Liberalism, Poverty, and Babies

[PoliticalChic]

Proving that you are clueless seems akin to gilding the lily....totally excessive, as you prove it yourself time and again.


For example: ""Liberal" is what founded this country,...."

Of course, that is bogus.

The appellation under which you fly is the name that communist John Dewey substituted for the original name, 'socialism.'


Class is back in session, get your pencil, and take notes:



1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’ Dewey, of course, was a favorite of the USSR.

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




2.Classical liberalism....conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical]liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias.

Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.

Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


3. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Now, what have you learned?

1. Classical Liberals, i.e., conservatives, founded this nation based on individualism, private property, and limits on power.

Note how these ideas are the very antithesis of those advanced by what is called "liberalism" today.

2. Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding


3. And, most particularly....we've learned...proven....that you are an ass.



Ready for the quiz?

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.

"Though McCarthy was eventually discredited..."

Must you insist on proving what an idiot you are????



1. Arthur Herman, author of "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," says that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact."

2. And The New York Post's Eric Fettmann has noted: "growing historical evidence underscores that, whatever his rhetorical and investigative excesses - and they were substantial - McCarthy was a lot closer to the truth about Communism than were his foes."

3. McCarthy’s targets are still defended by the left. Arthur Schlesinger, jr, liberal writer and Pulitzer Prize recipient, bitterly denounced anyone who said Duggan was a spy…until the Venona decrypts proved it. (Ronald Radosh, “The Book Club, The Cold War: Still a Hot Topic, Slate Magazine, June 24, 1999)

 

[Pogo]

^^ See what I mean? An oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define...

Here, once again running to defend a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. Like rats after the pied piper.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^^ See what I mean?

And again.

Every thing I wrote is correct....including you being an idiot.


Yet, it so obvious, I feel it almost unnecessary.... like putting a dunking chair on the Titanic.


OK...It it my guilty pleasure, making certain that you get what you deserve.

 

[Pogo]

Why do I get the impression PC hasn't got laid in about a thousand years...

 

[PoliticalChic]

^^ See what I mean? An oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define...

How many times do I have to remind you to use words you can define.

There is nothing 'oblique' in my personal attacks.
Here, watch: YOU idiot!!




You should only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do I get the impression PC hasn't got laid in about a thousand years...

Why is it that whenever I eviscerate some Leftist dolt, their Pavlovian response is junior high school sexual reference.


Bet all the other kiddies in the little boy's room thought that was a real knee-slapper.



Of course, literate folks already saw me provide the information that you cannot dispute...and that prove you are so dumb you can only hitchhike in one direction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^^ See what I mean? An oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define...

Here, once again running to defend a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. Like rats after the pied piper.

So....you're admitting that you never read the Venona Papers....or any of the books by Haynes and Klehr?


Maybe that's a reason why you are self-identified as an idiot.

Could be?

 

[Peterf]

Proving that you are clueless seems akin to gilding the lily....totally excessive, as you prove it yourself time and again.


For example: ""Liberal" is what founded this country,...."

Of course, that is bogus.

The appellation under which you fly is the name that communist John Dewey substituted for the original name, 'socialism.'


Class is back in session, get your pencil, and take notes:



1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’ Dewey, of course, was a favorite of the USSR.

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




2.Classical liberalism....conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical]liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias.

Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.

Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


3. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Now, what have you learned?

1. Classical Liberals, i.e., conservatives, founded this nation based on individualism, private property, and limits on power.

Note how these ideas are the very antithesis of those advanced by what is called "liberalism" today.

2. Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding


3. And, most particularly....we've learned...proven....that you are an ass.



Ready for the quiz?

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. As you suggest, they intentionally conflate liberal with leftist as if they're the same thing. They succeeded only in degenerating discourse to an oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.

Thank you for this historical resume.

McCarthy was, as you say, a disgraceful person. A drunk and a lot more besides. One of the other things he was, at least in part, was correct. There were indeed communist traitors at the heart of US government. And in Hollywood.

One of the seemingly irradicable delusions is that niceness and fitness to govern go hand in hand. Carter, by all accounts, is a very nice man. But he was a useless President. One of the best Presidents - ending the Vietnam war, opening to China - was Nixon who seems to have been rather unpleasant.

The left, under any name, have been a disaster whenever they have been in power. Just one current example. In France Hollande's Socialists are destroying the land of my birth as we sit typing on our keyboards.

 

[Pogo]

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. As you suggest, they intentionally conflate liberal with leftist as if they're the same thing. They succeeded only in degenerating discourse to an oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.

Thank you for this historical resume.

McCarthy was, as you say, a disgraceful person. A drunk and a lot more besides. One of the other things he was, at least in part, was correct. There were indeed communist traitors at the heart of US government. And in Hollywood.

One of the seemingly irradicable delusions is that niceness and fitness to govern go hand in hand. Carter, by all accounts, is a very nice man. But he was a useless President. One of the best Presidents - ending the Vietnam war, opening to China - was Nixon who seems to have been rather unpleasant.

The left, under any name, have been a disaster whenever they have been in power. Just one current example. In France Hollande's Socialists are destroying the land of my birth as we sit typing on our keyboards.

Tu es Français alors? Autrefois j'ai veçu dans la France, il y a trop beaucoup des ans...

I wasn't talking about McCarthy's "nice or naughty" personally. I was talking about his entire lack of ethics and any shred of honesty. A man who forged his CO's signature in order to acquire a military decoration just because it would further his lust for power, who had equal disdain for any shred of honesty in politics. The whole point was the disingenuous demonization of the word liberal. PC tried to deflect that away but that's what those who can't handle the point do.

By the way, not to feed a tangent but the idea that Nixon "ended the Vietnam war" needs, shall we say, a review. Just sayin'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. As you suggest, they intentionally conflate liberal with leftist as if they're the same thing. They succeeded only in degenerating discourse to an oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.

Thank you for this historical resume.

McCarthy was, as you say, a disgraceful person. A drunk and a lot more besides. One of the other things he was, at least in part, was correct. There were indeed communist traitors at the heart of US government. And in Hollywood.

One of the seemingly irradicable delusions is that niceness and fitness to govern go hand in hand. Carter, by all accounts, is a very nice man. But he was a useless President. One of the best Presidents - ending the Vietnam war, opening to China - was Nixon who seems to have been rather unpleasant.

The left, under any name, have been a disaster whenever they have been in power. Just one current example. In France Hollande's Socialists are destroying the land of my birth as we sit typing on our keyboards.

1. "And in Hollywood."
Senator McCarthy had nothing at all to do with Hollywood.

2. "a disgraceful person."
a. Having been proved wrong on their primary charge against Joe McCarthy, that, ‘Oh, he was imagining some crazy Communist conspiracy to infiltrate the government’- that was the big point- having been proved wrong on that, I would think that liberals would have little less credibility on the rest of their charges. But, in fact…what most people would say [is] “Well, yes, of course, he was right, but he didn’t have to be so mean.”
Coulter, 6-25-03



b. As a result of the Venona Papers, and declassification of KGB files verifies pretty much all of McCarthy’s charges….and no one was ‘ruined’ by McCarthy revelations….The greatest complaint against McCarthy was that he was unkind….even mean….to those in question. But, how can any Democrat lodge that complaint after this:
“Pelosi slams insurers as "immoral" villains

 

[Peterf]

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. As you suggest, they intentionally conflate liberal with leftist as if they're the same thing. They succeeded only in degenerating discourse to an oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.

Thank you for this historical resume.

McCarthy was, as you say, a disgraceful person. A drunk and a lot more besides. One of the other things he was, at least in part, was correct. There were indeed communist traitors at the heart of US government. And in Hollywood.

One of the seemingly irradicable delusions is that niceness and fitness to govern go hand in hand. Carter, by all accounts, is a very nice man. But he was a useless President. One of the best Presidents - ending the Vietnam war, opening to China - was Nixon who seems to have been rather unpleasant.

The left, under any name, have been a disaster whenever they have been in power. Just one current example. In France Hollande's Socialists are destroying the land of my birth as we sit typing on our keyboards.

Tu es Français alors? Autrefois j'ai veçu dans la France, il y a trop beaucoup des ans...

I wasn't talking about McCarthy's "nice or naughty" personally. I was talking about his entire lack of ethics and any shred of honesty. A man who forged his CO's signature in order to acquire a military decoration just because it would further his lust for power, who had equal disdain for any shred of honesty in politics. The whole point was the disingenuous demonization of the word liberal. PC tried to deflect that away but that's what those who can't handle the point do.

By the way, not to feed a tangent but the idea that Nixon "ended the Vietnam war" needs, shall we say, a review. Just sayin'.

Non, je suis Anglais mais ne a Paris. D'ou j'ai parti a l'age de quatre ans - suivi par les chars de l'armee Alemande. C'etait juin 1940.

And now I'm Swedish. Strange isn't it?

MacCarthy, hate him as we do, was to some extent correct. Communists were embedded in the US administration. Who now denies it?

So if it wasn't Nixon who got the US out of Vietnam who was it? Some Democrat?

 

[Pogo]

Thank you for this historical resume.

McCarthy was, as you say, a disgraceful person. A drunk and a lot more besides. One of the other things he was, at least in part, was correct. There were indeed communist traitors at the heart of US government. And in Hollywood.

One of the seemingly irradicable delusions is that niceness and fitness to govern go hand in hand. Carter, by all accounts, is a very nice man. But he was a useless President. One of the best Presidents - ending the Vietnam war, opening to China - was Nixon who seems to have been rather unpleasant.

The left, under any name, have been a disaster whenever they have been in power. Just one current example. In France Hollande's Socialists are destroying the land of my birth as we sit typing on our keyboards.

Tu es Français alors? Autrefois j'ai veçu dans la France, il y a trop beaucoup des ans...

I wasn't talking about McCarthy's "nice or naughty" personally. I was talking about his entire lack of ethics and any shred of honesty. A man who forged his CO's signature in order to acquire a military decoration just because it would further his lust for power, who had equal disdain for any shred of honesty in politics. The whole point was the disingenuous demonization of the word liberal. PC tried to deflect that away but that's what those who can't handle the point do.

By the way, not to feed a tangent but the idea that Nixon "ended the Vietnam war" needs, shall we say, a review. Just sayin'.

Non, je suis Anglais mais ne a Paris. D'ou j'ai parti a l'age de quatre ans - suivi par les chars de l'armee Alemande. C'etait juin 1940.

And now I'm Swedish. Strange isn't it?

MacCarthy, hate him as we do, was to some extent correct. Communists were embedded in the US administration. Who now denies it?

So if it wasn't Nixon who got the US out of Vietnam who was it? Some Democrat?

Again a tangent on Nixon and Vietnam would dilute the thrust here but I do take issue. Nixon escalated it, as did Johnson before him. Neither one had the balls to stop it. Who got us out? We the people did, that's who.

Again, McCarthy's infamous "I have in my hand" list -- a list that changed its number literally every time it was questioned -- wasn't the point. The point was his loose playing with the facts and the words we use in political discourse (specifically liberal) to his own lust for power. The point is not that "he's a bad guy for doing that"; we already know that. The point is that it was, and remains, a dishonest act.

Joe McCarthy really wasn't supposed to be a tangent either. He's the poster boy for the demonization of the term liberal -- one of his many dishonest acts in a life full of them -- but he's not around to take the blame any more. Those who continue the dishonest demagoguery have to take the responsibility now.

 

[rdean]

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

If you would like to try to convince me that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a liberal...I'm all ears.

Remember, these are the same people who believe Lincoln was a "confederate". And when they see the KKK saying they are disbanding because the GOP has co-opted all their ideas, they say it's a lie. Until they hear the ideas, then they stop arguing.

 

[National Socialist]

What's your plan to make things better?

Return to a free market economy, so young men (who are more likely to be business owners) will be able to either run their own businesses or market their talents and skills without a mountain of "license" fees and requirements.

Men will then be more likely to marry a woman when they are younger, since they'll be able to support them.

Returning to a free market economy also means returning to gold and silver backed currency, or, in the meantime, a stable dollar.

No. Capitalism needs eradicated. Only allows rich business owners to get richer on the backs of the poor who have no choice but to take whatever job is offered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

If you would like to try to convince me that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a liberal...I'm all ears.

Remember, these are the same people who believe Lincoln was a "confederate". And when they see the KKK saying they are disbanding because the GOP has co-opted all their ideas, they say it's a lie. Until they hear the ideas, then they stop arguing.

1. Not completely certain at whom you were aiming that fabrication....but it seems appropriate here to include this bit of historic fact:

Every presidential assassin in the history of this nation has been a Liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook-
... none were right-wingers.




2. And....as you bring up the KKK, is this of interest to you:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…”
Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425




3. And this....did you vote for this racist?

Governor Clinton invited Orval Faubus to his inauguration and they exchanged an almost South American abrazo, embrace,
Booknotes :: Watch

a. Clinton’s mentor was J. William Fulbright, a vehement foe of integration who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

b. Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.
Would you embrace Faubus?




4. One more thing? Are you one of those anti-racists who worship FDR?

Then, you might wish to consider this:
Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.”
Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



Consider the above a lesson in how to construct a post that absolutely destroys a political opponent.

You should work on yours.

 

[Vox]

Why do I get the impression PC hasn't got laid in about a thousand years...

because you are projecting

it's your constant pain so you see it everywhere

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's your plan to make things better?

Return to a free market economy, so young men (who are more likely to be business owners) will be able to either run their own businesses or market their talents and skills without a mountain of "license" fees and requirements.

Men will then be more likely to marry a woman when they are younger, since they'll be able to support them.

Returning to a free market economy also means returning to gold and silver backed currency, or, in the meantime, a stable dollar.

No. Capitalism needs eradicated. Only allows rich business owners to get richer on the backs of the poor who have no choice but to take whatever job is offered.

Gee....I wish I had known you ante mortem.
Or...perhaps you only died from the neck up.


A lesson on capitalism:
1. For those U.S. households that were in the lowest earnings quintile (bottom 20 percent) in 2001, only 56 percent of those households remained in that quintile in 2007, and 44 percent had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. Five percent of low-income households in 2001 had moved to one of the top two quintiles in just six years.

2. For those households that were in the highest earnings quintile (top 20 percent) in 2001, 34 percent had moved to a lower quintile by 2007, and 5 percent of those households had moved all the way to the bottom quintile.

3. For those households in the middle earnings quintile (middle 20 percent) in 2001, about one-third moved to a higher quintile by 2007, more than one-fourth moved to a lower quintile, and only 42 percent remained in the same quintile.

4. More than half of the households in the second, third, and fourth quintiles in 2001 moved to a different earnings quintiles by 2007 (see bottom row in chart).
The Federal Reserve Bank study looked at a fairly short time period of only six years, and we would obviously expect to find even more earnings mobility over a longer period of time.

There is also significant mobility for U.S. households living in poverty, according to another study. The Census Bureau reported this month that of the 28.13 million Americans living below the official poverty line in 2004, almost 12 million, or 41.6 percent of those people, were not living in poverty by 2006. The L.A. Times reported these findings with an article titled “Poverty Often a Temporary State, U.S. Census Study Finds.”
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy

 

[Pogo]

Why do I get the impression PC hasn't got laid in about a thousand years...

because you are projecting

it's your constant pain so you see it everywhere

Hehe. Well I was referring obviously to her inability to address any point without whining about the poster on a personal level. That's not the approach of someone comfortable in her own skin, if you know what I mean.

Then again it fits the entire philosophy behind all this -- tearing down people when you can't handle ideas.

 

[Vox]

I always wonder where does the leftard brainwashing machine gets their "numbers" on 40 years of stagnation for the middle class and other fairy tales of how we rot, since when one goes to the open data on labor, income, longevity and other indices - the picture is quite to the contrary.

Not to mention that I, myself, am in one of these moving quintiles

 

[Vox]

Why do I get the impression PC hasn't got laid in about a thousand years...

because you are projecting

it's your constant pain so you see it everywhere

Hehe. Well I was referring obviously to her inability to address any point without whining about the poster on a personal level. That's not the approach of someone comfortable in her own skin, if you know what I mean.

Then again it fits the entire philosophy behind all this -- tearing down people when you can't handle ideas.

that is exactly WHAT you were doing - attempting to tear her down while not being able to handle ideas.

Lying much when caught?

p.s. don't forget to neg in rage - that is also your standard response when you are cornered