Beck...

[☭proletarian☭]

I suppose words are a new phenomenon for you.

How, then, do you explain all his previous posts?



Not necessarily. One can be quite literate and still be a poor author, just as the ability to listen does not necessarily make one a great orator.


That's not an axiom, my illiterate friend.


And you'll soon learn her love of quutemines and her failure to further research her talking points prevents her from discussing matters intelligently and honestly.



You don't do advise for people. You were insulting someone's literacy?

Oh, Lord. Get over yourself. This false image that you insist on presenting is extremely transparent. You're an insecure little twit that wants to be important. But that will never happen, dear. So why don't you just chill.

I've already explained: you've served your purpose, whipping boy, and there is no overtime bonus for continuing to allow me to slap you around.

So you can leave.

Get it: dissed and dismissed.

So you can't defend your quotemine where you tried to paint a man as evil for saying the American people stood together as a single People?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How, then, do you explain all his previous posts?



Not necessarily. One can be quite literate and still be a poor author, just as the ability to listen does not necessarily make one a great orator.


That's not an axiom, my illiterate friend.


And you'll soon learn her love of quutemines and her failure to further research her talking points prevents her from discussing matters intelligently and honestly.



You don't do advise for people. You were insulting someone's literacy?

I've already explained: you've served your purpose, whipping boy, and there is no overtime bonus for continuing to allow me to slap you around.

So you can leave.

Get it: dissed and dismissed.

So you can't defend your quotemine where you tried to paint a man as evil for saying the American people stood together as a single People?

What more is there to say?

Here we have an example of what might be called- and I hope our Catholic friends will forgive my appropriation of the phrase, a case of invincible ignorance.

I asked if you could find errors in four or five of Mr. Beck’s theses, and you demanded proof of the veracity of the statements, ascertaining the flagitious nature of Progressive thought.

I provided 15 or 20 very precise references and links to same, and you saunter off, offering no opposing views which indicate that the statements are untrue of Progressives…

Instead, rather than intellectual and informed response, some schoolyard obfuscation.

Invincible ignorance.

 

[nraforlife]

Glen Beck is a judas goat whom even the most surpine of neoconned sheeple should avoid.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So you can't defend your quotemine where you tried to paint a man as evil for saying the American people stood together as a single People?

What more is there to say?

Good question. What more is there to say other than you were caught in a lie and refuse to address it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC has done this before. She will apply a statement or definition that has nothing to do with a particular issue, then twist it every which way.

I remember her specious attempt to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, a low for her, I must admit.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

She sounds a lot like PI in this thread...

 

[Big Fitz]

Jeez... she detonates all your malarchy, and you go on going "nope... sky's still not blue, water's still not wet because I need it to be otherwise."

This is an excellent example of why so many think that leftists are without ethics or scruples. You'd rather believe you're "right" than acknowledge an inconvenient truth.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Right... looked in a mirror lately?

Did either of you ever address the rest of that quote she threw out there and was called on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC has done this before. She will apply a statement or definition that has nothing to do with a particular issue, then twist it every which way.

I remember her specious attempt to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, a low for her, I must admit.

Ah, my poor sad friend.

Since I was able to shred your mythological left-wing-infused slander about Senator McCarthy, it seems rather quizzical that you would bring up your ignominious defeat.

Perhaps it is a lapse in your long term memory, so let me reprise the basic event.

In order to chalk up a win, I simply asked that you inform the mistaken viewpoint with a list of 'innocent victims whose lives were ruined by Senator McCarthy.'

Alas, you were unable to do so.

Conclusion: The good Senator pulled back the curtain on the infiltration of the FDR administration by paid agents of the Soviet Union. Since said administration was not only lax in filtering spies from federal jobs, but allowed and promoted same, Senator McCarthy was a true American hero.



Now, coincidently, I have since finished the tome "‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin."

Available in your local library, if you care to read it (700 dense pages!).

I mention same because it varifies, in addition to the Venona Papers previously mentioned, the infiltration of Soviet spies as discussed above.

Mitrokhin was the KGB archivist, he was put in charge of transcribing KGB spy reports for some 20-30 years. Unbeknownst to higher-ups, he made copies of the reports, and the British Secret Service exfiltrated Mitrokhin and the reports in the early 90's.


So, my bloviating friend, if you wish to actually have knowledge on a subject prior to posting, you would be advised to peruse a copy of this expose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jeez... she detonates all your malarchy, and you go on going "nope... sky's still not blue, water's still not wet because I need it to be otherwise."

This is an excellent example of why so many think that leftists are without ethics or scruples. You'd rather believe you're "right" than acknowledge an inconvenient truth.

Friend Fitz, I have given some thought to why we often see the refusal by the left to accept reality,,, and I think we need to consider the origins of left-wing theology to understand same.

Have you studied Georges Sorel?

"Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered." Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. " Georges Sorel

Considered a father of syndicalism, early socialism, fascism and progressivism, his contribution was the idea of the believable, motivational lie, or myth.

You see, the left has not the same connection with either truth or reality that we on the right have...

Sorel’s greatest contribution to the left was his concept of ‘myths.’
a. Definition of myths: “artificial combinations invented to give the appearance of reality to hopes that inspire men in their present activity.’
b. e.g. The coming of Christ: the idea organized men in desirable ways.
c. Sorel’s myth of the ‘general strike:’ if all the workers declared a general strike, it would crush capitalism, and turn the world over to the proletariat.
Whether the general strike actually had the predicted result didn’t matter! What matters is getting the masses to believe in the power of the weapon!


So, we should continue to expose the 'myths' of the left, but should not expect them to admit that they are myths: for, without their 'bed time stories,' what do they have left? (pun intended)

 

[Big Fitz]

Jeez... she detonates all your malarchy, and you go on going "nope... sky's still not blue, water's still not wet because I need it to be otherwise."

This is an excellent example of why so many think that leftists are without ethics or scruples. You'd rather believe you're "right" than acknowledge an inconvenient truth.

Friend Fitz, I have given some thought to why we often see the refusal by the left to accept reality,,, and I think we need to consider the origins of left-wing theology to understand same.

Have you studied Georges Sorel?

"Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered." Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. " Georges Sorel

Considered a father of syndicalism, early socialism, fascism and progressivism, his contribution was the idea of the believable, motivational lie, or myth.

You see, the left has not the same connection with either truth or reality that we on the right have...

Sorel’s greatest contribution to the left was his concept of ‘myths.’
a. Definition of myths: “artificial combinations invented to give the appearance of reality to hopes that inspire men in their present activity.’
b. e.g. The coming of Christ: the idea organized men in desirable ways.
c. Sorel’s myth of the ‘general strike:’ if all the workers declared a general strike, it would crush capitalism, and turn the world over to the proletariat.
Whether the general strike actually had the predicted result didn’t matter! What matters is getting the masses to believe in the power of the weapon!


So, we should continue to expose the 'myths' of the left, but should not expect them to admit that they are myths: for, without their 'bed time stories,' what do they have left? (pun intended)

You would hope that nature, abhorring a vacuum would force them to accept reality and truth. But apparently it is not a true vacuum, but rather like a missing puzzle piece waiting for a new piece to be forced in there despite the actual fit, to protect the status quo from what really is, as to continue on as if nothing ever happened.

You're right though. When you believe through and through that there are no absolute truths or laws, then everything's fair game to change as comfort dictates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC was not able to do anything of the sort in rehabbing McCarthy's reputation.

Simply read her material, go back to first definitions, then to the footnotes, and you will find the disconnet everytime.

She is good for research purposes!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC was not able to do anything of the sort in rehabbing McCarthy's reputation.

Simply read her material, go back to first definitions, then to the footnotes, and you will find the disconnet everytime.

She is good for research purposes!

Sorry I can't return the compliment.

Sadly you are not good "for research purposes" as you are unable to produce sources to document your 'beliefs.'

Although I have studied the pertinent documents, and listed three or four books on the topic, you have been able to refer to...none.

What you are able to do is exactly what the left, and those of limited ability and/or motivation always do: whine, and stamp their feet, and rely on belief rather than knowledge.

Makes life easier, I guess...but not much in the way of building one's self respect.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Still waiting for you to address the rest of the quote

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC was not able to do anything of the sort in rehabbing McCarthy's reputation.

Simply read her material, go back to first definitions, then to the footnotes, and you will find the disconnet everytime.

She is good for research purposes!

Sorry I can't return the compliment.

Sadly you are not good "for research purposes" as you are unable to produce sources to document your 'beliefs.'

Although I have studied the pertinent documents, and listed three or four books on the topic, you have been able to refer to...none.

What you are able to do is exactly what the left, and those of limited ability and/or motivation always do: whine, and stamp their feet, and rely on belief rather than knowledge.

Makes life easier, I guess...but not much in the way of building one's self respect.

I have dismantled every argument of yours to which I have responded, so I am not too concerned with your comments. But you are good for smiles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC was not able to do anything of the sort in rehabbing McCarthy's reputation.

Simply read her material, go back to first definitions, then to the footnotes, and you will find the disconnet everytime.

She is good for research purposes!

Sorry I can't return the compliment.

Sadly you are not good "for research purposes" as you are unable to produce sources to document your 'beliefs.'

Although I have studied the pertinent documents, and listed three or four books on the topic, you have been able to refer to...none.

What you are able to do is exactly what the left, and those of limited ability and/or motivation always do: whine, and stamp their feet, and rely on belief rather than knowledge.

Makes life easier, I guess...but not much in the way of building one's self respect.

I have dismantled every argument of yours to which I have responded, so I am not too concerned with your comments. But you are good for smiles.

Then, if you don't mind, who were the 'innocent victims of Senator McCarthy...and how did they suffer'?

Just list three or four...


I, on the other hand, had no trouble naming Soviet agents whose identity was revealed.


See what I mean?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have twisted the very meanings of the sources and the definitions. You have done that in other posting so that you can get to the position that you have taken a priori. So, no, I am not going to validate your position by going into it again.

Anyone can begin with your premise, go the definitions, go the history, go the sources and foot notes and see clearly what you do. And this is as much time as I will take with you on the matter.

As I said, you are good for smiles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have twisted the very meanings of the sources and the definitions. You have done that in other posting so that you can get to the position that you have taken a priori. So, no, I am not going to validate your position by going into it again.

Anyone can begin with your premise, go the definitions, go the history, go the sources and foot notes and see clearly what you do. And this is as much time as I will take with you on the matter.

As I said, you are good for smiles.

So, I take it you are unable or unwilling to simply provide the proof that you claim to have supported your attack on Senator McCarthy.

Since you have reopened what had been settled, let's review:

In mindless fashion you have attacked the honorable Senator consistent with the left wing static that, no doubt you have heard many, many times. Thinking and questioning, alas, appear not to be your 'strong suit.'

I showed in every case that the attacks are bogus, and no more than left wing smoke and mirrrors designed to erase the fact that the Democrats were more than willing to turn our government over to paid Soviet agents, and to behave, as you have- with naught but bluster when exposed.

To win the game you must simply provide a handful of examples of 'innocent American citizens whoses lives were ruined by exposure as communists, by Senator McCarthy.'

Care to play?


You realize, of course, that if you cannot do so, you will be revealed as a believer in left wing dogma and cant, to the exclusion of knowledge, and facts.
Best of luck.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

so... the rest of that quote, pubes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have twisted the very meanings of the sources and the definitions. You have done that in other posting so that you can get to the position that you have taken a priori. So, no, I am not going to validate your position by going into it again.

Anyone can begin with your premise, go the definitions, go the history, go the sources and foot notes and see clearly what you do. And this is as much time as I will take with you on the matter.

As I said, you are good for smiles.

So, I take it you are unable or unwilling to simply provide the proof that you claim to have supported your attack on Senator McCarthy.

Since you have reopened what had been settled, let's review:

In mindless fashion you have attacked the honorable Senator consistent with the left wing static that, no doubt you have heard many, many times. Thinking and questioning, alas, appear not to be your 'strong suit.'

I showed in every case that the attacks are bogus, and no more than left wing smoke and mirrrors designed to erase the fact that the Democrats were more than willing to turn our government over to paid Soviet agents, and to behave, as you have- with naught but bluster when exposed.

To win the game you must simply provide a handful of examples of 'innocent American citizens whoses lives were ruined by exposure as communists, by Senator McCarthy.'

Care to play?


You realize, of course, that if you cannot do so, you will be revealed as a believer in left wing dogma and cant, to the exclusion of knowledge, and facts.
Best of luck.

I don't have to play, because the objective record speaks for itself. You lost before we even started, PC.