Violence Has It's Home On The Left.

[PoliticalChic]

p.c. you seem really condescending. in just about every post you make, you position yourself from a perch of superiority. what makes your opinion more important than anyone elses?
maybe you should be relegated to to the looney bin section of this forum... (actually it's not that bad a place)

Very perceptive of you.

Carry on.

 

[Ravi]

Liberals can't be Christian?

Sure...but PC twisted his heritage into something it isn't.

The fact of the matter is, in the United States Christians are responsible for the majority of violent crimes.

And most terrorists are Muslim. But you refuse to acknowledge that, don't you?

Jeesh...you make rightwingloons look sane. Did you ever post under the name tboater?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You want the most pertinent relevant important example - to Americans - of Liberal Violence?

Easy.

The American Revolution.

So you win. Liberalism has some history of violence in this country.

Now condemn it.

I must admit that I am sooooo happy to have you on this board, Carby, as your unparalleled ignorance allows me to expound, and educate readers.

The classical liberals of American Revolution fame were not the pretenders that became your predecessors.

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.’

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
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the (classical) liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

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://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_61/ai_n45566374/

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://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_61/ai_n45566374/

e. From Herbert Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14 So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?


I bolded parts for you Carby, as I understand your ADD.

 

[daveman]

Sure...but PC twisted his heritage into something it isn't.

The fact of the matter is, in the United States Christians are responsible for the majority of violent crimes.

And most terrorists are Muslim. But you refuse to acknowledge that, don't you?

Jeesh...you make rightwingloons look sane. Did you ever post under the name tboater?

See? You can't acknowledge the fact, choosing instead to lash out emotionally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And most terrorists are Muslim. But you refuse to acknowledge that, don't you?

Jeesh...you make rightwingloons look sane. Did you ever post under the name tboater?

See? You can't acknowledge the fact, choosing instead to lash out emotionally.

Now, now, Daveman, cut the Ravist a little slack, she's under a great deal of pressure...

her worldview is crumbling before her very eyes...

 

[daveman]

Jeesh...you make rightwingloons look sane. Did you ever post under the name tboater?

See? You can't acknowledge the fact, choosing instead to lash out emotionally.

Now, now, Daveman, cut the Ravist a little slack, she's under a great deal of pressure...

her worldview is crumbling before her very eyes...

It's kinda sad when hippies grow up, innit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want the most pertinent relevant important example - to Americans - of Liberal Violence?

Easy.

The American Revolution.

So you win. Liberalism has some history of violence in this country.

Now condemn it.

There are vast differences between the liberals of the past and the liberals of today.

Liberalism used to be about liberty. It's not any more. Now it's about government control over individual lives.

The liberals of today would have fought for the Crown.

Don't you make your living in the military? Doesn't that pay your bills? And you're crying about the government taking your liberties?

HEE-larious!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't give a shit what you want to hear. You want to ignore the history of leftist violence, you go right ahead.

So you're too big a ***** to state your opinion on the politics of Sirhan Sirhan?

Big surprise.

Stamp your feet and pout some more. I know you feel like you're entitled to everything, but it's time you realized the world doesn't revolve around you, boy.

Don't try to blame me for your own gutlessness.

Show some personal responsibility.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Left violent? No way? Can't be? The Black Panthers only want to murder White babies. What's so violent about that? Quit nitpicking. Sheesh!

 

[jillian]

The Left violent? No way? Can't be? The Black Panthers only want to murder White babies. What's so violent about that? Quit nitpicking. Sheesh!

and the KKK never lynched black folk, right?

yet another disingenuous, ugly thread with an O/P masking hate inside of the pretense of some warped type of pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[Ravi]

And most terrorists are Muslim. But you refuse to acknowledge that, don't you?

Jeesh...you make rightwingloons look sane. Did you ever post under the name tboater?

See? You can't acknowledge the fact, choosing instead to lash out emotionally.

I've no idea if most terrorists are muslims or not. And as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with PC's OP.

Unless you are trying to make the connection between rightwingloon Muslims and rightwingloon Christians and Republicans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So NO ONE here can make a coherent argument that Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal?

Anyone here even want to argue that claiming Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal is not the stupidest thing posted so far this week?

 

[Ravi]

The Left violent? No way? Can't be? The Black Panthers only want to murder White babies. What's so violent about that? Quit nitpicking. Sheesh!

and the KKK never lynched black folk, right?

yet another disingenuous, ugly thread with an O/P masking hate inside of the pretense of some warped type of pseudo-intellectualism.

Yep...I don't usually bother with her threads anymore...I guess I was bored this morning.

 

[daveman]

You want the most pertinent relevant important example - to Americans - of Liberal Violence?

Easy.

The American Revolution.

So you win. Liberalism has some history of violence in this country.

Now condemn it.

There are vast differences between the liberals of the past and the liberals of today.

Liberalism used to be about liberty. It's not any more. Now it's about government control over individual lives.

The liberals of today would have fought for the Crown.

Don't you make your living in the military? Doesn't that pay your bills? And you're crying about the government taking your liberties?

HEE-larious!!!

Gosh, you're not very bright. I knew what I was getting into. It's part of the deal, and me and the military have a signed contract.

I did NOT, however, sign any contract stating the government can force me to purchase anything. You want to think your blind Democrat vote means you can give away your liberty, fine. But don't think your agreement is binding on me.

Some people don't need the government to make all their decisions for them. You do, and that's okay.

The rest of us don't.

 

[Ravi]

So NO ONE here can make a coherent argument that Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal?

Anyone here even want to argue that claiming Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal is not the stupidest thing posted so far this week?

Yeah...the statement that John Wilkes Booth was a liberal is the stupidest thing posted so far this week.

 

[daveman]

So you're too big a ***** to state your opinion on the politics of Sirhan Sirhan?

Big surprise.

Stamp your feet and pout some more. I know you feel like you're entitled to everything, but it's time you realized the world doesn't revolve around you, boy.

Don't try to blame me for your own gutlessness.

Show some personal responsibility.

You're projecting, boy.

 

[jillian]

So NO ONE here can make a coherent argument that Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal?

Anyone here even want to argue that claiming Sirhan Sirhan is a liberal is not the stupidest thing posted so far this week?

Yeah...the statement that John Wilkes Booth was a liberal is the stupidest thing posted so far this week.

who was the moron who said that?