How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief...

[Indeependent]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

Here's one that I didn't even think of, but got while watching a YouTube video, and this one was talked about by Bill Maher.

The grammys...the music industry, another group dominated by liberals...and yet again, show their hypocrisy.

For a group that talks about equality and equity, yet every year they hold an award show to give awards to people who's music was better than others. Same with the Oscar's.

That's not equality.

Bill Maher has been shitting on the Liberals for a good couple of weeks.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

Here's one that I didn't even think of, but got while watching a YouTube video, and this one was talked about by Bill Maher.

The grammys...the music industry, another group dominated by liberals...and yet again, show their hypocrisy.

For a group that talks about equality and equity, yet every year they hold an award show to give awards to people who's music was better than others. Same with the Oscar's.

That's not equality.

Bill Maher has been shitting on the Liberals for a good couple of weeks.

True, despite bill being mostly liberal, I always liked him, mostly because he's straight to the point and consistent, but also because he seems to not hold back on his own. He will call out the left as much as he will the right.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

 

[Mac1958]

Maher is an actual liberal. He treasures our most liberal value, freedom of expression.

That's why many on the illiberal authoritarian Left despise him.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

 

[struth]

Adam Shifty, and the Dems RussianGate Hoax, reminded me a lot of the McCarthy Era.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Adam Shifty, and the Dems RussianGate Hoax, reminded me a lot of the McCarthy Era.

This is how I view every libturd.

 

[Correll]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Except that Trump had a very meaty platform, and ran an issue heavy campaign and made what appeared to be a good faith effort to live up to most of it, especially considering the handicap of hysterical and illegal "RESIST" from the dems and the Deep State and then of course COVID.


SO, other than the fact that everything you said was wrong, good op.

No he did not. He ran on nothing but resentment and hAte. His campaign was reminiscent of Hitler's campaign when he was elected. Hatred of minorities and the supremacy of whites.

Says the guy that supported a looney whose only objective is to undo anything Trump....go figure.

Not exactly. It was Trump who tried to cancel out everything done under Obama. Biden is just putting it back the way it was.

OMG the trump person you replied to cheered trump on as trump reversed or undid what Obama did. If Obama did, trump went out to undo it.

The trump people were ecstatic and cheered trump on. They were proud of it and wanted everything that Obama did to be undone by trump.

Now that Biden is reversing the horrible things trump did the same trump supporters are now whining about it. LOL.

They were warned in the trump years that the next democratic president would undo what trump did but they refused to see a time when trump wasn't president anymore. Which is weird because a president can only serve for 2 terms.

I do enjoy watching them whine and cry. It couldn't happen to more deserving jerks.

You are crafting a narrative out of what completely different people did at different times and telling yourself that they are a coherent group acting together.


Settle down. I knew that a dem president would reverse shit. I was not "ecstatic" when Trump did shit.


I was cautiously optimistic at times and hopeful when we got good news.


YOu need to calm down. YOu are manic. Someday, you will get bad news.

 

[Correll]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Except that Trump had a very meaty platform, and ran an issue heavy campaign and made what appeared to be a good faith effort to live up to most of it, especially considering the handicap of hysterical and illegal "RESIST" from the dems and the Deep State and then of course COVID.


SO, other than the fact that everything you said was wrong, good op.

No he did not. He ran on nothing but resentment and hAte. His campaign was reminiscent of Hitler's campaign when he was elected. Hatred of minorities and the supremacy of whites.

Says the guy that supported a looney whose only objective is to undo anything Trump....go figure.

Not exactly. It was Trump who tried to cancel out everything done under Obama. Biden is just putting it back the way it was.

Trump had real issues on his own. ONly a lying whore would claim otherwise.

I said nothing about that, freak.

You acted as though Trump was doing nothing but being anti-Biden.


Trump had real issues that he really addressed. Trade Policy was different under Trump. It had real world effects. Immigration policy was different under Trump. It has real world effects.


You are blinded by partisan zeal.

 

[struth]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Ronald Reagan did not run on the politics of division. He ran a policy oriented campaign in 1980 as he ran on cutting taxes and a strong defense. During the 80's you had Gingrich and Jack Kemp talking about a opportunity society. The Heritage Foundation among others outlined a conservative war on policy. Sadly iy began to unravel. George Bush was forced to run on social issues that included a racist Willie Horton ad. Gingrich became morew redical as he started the politics of division. Trump took up the mantle in 2016.

what was racist about the Willie Horton ad? He was a convicted murder, serving a life sentence, that the Dem Gov, and President nominee, Dukakis, let out for the weekend...he didn't return...shockingly....and surprise, surprise....violently assaulted a man, and then brutally raped repeatedly....I think that's far game to highlight that the person you are running against...contributed to, with their reckless policies.

 

[Mac-7]

Maher is an actual liberal. He treasures our most liberal value, freedom of expression.

Obviously more than the Never Trump left who want to drive trumps message out of the public square

 

[Hellokitty]

LOL, so now the right is using words incorrectly...communist, socialist, or whatever has become a catch all for calling liberals, specifically Hollywood liberals, hypocrites wanting to impose a lifestyle on others that they don't have to follow.

Er, no. As explained earlier in the thread, communism is an economic system. Nobody on Hollywood follows that system. No calling them liberal, is probably closer to the truth. Imposing lifestyles on others? You mean like, no abortions? Not allowing women or dem darn nigras the right to vote? All conservative platforms at one time or another.

I was thinking more along the lines of liberals who support things like taxing the rich while doing everything they can to hold onto their wealth, or the ones who whine about climate change while taking a priviate jet to accept an award...as for your comment on voting, Biden is the one who declared if you don't vote for him "you ain't black".

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

 

[Faun]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Except that Trump had a very meaty platform, and ran an issue heavy campaign and made what appeared to be a good faith effort to live up to most of it, especially considering the handicap of hysterical and illegal "RESIST" from the dems and the Deep State and then of course COVID.


SO, other than the fact that everything you said was wrong, good op.

No he did not. He ran on nothing but resentment and hAte. His campaign was reminiscent of Hitler's campaign when he was elected. Hatred of minorities and the supremacy of whites.

Says the guy that supported a looney whose only objective is to undo anything Trump....go figure.

Not exactly. It was Trump who tried to cancel out everything done under Obama. Biden is just putting it back the way it was.

Trump had real issues on his own. ONly a lying whore would claim otherwise.

I said nothing about that, freak.

You acted as though Trump was doing nothing but being anti-Biden.


Trump had real issues that he really addressed. Trade Policy was different under Trump. It had real world effects. Immigration policy was different under Trump. It has real world effects.


You are blinded by partisan zeal.

You're brain-dead, con. I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out something he did. That does not in any way mean he did nothing else. Don't blame me for your own personal shortcomings in life.

 

[Correll]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Except that Trump had a very meaty platform, and ran an issue heavy campaign and made what appeared to be a good faith effort to live up to most of it, especially considering the handicap of hysterical and illegal "RESIST" from the dems and the Deep State and then of course COVID.


SO, other than the fact that everything you said was wrong, good op.

No he did not. He ran on nothing but resentment and hAte. His campaign was reminiscent of Hitler's campaign when he was elected. Hatred of minorities and the supremacy of whites.

Says the guy that supported a looney whose only objective is to undo anything Trump....go figure.

Not exactly. It was Trump who tried to cancel out everything done under Obama. Biden is just putting it back the way it was.

Trump had real issues on his own. ONly a lying whore would claim otherwise.

I said nothing about that, freak.

You acted as though Trump was doing nothing but being anti-Biden.


Trump had real issues that he really addressed. Trade Policy was different under Trump. It had real world effects. Immigration policy was different under Trump. It has real world effects.


You are blinded by partisan zeal.

You're brain-dead, con. I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out something he did. That does not in any way mean he did nothing else. Don't blame me for your own personal shortcomings in life.

 

[Faun]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

Except that Trump had a very meaty platform, and ran an issue heavy campaign and made what appeared to be a good faith effort to live up to most of it, especially considering the handicap of hysterical and illegal "RESIST" from the dems and the Deep State and then of course COVID.


SO, other than the fact that everything you said was wrong, good op.

No he did not. He ran on nothing but resentment and hAte. His campaign was reminiscent of Hitler's campaign when he was elected. Hatred of minorities and the supremacy of whites.

Says the guy that supported a looney whose only objective is to undo anything Trump....go figure.

Not exactly. It was Trump who tried to cancel out everything done under Obama. Biden is just putting it back the way it was.

Trump had real issues on his own. ONly a lying whore would claim otherwise.

I said nothing about that, freak.

You acted as though Trump was doing nothing but being anti-Biden.


Trump had real issues that he really addressed. Trade Policy was different under Trump. It had real world effects. Immigration policy was different under Trump. It has real world effects.


You are blinded by partisan zeal.

You're brain-dead, con. I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out something he did. That does not in any way mean he did nothing else. Don't blame me for your own personal shortcomings in life.

View attachment 471295

LOL

Freak, it's not a lie just because you're a moron.

 

[Dr Grump]

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

Why not help the poor? I don't mind my tax dollars going to programmes to help the poor. What do you mean liberals don't reach into their own pockets? How the hell would you know that?
You constitution once had slavery and prohibition on the books. Now they are gone. It is not a holy document.

I think the pendulum has swung too much too the left, but think it will right itself eventually.

How about this, you want to help the poor? Let's do it like this, the government gives you an option that they will take 15% less from you in taxes, as long as you donate that money to a charity of your choice (and yes, it would have to be a legitimate charity). You want to help the poor, that would be a way to do it. To keep asking for more and more in the way of taxation is not the way to do it. At some point, you can only take so much of peoples money.

I actually think that is not a bad idea. Interesting to note that in the latest 'happiness' report, Finland comes out on top along with most other Scandinavian countries, as well as NZ, Australia and Canada. The nordic countries are pretty heavily taxed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

Well, they have categories like best artist, song of the year, album of the year..or, for academy awards,, best actor, best supporting actor, best picture etc.. Basically, the whole thing is to recognize singers and actors who made the best movies, and it does give them benefits. An academy award winning actor will be offered better roles, and can demand more money for their work. Grammy award winning singers will get asked to do things like movie music, sing at sporting events etc..

So, yes, they do indicate that an artist or actor is better than the others, at least for that year, that's why they win the award.

Your last sentence shows where you diverge from the rest of your liberal crowd. You say equality of opportunity, they say equality of outcome.

Also, in Hollywood, there isn't equality of opportunity. Actors with good looks and muscular bodies are going to get offered better roles. If Tom cruise looked like Gilbert Godfrey, he wouldn't be the draw he is today. Would you have enjoyed the mission impossible movies as much if Dr Phil played the role of Ethan hunt?

You say the more saleable artist makes more money..I agree, but, according to liberals, they should all get the same things. Everyone should get an award. That's what they are teaching the kids these days.