The sad fall of liberalism

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

Another example of how extreme and radicalized the liberal ideology has become. The last Democrat president before Barack Obama sounds exactly like Donald Trump. He was respected by the Democrats. Now - this exact same position is called "xenophobic", "bigotry", and other inflammatory accusations from the unhinged left.

 

[P@triot]

We have to listen to liberals whining 24x7 on USMB about how they need government to rescue them because life is unfair and the cards are stacked against them, blah, blah, blah. You want unfair? You want odds stacked against you? Here is a young man running a startup from prison. What is your excuse liberals?

"As long as I have Skype and I have a keyboard and email, I can communicate with my team… This is limited, it has limited what I can do but it hasn’t stopped me from doing anything.”

Meet The Entrepreneur Who Launched A WhatsApp Rival From A Colombian Prison

 

[P@triot]

Yet another prime example. Liberals continuously showcase their inability to grasp such a basic/fundamental truth. One of the core building blocks of success is failure. It's an invaluable learning tool that simply cannot be taught in the classroom. And yet the modern-day liberals entire focus is how to eliminate failure from every sector of society. A person is not allowed to fail - they must be handed unlimited food, housing, healthcare, and cash on demand. A child is not allowed to fail - they must receive trophies, ribbons, awards, and even doctored grades to make them feel good. Businesses are "too big to fail" - they must be bailed out.

In short - liberalism is doing what it always does - creating perpetual failure. Nobody is allowed to feel the pain and learn.

Former Navy SEAL and CEO Shares the Advice That Helped Him Turn Failure to Success as an Entrepreneur

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is. Shame on every single one of you who stands on the left next to these anti-American, Nazi-propaganda pricks...

 

[kaz]

Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

Yes, there's nothing liberal about the people who call themselves liberal. They are authoritarian leftists.

True liberals today are called libertarians, and for the reasons you cited. We support freedom. The idea that government provides freedom is retarded. Government is the biggest threat to our freedom. And "liberals" call for endless infringement on our freedom from government

A true conservative and a true liberal would be a political libertarian

 

[Norman]

Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

Nothing sad about the fall of a coercive ideology. It's like watching the movie "Downfall", you are cheering the entire way...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet another prime example. Liberals continuously showcase their inability to grasp such a basic/fundamental truth. One of the core building blocks of success is failure. It's an invaluable learning tool that simply cannot be taught in the classroom. And yet the modern-day liberals entire focus is how to eliminate failure from every sector of society. A person is not allowed to fail - they must be handed unlimited food, housing, healthcare, and cash on demand. A child is not allowed to fail - they must receive trophies, ribbons, awards, and even doctored grades to make them feel good. Businesses are "too big to fail" - they must be bailed out.

In short - liberalism is doing what it always does - creating perpetual failure. Nobody is allowed to feel the pain and learn.

Former Navy SEAL and CEO Shares the Advice That Helped Him Turn Failure to Success as an Entrepreneur

Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

Yes, there's nothing liberal about the people who call themselves liberal. They are authoritarian leftists.

True liberals today are called libertarians, and for the reasons you cited. We support freedom. The idea that government provides freedom is retarded. Government is the biggest threat to our freedom. And "liberals" call for endless infringement on our freedom from government

A true conservative and a true liberal would be a political libertarian

Big business/corporations are the biggest threat to our freedom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

Nothing sad about the fall of a coercive ideology. It's like watching the movie "Downfall", you are cheering the entire way...

Liberalism hasn't fallen. It keeps advancing. Conservatives haven't won a major battle on an issue in years.

 

[P@triot]

Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites

Nothing sad about the fall of a coercive ideology. It's like watching the movie "Downfall", you are cheering the entire way...

Liberalism hasn't fallen. It keeps advancing. Conservatives haven't won a major battle on an issue in years.

Seriously Carb - how do you stand with such despicable people. Watch that video I posted a few posts above and tell me how you stand with such evil...

 

[P@triot]

Liberalism hasn't fallen. It keeps advancing. Conservatives haven't won a major battle on an issue in years.

Like the rest of the liberals - you have completely misunderstood "fallen". I'm not implying it's gone. I'm simplying pointing out the depths of the depravity it continues to fall too. Such as demanding that men have access to women and little girls in restrooms and locker rooms. Sick. Demented. Disturbing.

 

[Norman]

Liberalism hasn't fallen. It keeps advancing. Conservatives haven't won a major battle on an issue in years.

Like the rest of the liberals - you have completely misunderstood "fallen". I'm not implying it's gone. I'm simplying pointing out the depths of the depravity it continues to fall too. Such as demanding that men have access to women and little girls in restrooms and locker rooms. Sick. Demented. Disturbing.

Of course he wouldn't understand. He only sees one value, power. Screw decency, rationality or truth.

 

[P@triot]

And to think that this is how liberals want the entire nation to function. Under the control of an inefficient, irresponsible, incompetent government...

The unspoken reason the TSA is so terrible

 

[P@triot]

Leave it to liberals to nominate not one, but two criminals for president. It really illustrates just how deranged and radicalized the left has become. No integrity. No character. No morals. Sickening...

Trump was accused of destroying email evidence in lawsuit 10 years ago

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is... A progressive celebrating the brutal death of a precious little toddler solely because of his race (white) and his gender (male).

Feminist Says She Doesn’t Feel Bad About Toddler Killed By Alligator Because She’s ‘So Finished With White Men’s Entitlement’

 

[regent]

QUOTE]
There is little question that America keeps growing more liberal with the passing years. The real problem is that it is growing liberal too fast for many, and efforts are devoted to trying to slow liberalism down to a crawl.

 

[P@triot]

There is little question that America keeps growing more liberal with the passing years. The real problem is that it is growing liberal too fast for many, and efforts are devoted to trying to slow liberalism down to a crawl.

I disagree. What you've seen is liberals take more illegal action in government. But if anything, the nation itself has grown more conservative. First you had the Reagan Revolution. Then you saw the rise of the Tea Party. Hell - even hard core liberal California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage when they crushed Proposition 8 at the polls. So what did liberals do - unconstitutionally sought gay marriage in the Supreme Court. The decision tends to give people the "feel" that liberalism is spreading but really it's been rejected. The only thing that has spread has been unconstitutional liberal actions.

 

[P@triot]

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Liberal lesbians rushing out in droves to buy firearms. Seems that libtards know what they won't admit: more guns = morse security. That being armed keeps people safe.



Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting

 

[P@triot]

Oh candycorn....



"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Seems even Barack Obama agrees that I need to have every single "military-grade" weapon that the U.S. military has in its arsenal. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!