On Tossing Around The Term "Fascist"

[PoliticalChic]

OP frequently calls everything remotely left wing communist. (I'm back.)

You're back?

Who asked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. The elites, the intellectual leaders of our Liberals, Progressives, Democrat Party all the spawn of the radicals of the 60's, the SDS thugs...


Let's review who these folks are:

The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFL-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.
Some prior rumblings had been heard in a nascent civil rights movement, and from the Free Speech movement at Berkeley- but it was the Port Huron meetings that represented the heart of Sixties radicalism.


a. Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses. One member gave this prescription:

“four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

Get that: "four-square against anti-Communism..."
See where Bernie comes from?



b. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.
See Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter one.



And one can clearly see the very same ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescent, in the Oval Office today.

"... an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world..."



And proven to be an abject, total, and abysmal failure.
This is what folks voted or in '08 and in '12.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First Chica, reconcile the accepted general definitions of fascism and fascist with your neoconservative trite wing versions used to divorce you and your brethren of the taint of Nazism and fascism. I reject your revised and sanitized versions, you bloody neofascist!

This post is nothing more than a classic attempt to pigeonhole any person who has any remotely conservative leanings as a person who is extreme. Or comparable to mass murderers.

Is it possible that your ideologies are so far to the opposite end of the spectrum that all other political views seem extreme to you?

Ad hominem at its finest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Folks, it's very important to PoliticalChic that she not face the truth about Nazis being right wing.

It's also equally as important to recognize that modern liberals have adopted parts of the Nazi's platform. Or are we simply going to forget that?

 

[BlindBoo]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I accept your concession posting that lie about the civil rights acts in which the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans defeated the Southern coalition.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I recognize you as a chronic and pathological liar. You have repeatedly lied about various things in your postings, but by far most often after 20+ chances to recant and make amends for your lies re: JUST the following point you continue to lie so here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[2aguy]

5. Now...about the correct usage of "Fascist,".....it is a collectivist, statist doctrine.

That means a belief in a centralized government that dictates every aspect of its citizens existence, citizens who are expected to march in lock-step.


"..... but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, asthe American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
Goldberg






As America was founded on a very different belief set....i.e., individualism, and limited constitutional government, neither the Founders, nor classical liberals- who would be called conservatives today, can be identified as "Fascists."

Clearly a no-no!


No doubt all sorts of terms, scatological and otherwise, are used by opponents....and many are arguable....but Fascist is clearly incorrect, a bogus attempt to sound educated....you know, less a 'barnyardism.'






6. Further, no ideology which does not include defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society would be accurate.


Thus....conservatives cannot be Fascists, communists, Modern Liberals, socialists, Nazis or Progressives.



So sorry.

Political Chic....you did it again...bring the truth, facts, and reality to those unfortunate souls lured into leftism by an education system, an entertainment system and a news system that just will not let the truth out......

 

[2aguy]

Your definition of facism is completely wrong:

To correct that:

Best Answer: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Of special interest: statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

The racism, militarism, anti-communism, corporatism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism is at the heart of the American conservative movement. Racism has bubbled to the surface in the Republican Party in a way that moderate Republicans are finding repugnant. The rest of the world is watching the rise of Donald Trump and his racism with appalled horror.

Facism has always been the dark side of the conservative movement, one which Republicans thought they could control. It took the election of a black man to bring it to the fore, but that is what has happened. Obama didn't divide the US racially. That divide was already there. His election lead to racists becoming more overt, like overturning the rocks on the shore to see what slithered out.

Wrong....all of those things can be found in socialism...read what marx had to say about the people behind the historical curve......racism has never been a part of the republican party...the democrat party is the home of racism in America...all of the core groups of the democrat party are openly, and proudly racist and also openly leftist.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I accept your concession posting that lie about the civil rights acts in which the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans defeated the Southern coalition.

Looks like I'll have to beat you up again....

"The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, introduced by Representative Leonidas C. Dyer, a Republican fromSt. Louis, Missouri, in theUnited States House of Representativesin 1918, was directed at punishinglynchingsand mob violence. The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 26, 1922 but its passage was halted by a Southern Democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

Attempts to propose similar legislation took a halt until the 1930s with theCostigan-Wagner Bill.[1]Subsequent bills followed but the United States Congress never outlawed lynching due to Southern Democraticopposition..... The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control,white supremacy, andDemocratic Partyrule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10]Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."
Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have always been racists.

And liars, as you've proven.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

First Chica, reconcile the accepted general definitions of fascism and fascist with your neoconservative trite wing versions used to divorce you and your brethren of the taint of Nazism and fascism. I reject your revised and sanitized versions, you bloody neofascist!

This post is nothing more than a classic attempt to pigeonhole any person who has any remotely conservative leanings as a person who is extreme. Or comparable to mass murderers.

Is it possible that your ideologies are so far to the opposite end of the spectrum that all other political views seem extreme to you?

Ad hominem at its finest.

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

 

[Dragonlady]

Your definition of facism is completely wrong:

To correct that:

Best Answer: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Of special interest: statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

The racism, militarism, anti-communism, corporatism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism is at the heart of the American conservative movement. Racism has bubbled to the surface in the Republican Party in a way that moderate Republicans are finding repugnant. The rest of the world is watching the rise of Donald Trump and his racism with appalled horror.

Facism has always been the dark side of the conservative movement, one which Republicans thought they could control. It took the election of a black man to bring it to the fore, but that is what has happened. Obama didn't divide the US racially. That divide was already there. His election lead to racists becoming more overt, like overturning the rocks on the shore to see what slithered out.

Wrong....all of those things can be found in socialism...read what marx had to say about the people behind the historical curve......racism has never been a part of the republican party...the democrat party is the home of racism in America...all of the core groups of the democrat party are openly, and proudly racist and also openly leftist.....

Wrong again. The Republican Party is the party of the Nazis, the KKK, and other facist and racists. The Republicans are the party of angry old white men. It's why black, Latinos, and Asians don't vote Republican. You can tell yourself that the left is racist until the cows come home, but that won't make it so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Folks, it's very important to PoliticalChic that she not face the truth about Nazis being right wing.

It's also equally as important to recognize that modern liberals have adopted parts of the Nazi's platform. Or are we simply going to forget that?

And have accepted wholly the platform of the CPUSA (Communist Party, USA).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your definition of facism is completely wrong:

To correct that:

Best Answer: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Of special interest: statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

The racism, militarism, anti-communism, corporatism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism is at the heart of the American conservative movement. Racism has bubbled to the surface in the Republican Party in a way that moderate Republicans are finding repugnant. The rest of the world is watching the rise of Donald Trump and his racism with appalled horror.

Facism has always been the dark side of the conservative movement, one which Republicans thought they could control. It took the election of a black man to bring it to the fore, but that is what has happened. Obama didn't divide the US racially. That divide was already there. His election lead to racists becoming more overt, like overturning the rocks on the shore to see what slithered out.

Wrong....all of those things can be found in socialism...read what marx had to say about the people behind the historical curve......racism has never been a part of the republican party...the democrat party is the home of racism in America...all of the core groups of the democrat party are openly, and proudly racist and also openly leftist.....

Wrong again. The Republican Party is the party of the Nazis, the KKK, and other facist and racists. The Republicans are the party of angry old white men. It's why black, Latinos, and Asians don't vote Republican. You can tell yourself that the left is racist until the cows come home, but that won't make it so.

I just proved otherwise.

I suppose you're lying out of embarrassment.


....or stupidity.

 

[2aguy]

An actual definition of fascism....and American Conservatives do not fit the definition...the whole...limited government and individual rights.....sets them apart from the leftwing fascists who believe in the government controlling everything...

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases

Sure it was, except for the fact the the Democrats held the majority of both houses in Congress. They even had a super majority in the Senate.

So you've posted another lie.

It's what you do.

You can also get 15% off car insurance if you switch to Gieco too.

Any who read this exchange will recognize which of us is the liar.

They might notice you couldn't answer whether you read the book you disparaged, or that you were afraid to challenge my statement that Bill 'the rapist' Clinton was a racist, or that Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

I accept your concession posting that lie about the civil rights acts in which the coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans defeated the Southern coalition.

1. 
   The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans. More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate.
   Sharpton Doesn't Know Higher Percentage of Republicans ...
   www.newsbusters.org/.../sharpton-doesnt-know-higher-per...
   NewsBusters.org

Caught you lying again,huh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

They were the insurgents of the day. By 1877 they had largely won the day when the Federal troops finally quit their occupation of the South. It wasn't long before those conservative Southerners began the Jim Crow era. What did the Southern conservatives do after the Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans forced Civil rights down their collective throats? What was Nixons' plan?

Poor PC and her belief in Goldberg's comedy.

"Poor PC and her belief in Goldberg's comedy."

I enjoy pointing out the frequency with which Liberal posts are filled with hot air....

....let's see if yours is:

Jonah Goldberg's magnificent tome is "Liberal Fascism."

You call it a 'comedy.'




Did you read it?

You were going to tell us what made John F. Kennedy a Fascist. Have you forgotten?

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Poor PC and her belief in Goldberg's comedy."

I enjoy pointing out the frequency with which Liberal posts are filled with hot air....

....let's see if yours is:

Jonah Goldberg's magnificent tome is "Liberal Fascism."

You call it a 'comedy.'




Did you read it?

You were going to tell us what made John F. Kennedy a Fascist. Have you forgotten?

You lie again.

Hence, the NYLiar.

There's more of your calling others a liar when the lie is yours, so you ignorant twit, here it is again;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


.."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

God you're so damn original, Chica...NOT! Copying my methods only displays your lack of original thought, which only amplifies the obvious reason you rely so heavily on Copy & Paste to put up a post! Did someone at some point in your life drop a big package bundle of Costco toilet paper on your head and wipe you out? Just sayin'...

And again you lied because substituting words to change the meaning from speaking to the topic of activist LAWYERS to activist JUDGES is a fucking LIE, Chica, you bloody fool!

So you're getting it again...ready;

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

I never lie.

I love when you help me prove that...

...let's prove it together:


BTW...."[Liberal judicial activism]"is a clear description of an individual doing what Rehnquist describes.


That's the reason for the brackets: it states that these are not the author's words, but his meaning.


It means exactly what I said it means.


It is correct and accurate.

And so is this:
Gads....you're dumber than asphalt.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

How many angels can YOU get to dance on the head of a pin, IDIOT! Speaking a truism is not to reaffirm anything but truth and sometimes correct error, most often that of others like yourself, foolish tool!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh bullshit! I'm a conservative myself you jack-off. I'm not trite-wing dogmatic neoconservative puppet vacuously parroting the "minders" jingoisms. You have no fucking insight into where I am politically, fool, by you own erroneous words! So fuck you very much!

No you aren't. If you were, you wouldn't need to reaffirm your so called "conservatism" to me.

Are you one of those types who like to wear pyramid hats?

How many angels can YOU get to dance on the head of a pin, IDIOT! Speaking a truism is not to reaffirm anything but truth and sometimes correct error, most often that of others like yourself, foolish tool!

He really nailed you, huh?

Smarts a bit????

Couldn't happen to a nicer.