Liberalism's Fatal Flaw

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2008
126,772
62,578
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.



2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.
 
The fatal flaw in liberal ideology is that they think people should be owned as if they were some cattle or slaves. From that, pretty much all the other failures follow.

No need for long lists when it can all be explained so eloquently in one sentence. Inequality is just one convenient justification for the ownership. It is made especially ironic given the fact that these people do everything in their power to end up poor - in effect causing the problem. The irony..
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaw in liberal ideology is that they think people should be owned as if they were some cattle or slaves. From that, pretty much all the other failures follow.

No need for long lists when it can all be explained so eloquently in one sentence.



You do it your way, Norm....I'll do it mine.

See what you think when I complete the thread.
 
Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.
 
Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.


Oooo......based the point that you are struggling to purport, albeit ineffectually.....one can only conclude that you are the board equivalent of Jeb Bush trying to respond to brutal slapping around that I've been forced to administer to you.


Good to see a little life in you.
I attribute same to my efforts.


Bet you'll start to feel better about yourself.....and thank me for it.
 
Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.


Oooo......based the point that you are struggling to purport, albeit ineffectually.....one can only conclude that you are the board equivalent of Jeb Bush trying to respond to brutal slapping around that I've been forced to administer to you.


Good to see a little life in you.
I attribute same to my efforts.


Bet you'll start to feel better about yourself.....and thank me for it.
And right on cue.
.
 
Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.


Oooo......based the point that you are struggling to purport, albeit ineffectually.....one can only conclude that you are the board equivalent of Jeb Bush trying to respond to brutal slapping around that I've been forced to administer to you.


Good to see a little life in you.
I attribute same to my efforts.


Bet you'll start to feel better about yourself.....and thank me for it.
And right on cue.
.



I'm not convinced that you are capable of a serious discussion....after all, you've never produced even a single thoughtful post....but, OK...I'll call you on it.

"Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP."

Classical liberalism, the view of the Founders, and what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....go right ahead and put your foot in your mouth: explain why you have a problem with these doctrines.



Well????
 
Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.


Oooo......based the point that you are struggling to purport, albeit ineffectually.....one can only conclude that you are the board equivalent of Jeb Bush trying to respond to brutal slapping around that I've been forced to administer to you.


Good to see a little life in you.
I attribute same to my efforts.


Bet you'll start to feel better about yourself.....and thank me for it.
And right on cue.
.



So....as per post #10....turns out I was...as usual....correct about you and any serious discussion.

We'll stick to me insulting you.
 
5. The promise of Liberalism....material equality is powerful inducement....it removes the need for personal responsibility, or the work effort.


"Radical egalitarianism owes much to the oh-so-simplistic notion that if social processes were fair, all races and ethnic groups and both sexes would be represented proportionately in all areas. This view decides that the absence of equality of results must mean that the equality of opportunity has been denied.

Demands for complete equality can often be traced to factors such as self-pity, envy, a search for meaning in an otherwise boring existence, and a lack of acceptance of hard work and determination. It is frequently easier to win perks in court, than to earn them."
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."



Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.”

Schoeck discusses a young man whose repressed envy of his hosts and their possessions, made him extremely uncomfortable at their dinner party. “This type of personality can help us to understand the world-wide rebellion of youth since 1966. As the ‘envious guests,’… these young people lack the maturity to be the ‘guests of our affluent society.’”
Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 337-338


Liberals are the 'envious guests' in America.
 
It's always funny to read the whiny ass shit pc writes.

Anyone ever notice that pc never, ever talks about how GREAT the republican ideas and accomplishments ARE.

Instead it is ALWAYS how bad the other side is.

You know your shit is weak and raggedy when that's all you've got.
 
Are you admitting this:
Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.

If it makes you happy, I'm still not sure what liberalism actually is

:alcoholic:




"....I'm still not sure what liberalism actually is..."

That pretty much defines all Liberals.
That's why I'm here....to teach you.

Liberals march lock step in acceptance of the views of their elites, making them appear more like iron filings in a magnetic field than a thinking human being.

I appreciate your honesty on the matter.
 
It's always funny to read the whiny ass shit pc writes.

Anyone ever notice that pc never, ever talks about how GREAT the republican ideas and accomplishments ARE.

Instead it is ALWAYS how bad the other side is.

You know your shit is weak and raggedy when that's all you've got.



Be sure to return when you when you learn to speak civilly to your betters.
 
"....I'm still not sure what liberalism actually is..."

That pretty much defines all Liberals.
That's why I'm here....to teach you.

Liberals march lock step in acceptance of the views of their elites, making them appear more like iron filings in a magnetic field than a thinking human being.

I appreciate your honesty on the matter.

Thanks, but that still doesn't explain what a liberal actually is

I gather it's the opposite of a conservative but that doesn't really help because I also don't know what it is that conservatives want to conserve (other than bibles and guns that is)

:banana:
 
1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.



2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.

If it were a fatal flaw, Liberalism would be dead.

Liberalism, however, is thriving and Conservatism is dying.

How about that?
 
"....I'm still not sure what liberalism actually is..."

That pretty much defines all Liberals.
That's why I'm here....to teach you.

Liberals march lock step in acceptance of the views of their elites, making them appear more like iron filings in a magnetic field than a thinking human being.

I appreciate your honesty on the matter.

Thanks, but that still doesn't explain what a liberal actually is

I gather it's the opposite of a conservative but that doesn't really help because I also don't know what it is that conservatives want to conserve (other than bibles and guns that is)

:banana:

PolitcalChic believes that Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional and therefore should be abolished.
Let the poor be poor, let healthcare be only available to those who can pay for it at market prices.

Fortunately normal Americans are more enlightened.
 

Forum List

Back
Top