eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,488
- 38,484
- 2,605
Why Liberals Hate Free Speech
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #102
Another completely typical post of yours.
Zero substance, zero knowledge evinced, zero value.
But....it is shorter than the usual Liberal "is not, is not."
no. just an observation on your daily cut and paste troll thread.
if only you were as smart as you think you are. stick to piano. at least that's constructive.
:thus:
Well...(sigh...) I have to admit that it would be difficult for me to be as smart as I think I am....
...but it is partly your fault.....I mean, when I compare my posts to your.....what else could I believe?????
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #103
Are you claiming to live under a theocracy?
Or is this simply one more in a never ending list of your stupid attempts to change the subject?
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #104
Good to see you.....finally....looking for the light.
Psalm 15:
1A Psalm of David. O LORD, who shall sojourn in thy tent? Who shall dwell on thy holy hill?
2He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart;
jillian
Princess
Another completely typical post of yours.
Zero substance, zero knowledge evinced, zero value.
But....it is shorter than the usual Liberal "is not, is not."
no. just an observation on your daily cut and paste troll thread.
if only you were as smart as you think you are. stick to piano. at least that's constructive.
:thus:
Well...(sigh...) I have to admit that it would be difficult for me to be as smart as I think I am....
...but it is partly your fault.....I mean, when I compare my posts to your.....what else could I believe?????
lol.. .if only you could accomplish as much in real life as you think you do on a message board. what a waste of the intellect you do have. *shakes head*
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #106
Another completely typical post of yours.
Zero substance, zero knowledge evinced, zero value.
But....it is shorter than the usual Liberal "is not, is not."
no. just an observation on your daily cut and paste troll thread.
if only you were as smart as you think you are. stick to piano. at least that's constructive.
:thus:
Well...(sigh...) I have to admit that it would be difficult for me to be as smart as I think I am....
...but it is partly your fault.....I mean, when I compare my posts to your.....what else could I believe?????
lol.. .if only you could accomplish as much in real life as you think you do on a message board. what a waste of the intellect you do have. *shakes head*
Hmmm.....yet another vain attempt to avoid addressing any of the posts in the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.
One can only conclude, that, with apologies to Brendan Behan, you're like a Eunuch in a Harem.
He wants to, but just can’t.
You'd like to be able to rebut the perfectly constructed thread, and accurate portrayal of Liberals....
...but you just can't.
True?
toxicmedia
Gold Member
I'm from Northern California and was born in 1964. This is/was ground zero for the hippie 60's revolution. I've seen all the good and bad that came from it.
At first...the repressive post WWII "June and Ward Clever" or "Ozzy and Harriet" way of life was leaving too many people out, as all manner of diversity couldn't prosper within it.
So the 60's brought about a much less repressive and puritanical way of life here.
By the 70's, the hippies started realizing that they needed jobs, police protection, and the druggies either overdosed, or figured out that criminal elements had seized control of their drug supply. Not to mention addiction issues.
The 80's signaled a return to emphasis on wealth, so did the 90's.
What righties don't seem to realize, is that the pendulum has swung back on liberals. Not that there is any kind of impending demise going to happen...but conservatives in this country are NOT the victims of liberalism the GOP wants them to think they are
toxicmedia
Gold Member
That was quite possibly the most poorly thought out response I've seen, maybe ever, on this site.
Mac's links are from the "elites" that you're talking about.
The ones that are telling me what to think.
So you're basically chewing me out for not reading stuff from liberals, that I shouldn't be listening to anyway
toxicmedia
Gold Member
1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?.....Socialist governments like Communist China, the former Soviet Republic, and North Korea
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?.....any form of government in use by big countries
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?....any government or opposition that employs those measures, including Theocratic, Nationalist, or Socialist governments in military conflict.
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?...Theocratic and Socialist governments focus on the collective, and secular governments tend to focus on individuals
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....no correlation.
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?...no correlation
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?...Theocracies.
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life...Theocracies
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?...Theocracies and Totalitarian governments
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”.......Theocracies and Totalitarian governments
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You based your claim of Ann Coulter's scholarliness on the fact she's written some books.
Noam Chomsky has written more books. That by your own measure makes him more 'scholarly' than her.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Born in raised in Hayward, went to SJSU, took all my first dates to SF to impress them.
This is about a behavior, a tactic, of the Left. And I lean Left, by the way.
When it's virtually impossible to criticize a black liberal in any way without someone screaming "racist" to put that person on the defensive and divert the conversation, we all lose. It shuts down communication. It shuts down progress. It shuts down healing, and in fact exacerbates divisive feelings. And that definitely appears to be the goal.
We're all victims of this, not just conservatives, and I strongly feel that the BIGGEST victims of this behavior are American Blacks.
And now, as the list of links I provided illustrates, more and more honest liberals are agreeing with me.
.
toxicmedia
Gold Member
I'm glad you brought that up.Born in raised in Hayward, went to SJSU, took all my first dates to SF to impress them.
This is about a behavior, a tactic, of the Left. And I lean Left, by the way.
When it's virtually impossible to criticize a black liberal in any way without someone screaming "racist" to put that person on the defensive and divert the conversation, we all lose. It shuts down communication. And that definitely appears to be the goal.
We're all victims of this, not just conservatives, and I strongly feel that the BIGGEST victims of this behavior are American Blacks.
And now, as the list of links I provided illustrates, more and more honest liberals are agreeing with me.
.
I somewhat agree, just not about the victimhood aspects.
The black experience in America is different from all other racial/cultural demographics.
Generally, whites caused the socio-economic disadvantages blacks had from 1870-1970.
I don't believe whites still create economic disadvantages for blacks, but social disadvantages remain.
Blacks faced oppression from whites from 1600-1970. Anti discrimination measures have only been in effect since 1970, and the correction will take as long as it takes...because statistics still indicate the long term effects of disadvantages remain for blacks as a whole.
Does that mean there has to be a double standard for what a non black says, and what a black says?...no
But as a white male...not calling black person the "N" word is not a big problem
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #113
You seem to go out of your way to "misunderstand."
Example...
"1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?.....Socialist governments like Communist China, the former Soviet Republic, and North Korea"
The query referred ONLY to communism, fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, socialism, Nazism.
To characterize your response: 'That was quite possibly the most poorly thought out response I've seen, maybe ever, on this site.'
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #114
No, I based my claim of Coulter's scholarship on the fact that her works are scholarly.
You'd know that if you ever read any of same....but, in Liberal fashion, you simply parrot what your elites tell you to.
Here's someone who actually read same, and reported:
"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.
To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated 10 random footnotes from her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.
This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us
In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.
I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!
In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter
Get that?
"I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect."
But...I recognize why you appeal to Noam Chomsky.....he is a lying sack of drivel....and you identify.
toxicmedia
Gold Member
What you've done here...is ask a series of questions, with limited answers.
Do you not see the problem with all that?
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #116
What I've done is provide an exercise the result of which proves that the basis of communism, fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, socialism, Nazism is, very much, identical.
That was my point, and I accomplished same.
Proving that you would not address same in an honest manner was a bonus.
regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,151
- 245
Was General MacArthur a commie pinko fascist when he said, "For the framers of the Constitution were the liberal thinkers of all ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
toxicmedia
Gold Member
Then why even ask questions?
Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Nazism, Democracies, Dictatorships, Theocracies, and Socialism are forms of government.
Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Conservatism are ways in which political parties lean within each one of those forms of government.
You're conflating them...ala Glenn Beck style.
And why not...historical revisionism helps accomplish that
toxicmedia
Gold Member
That's a very good point.
Conservatives tend to embrace tradition
Liberals tend to embrace change.
The framers were not conservatives, King George and his loyalists were conservatives
Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. Land owners and slavers were conservative. The tradition thy embraced was continuing slavery.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #120
Clearly, he was incorrect....if he referred to Modern Liberals...the name John Dewey applied to the Socialists.
The Framers were Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, who created a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Now, just to see if you understand this.....communism, fascism, modern liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, and socialism....
....which of them are based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government?
You're not afraid to answer....
...are you?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Bizarre black ring in sky stops Kansas motorcyclist in tracks: 'I ain't ever seen nothing like that'- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
