl, ˈlɪb rəl)

adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; open-minded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education.
n.
11. a person of liberal principles or views.

​

Why must you choose Sunday to embarrass yourself thusly?


Aren't the other six days enough time for you to identify yourself as a dunce?


Bet you don't even know that John Dewy lobbied the Socialists to change their name to 'Liberal' due to the terrible defeat that Woodrow Willson's successor received.


And why does it fall to moi to educate fools like you???


Well....OK:

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
[Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.

[Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. Ending the Liberal Confusion, by Jim Peron

Did I forget to mention that We the People support your right to post ignorant rants, PoliticalSpice.

 

[Redfish]

more accurately, obama is a marxist collectivist.