Why Do So Few Admit To Being Liberals?

[JBeukema]

Stop hiding and go back to that thread and answer. Yo claimed half a quote meant someone wanted to destroy America. I proved you a liar and an idiot, And now you've once again shown you haven't changed.

 

[JBeukema]

All she's ever done is post quotes.

And often only half of them. She's still hiding form the thread where I told her to finish the quote. I preovided the rest of the quote and she went into 6 months of hiding.

This is, as I have shown, a total fabrication....

I challenge you to quote both halves of the quote to which you refer.

Both halves mean the same thing.

Bwuh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/112788-beck-9.html#post2219434

 

[Sallow]

This is, as I have shown, a total fabrication....

I challenge you to quote both halves of the quote to which you refer.

Both halves mean the same thing.

Bwuh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/112788-beck-9.html#post2219434

Ah.

Thanks!

 

[AllieBaba]

You guys, whether I agree with PC or not, it always cracks me up when I see people who think personal opinion carries more weight than sourced material. What lightweights you are.

Sourced material is such a vague and moronic phrase to use but no surprise considering who said it.

Example: Someone is quoting Mein Kampf as their "sourced material" to talk about how evil Jews are while I'm using my personal opinion. Now, according to you, Mein Kampf holds more weight.

The only intellectual lightweight here Allie is PC and yourself.

Oh. My. God.

LOL!

So tell me, Slobbert, what degrees do you hold?

How many papers have you completed in your college career? Ever been on a debate team?



I may have to save your post to laugh at later....I think I will post it to my facebook page where everyone can marvel at your idiocy.

 

[snjmom]

Both halves mean the same thing.

Que?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Of course, you do realize that in today's political landscape, JFK would be a Republican, and would be pilloried by the left.

That's a time worn myth.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?
John F. Kennedy - Wikiquote

Add in he was villified as a communist/catholic "manchurian" candidate by the Birchers, who are the equivalent of today's Tea Party.

JFK cut taxes. Democrats today want to repeal the tax cuts, which is effectively a tax increase, the exact opposite of what their supposed role model John F. Kennedy did.

Obama cut taxes in the Stimulus bill.

JFK was strong on national defense. It could be argued that Kennedy was hawkish when it came to foreign policy. JFK wanted to protect American interests, even if it meant military force would have to be used. Today's Democrats want to pull out of a war we're winning and by giving Iraq up to terrorists and Iran, take a gigantic step backwards in the War on Terror. That doesn't look like a move out of the Kennedy playbook.

Wake me up when al Qaeda takes over Iraq. And if you want to know what made Iran the bully on the block, look no further than Bush's optional war in Iraq. Did you miss the point that Iran and Iraq were enemies, and still in a state of war? You may also have missed that the Republicans in congress cut Clinton's request to upgrade our anti-terror capability.

When JFK ran for President against Republican Richard Nixon, it was Nixon who championed environmental issues, not Kennedy. That's not to say Kennedy and today's Republican Party are against the environment, but Nixon and today's Democrats are willing to make businesses and the economy suffer to protect it.

Except for his insanity on the HAUC, Nixon's domestic policy was liberal. Kennedy still averted war with the Cuban embargo. I doubt that Nixon would have had that courage.

JFK was very religious. There was a huge controversy when Kennedy ran for Commander and Chief. Many wondered if the American public could ever vote a Catholic into office. Of course there are rumors that a bunch of already-dead people in Chicago and Frank Sinatra are to be credited for the JFK victory, but nonetheless, Kennedy looked the controversy in the face and laughed at it. John F. Kennedy confronted the worries of many and gave one of the most famous religious speeches in modern history. Now, remind me quick, which party is it that is stereotyped as being more religious? Yeah, I think you got my point there.

There were three separate investigations of voting irregularities, and not one found a damn thing. Ike had to tell Nixon to STFU and stop acting like a baby over losing.

JFK is well known as one of the leaders in the civil rights movement. His Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson, finished what Kennedy and many African-American leaders had started. But both JFK and LBJ had to team up with Republican members of congress to defeat Democrats, like Al Gore's father, who were against the Civil Rights Act.

And the conservatives in congress couldn't even bring themselves to pass a law against lynching.

JFK famously declared, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what can you do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Now if you didn't know who said those unforgettable words, who would you guess had said them: a Democrat or a Republican? Democrats are promising voters the government will do everything for you. "Hey, can't afford to get the latest cell phone model? Don't worry, elect Democrats and the government will buy it for you." Whereas Republicans lean more on the side of personal responsibility. And spreading freedom to mankind, you might have guessed George W. Bush had said that if you didn't know any better.

Today's Republican mantra is wanting to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Now, you see, you just shot yourself in the foot...

Walesa is anti-Communist, so, by definition, not a liberal.


And the strategy of trying to coalesce around various heros who are not liberal by careful analysis, you show the weakness of your argument.

And this might interest you:
"Today, in Chicago, anti-Communist hero Lech Walesa is headlining a Tea Party Rally. The Rally is in support of Republican Candidate for Governor Adam Andrzejewski. 20+ years ago an American President helped Lech take back his country. Today Lech returns the favor and helps us take back ours."
Friday Free-For-All: Walesa Edition - Big Government

Care to retract?

You're kidding right?

Liberals have been the most stauch anti-communists in history. Something about the implementation sucks. Usually they wind up being dictatorships or oligarchies.

See: Kennedy vs. Soviets.
See: LBJ vs. North Vietnam.

Although you have had tough competition, this is truly the most ignorant, falacious post in the thread....

rdeanie will be hard pressed to beat you to the bottom.

Being a Communist for much of the last century was not a theoretical matter. Communists working in Democratic administrations in the thirties, forties, and fifties, had a profound influence on which countries would fall under Communist control….The USSR ruined Eastern Europe, which was not exactly like East Timor. These were sophisticated countries. The Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe consisted of backwoods savages conquering sophisticated civilizations.

And the Democrats were rooting for the savages.

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107

Truman promoted known Soviet spies to positions of influence after having been warned they were Soviet spies. He denounced the investigation of Soviet spy Alger Hiss as a “red herring.” He responded to Winston Churchill’s historic Iron Curtain speech by inviting Stalin to come to America to give a rebuttal speech.

I'll assume that all of your posts pack as much knowledge and veracity as this one.
Dismissed.

the most ignorant post is still yours claiming walesa because he was against the communists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As soon as I read 'liberal' and then 'progressive' and you thought they were the same, I knew you didn't have a clue what you're babbling about.

Is it history that is a problem for you, or reading, in general?

Clearly, you fail to understand that Wilson and the Progressives were so reviled by the American public, that John Dewey changed the name to 'liberal' to wrap the ugly political concept is the cloak of what he wished to be understood as: classical liberalism.

1. 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.

2. “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/m.../ai_n45566374/

3. “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/

You really give pseudo-intellectualism a bad name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

the most ignorant post is still yours claiming walesa because he was against the communists.

Are you enjoying the Political Chic experience? lol

Lech Walesa's claim to fame was the formation of Solidarity, a LABOR UNION, in defiance of the ANTI-LABOR UNION Polish government.

Now, where, other than in Conservatopia, is it possible to find a union leader, union activist opposing an anti-union government and HE'S the conservative?

lolol

 

[L.K.Eder]

[

the most ignorant post is still yours claiming walesa because he was against the communists.

Are you enjoying the Political Chic experience? lol

Lech Walesa's claim to fame was the formation of Solidarity, a LABOR UNION, in defiance of the ANTI-LABOR UNION Polish government.

Now, where, other than in Conservatopia, is it possible to find a union leader, union activist opposing an anti-union government and HE'S the conservative?

lolol

yes, she delivers.

she wants debate.. lol. with her OPs and her narrow polluted mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop hiding and go back to that thread and answer. Yo claimed half a quote meant someone wanted to destroy America. I proved you a liar and an idiot, And now you've once again shown you haven't changed.

The fact that you would not produce the quote indicates that it would prove you the fool that you are....

I gave you ample opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, and instead you tap-dance as fast as you can.


Analysis?

Unable to compete with me in an honorable debate, you do exactly what a foetid merdivorous buffoon would be expected to do: to attempt to save face, make a claim you cannot back up.

 

[Trajan]

What a nebulous phrase. Does LBJ's escalation of Vietnam pin him as a Republican, Great Society be damned? Does Obama's escalation in Afghanistan mark him as a Republican? Yes, Kennedy supported defense spending. Yet Kennedy--he of the Peace Corps and the American University speech--is noted most for avoiding a war in 1962, not starting one.



Periodically the tax code undergoes simplifications (in fact there's a bipartisan attempt to simplify the tax code circulating even today). During Kennedy's term there were 24 different marginal rates with the top going as far as 90%. Obviously a simplification and cut was a good idea. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1977--was he a Republican?

The reality is that Kennedy was not only a Democrat, he was a proud liberal. And his policies reflect that.

Tax cuts? oh sure he massaged them, ( you are doing what you do in the healthcare threads, obfuscating btw) BUT, so did Reagan, what Kennedy did really was for him and the dem. party at that time and place, a sea change and you know it.

Bay of Pigs? Ich bin ein Berliner...? avoiding a nuclear missile exchange that would have pretty much destroyed the world by standing up to and staring down Khrushchev is a 'liberal' trait?

Kennedy was going now where ala Vietnam, he was there to stay, period. Only Oliver Stone acolytes believe differently.


He was also all for 'A help up, NOT a Hand Out... ...remember that one?

How about Abortion? Lets see; who was; "Whizzer" White and why is he significant?




Scoop Jackson and his ilk have long left the dem party and you know it. I can see Kennedy running in a rep. primary easily, I cannot see him running in a dem one...no way.

Nixon, Ford, and Rockefeller would be tossed out of today's GOP. They'd be called RINOs.

and?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Tax cuts? oh sure he massaged them, ( you are doing what you do in the healthcare threads, obfuscating btw) BUT, so did Reagan, what Kennedy did really was for him and the dem. party at that time and place, a sea change and you know it.

Bay of Pigs? Ich bin ein Berliner...? avoiding a nuclear missile exchange that would have pretty much destroyed the world by standing up to and staring down Khrushchev is a 'liberal' trait?

Kennedy was going now where ala Vietnam, he was there to stay, period. Only Oliver Stone acolytes believe differently.


He was also all for 'A help up, NOT a Hand Out... ...remember that one?

How about Abortion? Lets see; who was; "Whizzer" White and why is he significant?




Scoop Jackson and his ilk have long left the dem party and you know it. I can see Kennedy running in a rep. primary easily, I cannot see him running in a dem one...no way.

Nixon, Ford, and Rockefeller would be tossed out of today's GOP. They'd be called RINOs.

and?

And your claim that you could easily see JFK running as a Republican is nonsense.

 

[Trajan]

As opposed to what, blaming Bush? You left nothing that required retort. Get over yourself.

Blaming Bush for 2 wars with no means to pay for them. Well yes..that's what he did. Not only that..he cut taxes.

No deflection, distortion or revision is going to change that. It was disastrous. Along with many other policies that were remarkably terrible.

If one wants to support that..fine. But this constant denial of what exactly went on during the Bush administration is backward.

I am a big fan of the Demmings cycle. And the first thing you do to fix a problem is identify the flaws. Not ignore them.

so boooosh is a bad guy for Afghanistan ? Oh and no war is ever really 'paid for'; ? make up ur mind please...is it a 'good war' or not?

and I can trump them both together anyway.......ready?.....





Vietnam...


now , that I have dropped the big one, wanna talk sense?

 

[Trajan]

Nixon, Ford, and Rockefeller would be tossed out of today's GOP. They'd be called RINOs.

and?

And your claim that you could easily see JFK running as a Republican is nonsense.

reading comprehension.....some have it, some don't...go read my post again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is, as I have shown, a total fabrication....

I challenge you to quote both halves of the quote to which you refer.

Both halves mean the same thing.

Bwuh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/112788-beck-9.html#post2219434

"the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…
Finish the quote.

and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."


Ah, your little servant has embarassed you by doing what you were afraid to do!

1. Now, let's cut you into little pieces before I feed you to the worms....
The quote was intended to show that Progressive President Woodrow Wilson had neither respect for the Constitution, nor intended to enforce its precepts.

2. The first half..." the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside..."
I believe the meaning is self-evident: 'thrown aside' indicates the lack of respect it could be shown...

3. Now, for some instruction in basic English:

Constitution:

Capitalize references to the U.S. Constitution, with or without the "U.S." Place "constitutional" in lowercase. Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, First Amendment, and other legislation and treaties are capitalized.
Writer's Web: Capitalization

4. ... on to the second clause in the quote: "...and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."

Did you note that the second clause contains the word 'constitutions' both plural and with lower case 'c'?
Are you stupid, or merely inattentive?
Come clean- which is it?

The implication is that Wilson intended a very different proclamation, one which supports neither individual rights nor restrictions on the power of government. That has been shown in his writings and those of his contemporary progressives...

Get it?

5. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law)

a. "Since the Constitution could not officially be "stripped off and thrown aside," Wilson endorsed the emerging, Darwinian-inspired theory of a "living Constitution." For Wilson, this did not mean creatively applying original principles to situations the Framers had not imagined: It meant negating those principles whenever they stood in the way of the march of History, as manifested in the latest promising idea."
From Hegel to Wilson to Breyer | The Weekly Standard

I emphasized the operative phrases in case any moron couldn't pick them out himself (yourself).


Summary:
a) The quote shows that Wilson had no respect for our Constitution, but intended to write his own.

b) You are a dolt who, like so many liberals, will not own up to his mistakes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both halves mean the same thing.

Que?

Please refer to post #196

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do Progressives think that Wilson's quote supports a limited Constitutional government? What?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As soon as I read 'liberal' and then 'progressive' and you thought they were the same, I knew you didn't have a clue what you're babbling about.

Is it history that is a problem for you, or reading, in general?

Clearly, you fail to understand that Wilson and the Progressives were so reviled by the American public, that John Dewey changed the name to 'liberal' to wrap the ugly political concept is the cloak of what he wished to be understood as: classical liberalism.

1. 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.

2. “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/m.../ai_n45566374/

3. “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/

You really give pseudo-intellectualism a bad name.

Predictably, when you can't answer you resort to an Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear.

Pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do Progressives think that Wilson's quote supports a limited Constitutional government? What?

To be frank, Frank....

I think progressives not only understand Wilson's position, but support and enforce it. That is, after all, the cause of our hostility toward them.

No, it is not progressives in general, but rather this particular 'mala fide' who- being unable to compete, attempts the smear to which you refer.

But, why should we be suprised at this behavior from a bottom-feeding mouth-breather like JB.