Mob rule.
- Thread starter PhilFish
- Start date
John Doe
I detest liberalism
Your fake poll talking about 1 in 10 on another topic, has nothing to do with your BS claim.
EatTheRich
President
When you’re talking about a fight between neo-Nazis and Antifa, you are with either one side or the other.
John Doe
I detest liberalism
BS, plenty of moderates exist between both sides. Both extremes are common criminals and thugs.
C
Capitalist
Guest
Is that what your professor told you?
Notice how you didn't answer the question. . .at all.
Here's what happened: In the early part of the 20th century socialism was the new and exciting thing. It was sweeping Europe but simply not taking hold in America. Editors like Walter Lippmann and periodicals like The Atlantic bemoaned the situation. They wrote that the world was being transformed and America was sitting it out. Liberalism at that time meant Constitutionalism and conservative meant old, staid, and ossified (wasn't even really much of a political term then). Democrats and Republicans were both Constitutionalists and expressed their opinions within that framework. Socialists were outside of that.
Something had to be done. So Lippmann et al. along with their political supporters like Woodrow Wilson agreed to rebrand socialists as "Progressive." Lippmann himself wrote that nobody in their right mind wants to stand in the way of "progress" so naming themselves "Progressive" instead of "socialist" is the way to convert the people with minimal effort. They were largely successful. Teddy Roosevelt was the first Prog candidate under the Bull Moose Party.
But then the abject terrors of Progressivism blossomed in all their putrid horror. Before WWII Hitler was hailed on the west side of the Atlantic as a Progressive force changing the world for the better. Lennin and Stalin both were Prog heroes in America. The Holocaust and the advent of the Cold War changed everything. Progs could no longer associate themselves with Nazis and Soviets even though they promoted them for decades. They had to come up with a new plan. Their plan to rebrand worked before so they figured it would work again. Rebrand!
So they (Lippman et al.) commandeered the term "liberal" to mean "socialist/Progressive" and labeled the Constitutionalists as "conservative" and wrote about it in The Atlantic. Word spread through the NYT and other newspapers. Soon the old ancient idea of dictatorships became the "new" thing and the new liberal idea of self-governance was "conservative."
Then of course, 2008 came along and Americans had finally seen the light again. "Liberal" meant "socialist" because you can only lie and hide the truth for so long. Time to rebrand again. And so Hillary Clinton rebranded liberals as "Progressives" because enough time had elapsed between the Prog horrors of despotism, eugenics, and genocide that she figured people will have forgotten the true meaning of the word "Progressive."
You're welcome. What's that? Want proof? Linky linky?
No soundbyte or quicky linky will suffice. It's a rather large concept requiring multiple links, quotes, and references. You can find them all here:
All original sourced material so you can forego the dismissal based on politics. These are the original words in the original context without the professorial filters and references to other references to other mistaken references. They cut right through all that academic crap and address the original text in the original context.
All for free. Again, you're welcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
No you're not. Such BS.
This is precisely correct.
sear
Mayor
John Doe said: ↑
BS, plenty of moderates exist between both sides. Both extremes are common criminals and thugs.
"This is precisely correct." PF #68
This is precisely incorrect.
"Extremes" are not criminals, even if some extremists are.
Some may think Bernie Sanders is an extremist.
But I doubt he does a lot of J-walking, and I doubt Sanders qualifies as a thug.
Same for Senators Cruz & Paul.
BS, plenty of moderates exist between both sides. Both extremes are common criminals and thugs.
"This is precisely correct." PF #68
This is precisely incorrect.
"Extremes" are not criminals, even if some extremists are.
Some may think Bernie Sanders is an extremist.
But I doubt he does a lot of J-walking, and I doubt Sanders qualifies as a thug.
Same for Senators Cruz & Paul.
EatTheRich
President
That’s not what we’re talking about in Portland though.
EatTheRich
President
Neither Wilson nor Roosevelt (either) was pro-socialism. Hitler was opposed from the beginning by the left. Stalin was supported by liberals because of his deviation from communism and his efforts to undermine it.Is that what your professor told you?
Notice how you didn't answer the question. . .at all.
Here's what happened: In the early part of the 20th century socialism was the new and exciting thing. It was sweeping Europe but simply not taking hold in America. Editors like Walter Lippmann and periodicals like The Atlantic bemoaned the situation. They wrote that the world was being transformed and America was sitting it out. Liberalism at that time meant Constitutionalism and conservative meant old, staid, and ossified (wasn't even really much of a political term then). Democrats and Republicans were both Constitutionalists and expressed their opinions within that framework. Socialists were outside of that.
Something had to be done. So Lippmann et al. along with their political supporters like Woodrow Wilson agreed to rebrand socialists as "Progressive." Lippmann himself wrote that nobody in their right mind wants to stand in the way of "progress" so naming themselves "Progressive" instead of "socialist" is the way to convert the people with minimal effort. They were largely successful. Teddy Roosevelt was the first Prog candidate under the Bull Moose Party.
But then the abject terrors of Progressivism blossomed in all their putrid horror. Before WWII Hitler was hailed on the west side of the Atlantic as a Progressive force changing the world for the better. Lennin and Stalin both were Prog heroes in America. The Holocaust and the advent of the Cold War changed everything. Progs could no longer associate themselves with Nazis and Soviets even though they promoted them for decades. They had to come up with a new plan. Their plan to rebrand worked before so they figured it would work again. Rebrand!
So they (Lippman et al.) commandeered the term "liberal" to mean "socialist/Progressive" and labeled the Constitutionalists as "conservative" and wrote about it in The Atlantic. Word spread through the NYT and other newspapers. Soon the old ancient idea of dictatorships became the "new" thing and the new liberal idea of self-governance was "conservative."
Then of course, 2008 came along and Americans had finally seen the light again. "Liberal" meant "socialist" because you can only lie and hide the truth for so long. Time to rebrand again. And so Hillary Clinton rebranded liberals as "Progressives" because enough time had elapsed between the Prog horrors of despotism, eugenics, and genocide that she figured people will have forgotten the true meaning of the word "Progressive."
You're welcome. What's that? Want proof? Linky linky?
No soundbyte or quicky linky will suffice. It's a rather large concept requiring multiple links, quotes, and references. You can find them all here:
All original sourced material so you can forego the dismissal based on politics. These are the original words in the original context without the professorial filters and references to other references to other mistaken references. They cut right through all that academic crap and address the original text in the original context.
All for free. Again, you're welcome.
Stalin practiced systematic persecution and murdered millions. He didn't deviate he was communism's champion
C
Capitalist
Guest
I love this tack:
Neither the National Socialists nor the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were socialists.
It never gets old. But do crack a book.
C
Capitalist
Guest
If by that you mean that neither of them were smurfs then I’d agree.
But other than their blue skin they’re pretty identical.
Now don’t expect or assume that a socialist president like FDR (who was neck and neck with Obama as the most socialist president in history) will immediately look like Che or Lenin or Castro. It takes time to fundamentally transform a bastion of liberty like the US.
That’s why they call it Progressive. They “progress” over generations—not a wham bam instant revolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
sear
Mayor
Quite similar to the political party in the U.S. self-named "Republicans" that pretend to be political / fiscal conservatives.
They're not.
Instead,
Republicans pretend to the conservative banner for the prestige.
Republicans thus lift themselves up, by driving down the reputation of genuine political conservatism.
Please don't misinterpret.
I'd be delighted if Republicans would return to political conservatism.
But under the leadership of Trump / McConnell / Ryan / Roberts, we're far, far from there.
C
Capitalist
Guest
The Sage of Main Street
Governor
"The Way We Were" Wasn'tIs that what your professor told you?
Notice how you didn't answer the question. . .at all.
Here's what happened: In the early part of the 20th century socialism was the new and exciting thing. It was sweeping Europe but simply not taking hold in America. Editors like Walter Lippmann and periodicals like The Atlantic bemoaned the situation. They wrote that the world was being transformed and America was sitting it out. Liberalism at that time meant Constitutionalism and conservative meant old, staid, and ossified (wasn't even really much of a political term then). Democrats and Republicans were both Constitutionalists and expressed their opinions within that framework. Socialists were outside of that.
Something had to be done. So Lippmann et al. along with their political supporters like Woodrow Wilson agreed to rebrand socialists as "Progressive." Lippmann himself wrote that nobody in their right mind wants to stand in the way of "progress" so naming themselves "Progressive" instead of "socialist" is the way to convert the people with minimal effort. They were largely successful. Teddy Roosevelt was the first Prog candidate under the Bull Moose Party.
But then the abject terrors of Progressivism blossomed in all their putrid horror. Before WWII Hitler was hailed on the west side of the Atlantic as a Progressive force changing the world for the better. Lennin and Stalin both were Prog heroes in America. The Holocaust and the advent of the Cold War changed everything. Progs could no longer associate themselves with Nazis and Soviets even though they promoted them for decades. They had to come up with a new plan. Their plan to rebrand worked before so they figured it would work again. Rebrand!
So they (Lippman et al.) commandeered the term "liberal" to mean "socialist/Progressive" and labeled the Constitutionalists as "conservative" and wrote about it in The Atlantic. Word spread through the NYT and other newspapers. Soon the old ancient idea of dictatorships became the "new" thing and the new liberal idea of self-governance was "conservative."
Then of course, 2008 came along and Americans had finally seen the light again. "Liberal" meant "socialist" because you can only lie and hide the truth for so long. Time to rebrand again. And so Hillary Clinton rebranded liberals as "Progressives" because enough time had elapsed between the Prog horrors of despotism, eugenics, and genocide that she figured people will have forgotten the true meaning of the word "Progressive."
You're welcome. What's that? Want proof? Linky linky?
No soundbyte or quicky linky will suffice. It's a rather large concept requiring multiple links, quotes, and references. You can find them all here:
All original sourced material so you can forego the dismissal based on politics. These are the original words in the original context without the professorial filters and references to other references to other mistaken references. They cut right through all that academic crap and address the original text in the original context.
All for free. Again, you're welcome.
After the French Revolution, the transnationalist hereditary aristocracy, including those without titles of nobility, felt that the rising democracy would abolish their birth privileges. So they invented Socialism in order to take over the democratic movements and convert them into oligarchic dictatorships once the workers became gullible enough to give them power. Their class-betraying plebeian flunkies advertised them as "richkids on our side."
Leftists even admit the disproportion of Preppy Progues. Their deceptive explanation is that such sheltered and entitled people make the most sacrifice in becoming revolutionaries, whereas the plebeians have nothing to lose. The truth is that such conceited and over-rewarded brats expect to succeed to power even more quickly than they would have inherited it.
Their betrayal of their over-promising platform is not a case of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is nonsense made up by an aristocrat himself, Lord Acton, in order to discourage revolution as inevitably leading to a worse situation
than his class's hereditary rule. No, because this is a doctrine fabricated in the aristocratic universities, it's underlying psychological appeal always has been to those whose Daddies told them they were Born to Rule.
Karl Marx's wife was of such high birth that she could have married the Kaiser, the Czar, or the King of England. Before being sucked into her aristocratic scheme, Karl had been an unambitious nerdy academic drunk.
C
Capitalist
Guest
Yes! Why don’t more Progs know this?
Communism has its roots in the French Revolution! The money behind the rise of communism is its dirtiest little secret.
(Puzzled as to your dislike)
The Sage of Main Street
Governor
The Specious Spectrum
You are programmed to always miss the point. Communism has its roots in the paranoia of the survivors who escaped becoming well-deserving victims of the French Revolution. Unfortunately, the guillotine didn't finish the job.
All Leftists are unconscious agents of the Right Wing they were born in, so being partisan is being a sucker. The pushy snooty brats may hate their Daddies for being rich, but they never reject the Born to Rule attitude that their Daddies brainwashed them with before their phony adolescent revolt (Holden Caulfield was a richkid; that's all you need to know before throwing his book in the trash). The Preppy Progressives are motivated by a desperate fear and jealousy of those who make it on their own.
RickWA
Snagglesooth
"You didn't build that!"
Latest posts
-
-
-
Biden claims uncle was eaten by Cannibals…- Latest: Bugsy McGurk
