View Full Version : 1963 Communist goals for America
Many of these have long been championed and/or accomplished by the Leftist aka "Democratic" party. Could be a leftist checklist...
Some of my personal favorites: 17, 20, 21, 35... check, check, check, check.
I'm sure everyone with have theirs.
Oh, and Catholics should take special notice of #27. We now know that this is underway.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Add in the open borders that Hillary Clinton dreams of, and you have a recipe for the destruction off the fabric of the Nation.
Russia trying to influence our elections? Don't make me laugh. The "Democratic" party may as well be Russia.
rsetup
10-24-2016, 11:26 AM
Which reminds me, of thigs that some just won't let go away: the NEHRU jacket is making a comeback. The Democrats, oops, Commies, are reportedly behind it. How dare them. :rolleyes:
So the Commie Clinton will take over the struggle from the Kenyan Komrade.
Sort of underscores the whole democrat party.
Which reminds me, of thigs that some just won't let go away: the NEHRU jacket is making a comeback. The Democrats, oops, Commies, are reportedly behind it. How dare them. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it never has gone away, it's just that such a long list of goals has taken decades to accomplish. Communists - especially the Chinese - are very patient, and the results have been worth the wait.
But as I would expect, a good leftist should try to diminish the validity of the argument. You know, like when Mitt Romney called Russia our biggest threat and the leftist-in-chief replied, "the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back."
Nice reply, comrade.
I guess the jig is up. Gotta change the secret handshakes and dump the ole' red code book.
Comrades (and fellow travelers), fear not. Although our socialist workers paradise may be delayed some, our long term fluoridation and Chemtrail conspiracy plans will not be deterred.
Remember helping us is Donald along with comrades Alex and Steve, exposing all capitalist corruption, while valiantly fending off that no good nasty women. :eek: :eek:
woodtoo
10-24-2016, 12:07 PM
I guess the jig is up. Gotta change the secret handshakes and dump the ole' red code book.
Comrades (and fellow travelers), fear not. Although our socialist workers paradise may be delayed some, our long term fluoridation and Chemtrail conspiracy plans will not be deterred.
Remember helping us is Donald along with comrades Alex and Steve, exposing all capitalist corruption, while valiantly fending off that no good nasty women. :eek: :eek:
Typical commie remark, divert. Top of the playbook.
Actor
10-24-2016, 12:09 PM
Of course you realize this list does not come from the communist party. It's from the ...
pG6taS9R1KM :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
8aD82dWOyYE
I guess the jig is up. Gotta change the secret handshakes and dump the ole' red code book.
Comrades (and fellow travelers), fear not. Although our socialist workers paradise may be delayed some, our long term fluoridation and Chemtrail conspiracy plans will not be deterred.
Remember helping us is Donald along with comrades Alex and Steve, exposing all capitalist corruption, while valiantly fending off that no good nasty women. :eek: :eek:
So I take it by your snide remarks that you don't believe that any of the goals have been accomplished, is that right?
Or, by trying to make a joke of it, are you trying to make sure nobody else believes it?
The MSM is now officially an arm of the "Democratic" party, they even admit it. Therefore, they are a state media. No different from Pravda.
The educational system has been so corrupted by leftist influence that the youth of America believes an avowed socialist should be our chief executive.
Hollywood has become a cesspool of leftist propaganda.
Pardon me if I don't find any of this funny
Actor
10-24-2016, 12:14 PM
I guess the jig is up. Gotta change the secret handshakes and dump the ole' red code book.
Comrades (and fellow travelers), fear not. Although our socialist workers paradise may be delayed some, our long term fluoridation and Chemtrail conspiracy plans will not be deterred.
Remember helping us is Donald along with comrades Alex and Steve, exposing all capitalist corruption, while valiantly fending off that no good nasty women. :eek: :eek:rKR32ImWYzw
Actor
10-24-2016, 12:15 PM
Pardon me if I don't find any of this funny :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
FantasticDan
10-24-2016, 12:24 PM
Pardon me if I don't find any of this funny
FMzdtFknWYM
Geez... I see all of you lefties think you're real comedians.
Just goes to show ya, one person's comedian is another's asshat.
I guess you figure that keeping up the charade will put you in the good graces of the party. I mean, that's the way it's done in your preferred countries. (Cuba, China, Russia)
Never know, if you can show how you defended the regime you all may get something like preferred health care.
Maybe you'll only have to wait three months for an appointment instead of six.
Save all your posts. You never know when the party will shut down all internet access and your loyalty will be in question.
PhantomOnTour
10-24-2016, 01:07 PM
Geez... I see all of you lefties think you're real comedians.
Just goes to show ya, one person's comedian is another's asshat.
I guess you figure that keeping up the charade will put you in the good graces of the party. I mean, that's the way it's done in your preferred countries. (Cuba, China, Russia)
Never know, if you can show how you defended the regime you all may get something like preferred health care.
Maybe you'll only have to wait three months for an appointment instead of six.
Save all your posts. You never know when the party will shut down all internet access and your loyalty will be in question.
Speaking of comedians...this is hilarious :lol:
Hollywood has become a cesspool of leftist propaganda.
Pardon me if I don't find any of this funnyRemember helping us is Donald along with comrades Alex and Steve, exposing all capitalist corruption, while valiantly fending off that no good nasty women. Did someone say Alex? Fluoridation, Chemicals, and the Bilderbergs too
/Ch9gQ9JOe3Y
Did someone say Alex? Fluoridation, Chemicals, and the Bilderbergs too
/Ch9gQ9JOe3Y
Okay... let us patriots in on the joke...(I mean other that the leftist posts on here)
Who the hell is Alex Jones?
(forgive me, but I don't have the time to view the stupid, irrelevant, dismissive videos you've all been so quick to throw up here. Hope you all enjoyed them, though. I'm sure they prove valid points :D )
jk3521
10-24-2016, 01:27 PM
I feel a new era of McCarthyism coming on.
I feel a new era of McCarthyism coming on.
Geez... I didn't think a patriot could illicit such fear from a leftist.
Saul Alinsky would be ashamed of you.
For the record, McCarthy was widely repudiated by fellow Republicans.
Leftists would never do such a thing to their own. The proof of that is the fact that not only have the leftists not had outrage over Hillary Clinton's comments and actions, they've condoned and covered for her.
Shameful conduct for anyone but a leftist.
Then it's admirable.
Okay... let us patriots in on the joke...(I mean other that the leftist posts on here)
Who the hell is Alex Jones?
(forgive me, but I don't have the time to view the stupid, irrelevant, dismissive videos you've all been so quick to throw up here. Hope you all enjoyed them, though. I'm sure they prove valid points )
Donald Trump(Gropers Inc.), Steve Bannon (Brteitbart.com), Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/) (Info Wars). The 3 conspiracy mega-mongers that are driving the paranoia of the alt right. Or the new "axis of evil" conspiracists
Congratulations. I think you should take a bow for updating the alt right HERE on off topic with that old and never-out-of-fashion righty standby, the evil international communist conspiracy. Posted in such an insightful way providing some of us with so much to ponder and giggle about. :lol: :lol: :lol:
jk3521
10-24-2016, 02:05 PM
Geez... I didn't think a patriot could illicit such fear from a leftist.
Saul Alinsky would be ashamed of you.
For the record, McCarthy was widely repudiated by fellow Republicans.
Leftists would never do such a thing to their own. The proof of that is the fact that not only have the leftists not had outrage over Hillary Clinton's comments and actions, they've condoned and covered for her.
Shameful conduct for anyone but a leftist.
Then it's admirable.
I guess you're either fur 'ya or agin 'ya. Not allowed to have a mind of your own. It goes for both sides.
I'm not a leftist. I dislike all people, both sides of the spectrum who believe that they are above the law , whoever they are! And believe me , the right wingers are just as corrupt. How can anyone with any kind of a mind to reason, believe anything that any of them say! The public is a bunch of sheep taken to the slaughterhouse! And they all go peacefully because no one thinks on their own anymore, they just follow their leader. He or she is their leader, they would never do them wrong! Bullshit !!
Donald Trump(Gropers Inc.), Steve Bannon (Brteitbart.com), Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/) (Info Wars). The 3 conspiracy mega-mongers that are driving the paranoia of the alt right. Or the new "axis of evil" conspiracists
Congratulations. I think you should take a bow for updating the alt right HERE on off topic with that old and never-out-of-fashion righty standby, the evil international communist conspiracy. Posted in such an insightful way providing some of us with so much to ponder and giggle about. :lol: :lol: :lol:
More laughter. I get it.
From Rules for Radicals:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
The problem with Alinsky's advice has been used so often for so long that it has no affect. I understand it's a tactic of the left designed to elicit a negative response from me.
Maybe that's why I was swamped by a torrent of leftists as soon as I posted the thread.
It was like attracting moths to a flame....
I am currently in Washington and have a 4-5 hour drive to NJ.
All you leftists can load up while I'm gone and I'll respond when I get where I'm going.
This is kind of like wrestling. You all take turns and I bounce you out of the ring on your heads. You pick yourselves up and jump right back in, only to get bounced out on your heads again.
I rather enjoy it.
It also explains the laughter. You guys are obviously punch drunk.
:)
ebcorde
10-24-2016, 02:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuUygn7BZis
Maybe when the chuckling chuckle heads stop chuckling, they would address
the specific points the OP mentioned and explain how those are NOT the goals of today's DNC?
I think he is spot on and that those ARE the goals of the DNC.
Prove me wrong.
ebcorde
10-24-2016, 03:09 PM
Maybe when the chuckling chuckle heads stop chuckling, they would address
the specific points the OP mentioned and explain how those are NOT the goals of today's DNC?
I think he is spot on and that those ARE the goals of the DNC.
Prove me wrong.
I don't follow we liberals are unemployed in Jail,, living off welfare and never graduated from High school, according to the right wing. when did we find time to be indoctrinated by some guy?
maybe we are the ones using common sense and it's you guys indoctrinated by 50 years of right wing radio and Fox news.
Think of it this way. Christian or Muslims You've been indoctrinated so why not in other areas, no?
mostpost
10-24-2016, 04:37 PM
Many of these have long been championed and/or accomplished by the Leftist aka "Democratic" party. Could be a leftist checklist...
Some of my personal favorites: 17, 20, 21, 35... check, check, check, check.
I'm sure everyone with have theirs.
Oh, and Catholics should take special notice of #27. We now know that this is underway.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Add in the open borders that Hillary Clinton dreams of, and you have a recipe for the destruction off the fabric of the Nation.
Russia trying to influence our elections? Don't make me laugh. The "Democratic" party may as well be Russia.
Looking at your "Personal favorites."
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Who is really trying to get control of the schools? There has been no effort to get rid of private schools. No laws have been passed banning them. No one is discouraged from attending them.
On the other hand there has been a constant effort on the part of the right to destroy the public school system. Funding has been curtailed. Teachers unions have been attacked. Teachers themselves have been demeaned and ridiculed. Pensions have been raided.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
They sure did a piss poor job of doing that. In 1963, there were only three networks covering the news. There was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh, No Hannity, no Glenn Beck. Breitbart did not exist. The Daily Caller was not around. Again we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is the right which is trying to control the press with false accusations and innuendo.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
This is precious. I could not possibly count the number of posts on here about how corrupt the FBI is and how they are in the pocket of the Democrats. If that is not discrediting the organization, then I do not know what is.
As Actor pointed out, this list does not come from the Communist party. It comes from the paranoid conspiracy theorists at the John Birch Society.
In other words, it is not the Communists saying we are going to do this, this and this. It is the Birchers saying we think the Commies are going to do this, this, and this because we are nuts.
woodtoo
10-24-2016, 04:57 PM
The DNC Crooked Hillary and campaign have , on tape proven to lie cheat
"do anything to win this %cken thing" and the a$$hats accept this as normal behavier. puke.
ReplayRandall
10-24-2016, 04:59 PM
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
They sure did a piss poor job of doing that. In 1963, there were only three networks covering the news. There was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh, No Hannity, no Glenn Beck. Breitbart did not exist. The Daily Caller was not around. Again we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is the right which is trying to control the press with false accusations and innuendo.
This is one of your most dishonest posts yet. Holy crap, have you really lost your fricken' mind, posting nonsense like that?......C'mon Mosty, I feel you're starting to be a full-blown psycho.....Stop it, now.
woodtoo
10-24-2016, 05:13 PM
Mostpost has been a lost puppy for a long long time His head is too covered
in excrement he cant reason with a bug.
Jess Hawsen Arown
10-24-2016, 06:35 PM
Geez... I didn't think a patriot could illicit such fear from a leftist.
Saul Alinsky would be ashamed of you.
For the record, McCarthy was widely repudiated by fellow Republicans.
Leftists would never do such a thing to their own. The proof of that is the fact that not only have the leftists not had outrage over Hillary Clinton's comments and actions, they've condoned and covered for her.
Shameful conduct for anyone but a leftist.
Then it's admirable.
As we see clearly from the posts on this site and every other site, the people on the right talk about what is good for the country while the liberals only care about winning -- and the people be damned.
EasyGoer89
10-24-2016, 06:47 PM
This is one of your most dishonest posts yet. Holy crap, have you really lost your fricken' mind, posting nonsense like that?......C'mon Mosty, I feel you're starting to be a full-blown psycho.....Stop it, now.
The funny (read sad) thing about Mostpost's posts is that on the one hand he's trying to convince people of his position and possibly get people to 'see the light' but because of stuff like this, it reflects badly on HIM. It corrupts his entire arguments on other things that may be at least somewhat legit, if you want to convince someone of your position, you can't treat people like they were born last night, that's not going to get anyone to see it your way.
ebcorde
10-24-2016, 06:58 PM
I was taught it was always run by a bunch of evil guys who wanted to kill us.
Now. Now I think we were brainwashed. There are many forms of that kind of govt. It's about who is running your government no matter the type of gov.
what is a Kibbutz? a form of communism. Israel has them,
Cuba has one of the highest number of Doctors per person in the world.
and maybe someone can explain why the US ranks in the middle with 2.5 doctors per 1,000 while the socialist failing EU has 3.5 doctors per 1,000 and Cuba at 3.8 per 1,000 people. AND they live longer.
I think you need to forget about terminology and find something that works for the general welfare. Because Cuba should never have more Doctors than us.
wisconsin
10-24-2016, 07:06 PM
Because Cuba should never have more Doctors than us.
Medical school for Cuban doctors is free. They then get free housing. Most Cuban people work for the government. What else is there to do there? Might explain it.
ebcorde
10-24-2016, 07:16 PM
Medical school for Cuban doctors is free. They then get free housing. Most Cuban people work for the government. What else is there to do there? Might explain it.
I prefer to be open-minded because in the end we're all whores anyway.
meaning we all work for the government in some way, no? that's the village.
Looking at your "Personal favorites."
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Who is really trying to get control of the schools? There has been no effort to get rid of private schools. No laws have been passed banning them. No one is discouraged from attending them.
On the other hand there has been a constant effort on the part of the right to destroy the public school system. Funding has been curtailed. Teachers unions have been attacked. Teachers themselves have been demeaned and ridiculed. Pensions have been raided.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
They sure did a piss poor job of doing that. In 1963, there were only three networks covering the news. There was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh, No Hannity, no Glenn Beck. Breitbart did not exist. The Daily Caller was not around. Again we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is the right which is trying to control the press with false accusations and innuendo.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
This is precious. I could not possibly count the number of posts on here about how corrupt the FBI is and how they are in the pocket of the Democrats. If that is not discrediting the organization, then I do not know what is.
As Actor pointed out, this list does not come from the Communist party. It comes from the paranoid conspiracy theorists at the John Birch Society.
In other words, it is not the Communists saying we are going to do this, this and this. It is the Birchers saying we think the Commies are going to do this, this, and this because we are nuts.
Ya know, I wasn't originally going to respond to all of these "points" because I realized that I've considered you a loon for so long now that it wouldn't pay to waste my time.
Ah hell, let's dance...
17. Although grade schools are loaded with far-left teachers who subtly indoctrinate young minds, it's the college level where the real dirty work takes place. Proof? The huge number of young people who think that an avowed socialist should be elected to lead this country. Proof that the professors are leftist? 94% of the money they donate to political parties goes to Democrat candidates. If you think that's because of superior intellect, talk to the average college student sometime...
21. What the leftists have done is wrested control of the MAIN STREAM MEDIA, i.e. the alphabet soup channels ABC, CBS, NBC. This is where low information voters get their news from and accounts for why Democrats have made strides in recent years. Dumb people being fed leftist propaganda with no regard for the truth has been a recipe for success, so why be honest?
35. We all know that the leftists have infiltrated most departments of government and corrupted them. (See DOJ, IRS, EPA, State Dept, etc. etc. etc.) but until James Comey whitewashed the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email fiasco, I did not believe the FBI was part of the culture of rot that the Democrats had inflicted on the government.
Now we know differently. Now the FBI is tainted and it will take quite some time to regain the trust of the people. Maybe they never will.
One final note to you, Mostpost. I said it in an earlier post and it perhaps pertains to you more than anyone else:
"A leftist wouldn't know - nor admit - the truth if it bit him in the ass."
jk3521
10-25-2016, 08:34 AM
hVY1V8fXBmY
I guess not!
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 09:30 AM
This thread is hilarious. It shows a definite need for better education in this country. Patriots vs. Leftists is the most ridiculous thing I've read lately and that is pretty amazing. Let's have a little history lesson shall we?
Remember those fellows we refer to as our country's original patriots? Guys like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? The very OGs themselves? They were adherents to what could be considered the second biggest leftist movement in western civilization, a little thing referred to as the Enlightenment. You see, the Enlightenment was based on reason and individualism over traditional institutions. They believed in the liberty of the individual and in tolerance toward other religions. They were opposed to the authoritarianism of the church and state. They believed in science and knowledge. I don't think they had the dicta of the John Birch society as part of their agenda.
So any indoctrination of people on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence is an indoctrination of leftist social thought. Bad teachers Bad!!!!!
Clocker
10-25-2016, 10:08 AM
what is a Kibbutz? a form of communism. Israel has them,
Living on a kibbutz is voluntary.
This thread is hilarious. It shows a definite need for better education in this country. Patriots vs. Leftists is the most ridiculous thing I've read lately and that is pretty amazing. Let's have a little history lesson shall we?
Remember those fellows we refer to as our country's original patriots? Guys like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? The very OGs themselves? They were adherents to what could be considered the second biggest leftist movement in western civilization, a little thing referred to as the Enlightenment. You see, the Enlightenment was based on reason and individualism over traditional institutions. They believed in the liberty of the individual and in tolerance toward other religions. They were opposed to the authoritarianism of the church and state. They believed in science and knowledge. I don't think they had the dicta of the John Birch society as part of their agenda.
So any indoctrination of people on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence is an indoctrination of leftist social thought. Bad teachers Bad!!!!!
What kind of loony left thinking is this? The founders were leftists? I bet you'd like everyone to believe that BS.
If anything, the examples you give are Libertarian in nature, not leftist. The only freedoms that leftists believe in are those granted by the state.
The founders also believed in the responsibility of the individual. Leftists are diametrically opposed to that. They champion a "don't worry that you're non-productive, someone else will pay for it" approach that the founders would have considered deplorable (no pun intended).
The left is so opposed to the principles of the constitution that they try to diminish them every chance they get. Ignore the rule of law. Institute regulations that hinder the rights granted under the constitution. Corrupt the bill of rights in an effort to render them moot.
Do you honestly think that when they said "free press" they meant a state run media, which is what most people use for their information? No, exactly the opposite. They wanted the press to be a watchdog on government, not a propaganda arm of it, which the leftists have turned much of it into.
Even in your own example you admit that the founders believed in individualism over institutions. What the leftists have done in this nation is to institutionalize dependency... welfare, food stamps, medicade, etc. How would the founders feel about that? Try to be honest. I know it's damn near impossible for a leftist.
The left has used the general welfare clause of the constitution to expand its bloated welfare state while paying for it with other people's money. Next we will be expected to bail out Obamacare, another leftist failure, to the tune of trillions. Trillions we don't have and will never be able to repay. The left doesn't care about the future generations of Americans; spend now and let them pay later. You know, the productive members of society like my son, daughter, and grand children. I'd like to see the argument that the founders had this in mind.
The leftists, led by Obama and Clinton, have tried to erode the guarantees of the second amendment, and if elected, Clinton will stack the court and try to abolish it completely. Not surprising. No despot in history has wanted an armed populace. The founders placed the right to bear arms in the #2 list on the bill of rights for a reason. They knew that a government who can run roughshod over the citizenry will, and the best counter to that is an armed populace. Remove the weapons, remove the ability to resist a tyrannical government - exactly what Hillary Clinton and left would love.
I could go on and on, but I'm not going to.
Suffice it to say, the founding fathers were leftists?
You wish.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 10:32 AM
They believed in the liberty of the individual and in tolerance toward other religions. They were opposed to the authoritarianism of the church and state. They believed in science and knowledge.
So as believers in liberty and tolerance, the leftist founders would have supported forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for birth control. They would have supported forcing bakers to make gay-themed cakes and forcing schools to let folks with male genitals into girls locker rooms.
They would have supported strict gun control laws and mandatory health insurance. They would have supported the concept of "settled science" and would have opposed drilling and fracking by the private sector. They would have supported the government recognition of 32 separate genders with mandated pronouns for each. They would have loved the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings.
So as believers in liberty and tolerance, the leftist founders would have supported forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for birth control. They would have supported forcing bakers to make gay-themed cakes and forcing schools to let folks with male genitals into girls locker rooms.
They would have supported strict gun control laws and mandatory health insurance. They would have supported the concept of "settled science" and would have opposed drilling and fracking by the private sector. They would have supported the government recognition of 32 separate genders with mandated pronouns for each. They would have loved the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings.
Yeah, and "free speech zones"
The founders did believe in a free speech zone.
It's called America.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 11:25 AM
So as believers in liberty and tolerance, the leftist founders would have supported forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for birth control. They would have supported forcing bakers to make gay-themed cakes and forcing schools to let folks with male genitals into girls locker rooms.
They would have supported strict gun control laws and mandatory health insurance. They would have supported the concept of "settled science" and would have opposed drilling and fracking by the private sector. They would have supported the government recognition of 32 separate genders with mandated pronouns for each. They would have loved the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings.
The idea of democracy was far more revolutionary than any single thing you list here. "All men created equal" was a far far bigger leap than allowing all citizens their equal rights under established documents. You just simply accept it so you ignore what it meant at the time. And you can't tell me what they thought about these modern issues because they didn't have to face them. Any such comparison is pure conjecture.
There is a spectrum of political views. The absurd conflation of communism and liberalism is the same as the equally asinine position that conservationism equals fascism. A better representation..........
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/31/56/d5/3156d5a256d342f63de3aa9e34384777.jpg
Many of us are on the left but not "communists" as those on the right may be conservative but not "fascists".
A good definition of liberal.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d1/a6/42/d1a642447effb50a4aa7818b738c6d31.jpg
VigorsTheGrey
10-25-2016, 11:41 AM
This thread is hilarious. It shows a definite need for better education in this country. Patriots vs. Leftists is the most ridiculous thing I've read lately and that is pretty amazing. Let's have a little history lesson shall we?
Remember those fellows we refer to as our country's original patriots? Guys like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? The very OGs themselves? They were adherents to what could be considered the second biggest leftist movement in western civilization, a little thing referred to as the Enlightenment. You see, the Enlightenment was based on reason and individualism over traditional institutions. They believed in the liberty of the individual and in tolerance toward other religions. They were opposed to the authoritarianism of the church and state. They believed in science and knowledge. I don't think they had the dicta of the John Birch society as part of their agenda.
So any indoctrination of people on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence is an indoctrination of leftist social thought. Bad teachers Bad!!!!!
Agree.....I too am a child of the Enlightenment... But where are the Salons of France now? Where does one go to mix with fellows who believe and practice the values of the Enlightenment? It appears the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are out of vouge...and ever since the days of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot there has been widespread reaction by the actors of Tradition to counter the progress made...mainstream religion is anti-Enlightenment.... Ultimately the forces of Reaction desire the world to be ruled Authoritatively and Centralized, presumably around religion and NOT around reason and the individual....
Clocker
10-25-2016, 11:55 AM
The idea of democracy was far more revolutionary than any single thing you list here. "All men created equal" was a far far bigger leap than allowing all citizens their equal rights under established documents. You just simply accept it so you ignore what it meant at the time. And you can't tell me what they thought about these modern issues because they didn't have to face them. Any such comparison is pure conjecture.
I know exactly what it meant at the time. The revolution was based on the belief that all men had natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The concept was formalized by John Locke, one of the most influential Enlightenment philosophers. The key was the right to property, including the revolutionary concept that the individual was his own property, and not the property of the state or the monarch.
And the things I listed are each small examples of the state rejecting those rights to life, liberty, and property. You made a big issue of Enlightenment respect for religion. How is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, like paying for birth control or participating in what they consider to be immoral rites, respecting religion?
And you can't tell me what they thought about these modern issues because they didn't have to face them.
Yes, I can. You are arguing that there are degrees of religious freedom, and that a little violation of religious freedom is nothing in the scheme of things, if all for the greater good. I am telling you that religious freedom is an absolute concept, you either have it or you don't.
The American colonists under Great Britain probably had greater freedom than any other citizens of the empire, including Englishmen. But they still weren't entirely free, and that wasn't good enough for them.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 12:16 PM
I know exactly what it meant at the time. The revolution was based on the belief that all men had natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The concept was formalized by John Locke, one of the most influential Enlightenment philosophers. The key was the right to property, including the revolutionary concept that the individual was his own property, and not the property of the state or the monarch.
And the things I listed are each small examples of the state rejecting those rights to life, liberty, and property. You made a big issue of Enlightenment respect for religion. How is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, like paying for birth control or participating in what they consider to be immoral rites, respecting religion?
Yes, I can. You are arguing that there are degrees of religious freedom, and that a little violation of religious freedom is nothing in the scheme of things, if all for the greater good. I am telling you that religious freedom is an absolute concept, you either have it or you don't.
The American colonists under Great Britain probably had greater freedom than any other citizens of the empire, including Englishmen. But they still weren't entirely free, and that wasn't good enough for them.
This is where you go wrong. No rights are absolute and they never have been. Those having a religion based around human sacrifice would not be allowed to practice to give an extreme example. No one is violating anyone's right to practice their religions in the examples you give. However if these very same people want to run a business, they are required to follow the law. Seems to me Jesus himself put this matter to rest long ago with that "render unto Caesar..." speech, but then who really listens to what he said as he represents the greatest leftest movement ever.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 12:18 PM
A better representation..........
No it isn't. By your definition and graph, the more one advocates for personal freedom, free markets, and capitalism, the closer one gets to a dictatorship. Communism and fascism differ little in government control of the economy and the people. The difference is in nominal ownership of property.
JFK may have been a liberal by the standards of his time, but probably would not make the cut as a liberal today.
From the Boston Globe, which refers to its editorial policy as progressive:
Today’s Democratic Party — the home of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore — wouldn’t give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.
The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the “confiscatory” property taxes being levied in too many cities.
He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state liberal. “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort,” Kennedy bluntly avowed during the 1960 campaign. One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for top White House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary austerity. “To the surprise of many of his appointees,” longtime aide Ted Sorensen would later write, he “personally scrutinized every agency request with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say ‘no.’ ”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html)
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 12:20 PM
Agree.....I too am a child of the Enlightenment... But where are the Salons of France now? Where does one go to mix with fellows who believe and practice the values of the Enlightenment? It appears the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are out of vouge...and ever since the days of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot there has been widespread reaction by the actors of Tradition to counter the progress made...mainstream religion is anti-Enlightenment.... Ultimately the forces of Reaction desire the world to be ruled Authoritatively and Centralized, presumably around religion and NOT around reason and the individual....
You need only look for the movements and organizations disparaged ever so frequently. I work in one.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 12:26 PM
This is where you go wrong. No rights are absolute and they never have been. Those having a religion based around human sacrifice would not be allowed to practice to give an extreme example.
You carry the argument to a logical absurdity. The founders did not believe in absolutes as you characterize them. They believed that the exercise of rights were limited only to the extent that they could not infringe on the rights of others.
At the risk of conjecture, I would say that the founders would consider human sacrifice to infringe on the civil rights of the sacrificee.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 12:37 PM
You carry the argument to a logical absurdity. The founders did not believe in absolutes as you characterize them. They believed that the exercise of rights were limited only to the extent that they could not infringe on the rights of others.
At the risk of conjecture, I would say that the founders would consider human sacrifice to infringe on the civil rights of the sacrificee.
No, ad extremum. And thank you for making the correct point. refusal to do business with someone solely because they are gay and legally wish to marry infringes on the very same civil rights. If you stand against such a distinction, then you are arguing that civil rights must be defined by degrees, which is essentially what you just tried to criticize me for.
VigorsTheGrey
10-25-2016, 12:39 PM
This is where you go wrong. No rights are absolute and they never have been. Those having a religion based around human sacrifice would not be allowed to practice to give an extreme example. No one is violating anyone's right to practice their religions in the examples you give. However if these very same people want to run a business, they are required to follow the law. Seems to me Jesus himself put this matter to rest long ago with that "render unto Caesar..." speech, but then who really listens to what he said as he represents the greatest leftest movement ever.
What is the bellwether for determining what is left versus right? Communism and fascism are incorrectly imagined as being at opposite ends of a political spectrum, one as far left, the other far right...and the catholic church seems to be associated with both....with their support for left wing policy in central and south america and their support of Hitler as well...so I'm really confused here.....is the catholic church left or right? Are protestants left or right? Is judism left or right?
VigorsTheGrey
10-25-2016, 12:43 PM
You need only look for the movements and organizations disparaged ever so frequently. I work in one.
Can you give some examples so I may inquire at a local level?
There is a spectrum of political views. The absurd conflation of communism and liberalism is the same as the equally asinine position that conservationism equals fascism. A better representation..........
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/31/56/d5/3156d5a256d342f63de3aa9e34384777.jpg
Many of us are on the left but not "communists" as those on the right may be conservative but not "fascists".
A good definition of liberal.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d1/a6/42/d1a642447effb50a4aa7818b738c6d31.jpg
Glad you brought this up.
JFK said that more than 50 years ago. The world was different place, and the Democratic Party was different, too.
When I was young, a person could be either a Democrat or a Republican, and both were decent Americans who wanted the best for the country. Often they would have subtle or minor differences in which to do the best for everyone. Most people were patriotic and I don't recall anyone hating anyone else because of their politics. People universally respected people like Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson.
That was then, this is now. The Democratic Party has moved so far left as to be unrecognizable. Instead of statesman like Humphrey or Jackson, the party is inhabited by ideologues like Obama, Clinton, Reed, and Pelosi. These leftists are principally disciples of Saul Alinsky, and apply many of his "rules" to advance their radical agendas and the "fundamental transformation of America."
The Democratic Party is dead. It has been taken over by leftists who will lie, cheat, obfuscate, deflect, and corrupt in an effort to achieve its goals. An Alinskyite will tell you that the ends always justifies the means. Not very democratic, to be honest. But then again, honesty to a Leftist is considered a weakness, not a virtue.
The liberalism you wax poetically for is dead, too. It died along with the Democratic Party of yesteryear. Humphrey is dead, Jackson is dead, and the type of liberalism they stood for is dead, too.
The new party should come out of the shadows and call itself what it really is: The Leftist Party. They came to power by absorbing Democrats and liberals by co-opting them into their ideology. It was easy for them. You old time liberals always want to "do the right thing."
Anyone who calls themselves a liberal, a social justice advocate, or anything else and supports the leftists is nothing more than a leftist. If you support the Leftist Party, you own everything that comes with it including the lies, the corruption, the dismissal of the rule of law, the government takeover of private industries, etc., etc., etc.
Sorry, but the time has come to choose sides.
Do you stand up for the rule of law, the preservation of the sovereignty and culture of America, the restoration of honesty in our institutions and pride in our nation, a strict interpretation of the Constitution or,
Do you advocate for open borders and unfettered immigration, the continuation of corruption which has permeated virtually every dept. of government, a Supreme Court which makes its decisions based on "experience" or "feelings" rather than a reading of the document, government control over industries?
This election gives everyone in the country a clear choice.
If you choose the former, I am on board with you.
If you choose the latter, I consider you, at best, an enabler of the Leftist Party, who would damage America beyond repair.
I've made no secret of my disdain for leftists. So this has come down to a contest between them and patriots.
May the one who believes in America, the Constitution, the rule of law, and freedom, win.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 12:51 PM
No, ad extremum. And thank you for making the correct point. refusal to do business with someone solely because they are gay and legally wish to marry infringes on the very same civil rights.
They are not refusing to do the same business with a gay person that they do everyday with non-gays. By your definition, you have a civil right to force someone to do something that they find morally offensive, something that they have never done and do not hold themselves out to be in the business of doing. The issue is not selling a cake, it is designing a cake that they do not offer.
How is that different than trying to force a photography studio to take portraits of you and your partner having sex?
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 01:46 PM
They are not refusing to do the same business with a gay person that they do everyday with non-gays. By your definition, you have a civil right to force someone to do something that they find morally offensive, something that they have never done and do not hold themselves out to be in the business of doing. The issue is not selling a cake, it is designing a cake that they do not offer.
How is that different than trying to force a photography studio to take portraits of you and your partner having sex?
Not sure what case you are discussing as the only ones I'm aware of have nothing to do with the design of the cake itself but rather the refusal to do business with people because they are gay (Colorado and Oregon). I'd like to see a case that fits your description.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 01:55 PM
Not sure what case you are discussing as the only ones I'm aware of have nothing to do with the design of the cake itself but rather the refusal to do business with people because they are gay (Colorado and Oregon). I'd like to see a case that fits your description.
A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for his case on Friday.
Back in 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins requested a custom wedding cake for their celebration. Jack Phillips, owner of Lakewood-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make the cake because of his religious beliefs but offered to sell the couple other baked goods.
...
“I’m rejecting an idea, not a person,” Phillips wrote. “There is no policy at my shop, real or imagined, that says, ‘We don’t sell cakes to homosexuals.’ I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got. But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.”
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/colorado-baker-takes-gay-wedding-cake-case-u-s-supreme-court/ (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/colorado-baker-takes-gay-wedding-cake-case-u-s-supreme-court/)
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 03:01 PM
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/colorado-baker-takes-gay-wedding-cake-case-u-s-supreme-court/ (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/colorado-baker-takes-gay-wedding-cake-case-u-s-supreme-court/)
I see nowhere where the issue involves what was on the cake in what you present. I do see a rebuttal to the arguments made by the ADF lawyer that are in accord with the law where there are instances given about what was on the cake.
Do they not make birthday cakes? Birthday celebrations are portrayed badly in the Bible too, one of which resulted in John the baptist losing his head.
Sorry but not good enough and does not still coincide with the case as you present it.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 03:55 PM
Do they not make birthday cakes? Birthday celebrations are portrayed badly in the Bible too, one of which resulted in John the baptist losing his head.
Right, that's why we don't celebrate Christmas. You are back in the realm of the absurd.
To repeat, does a person have a civil right to force a professional photographer to take pictures the photographer considers immoral?
Parkview_Pirate
10-25-2016, 04:02 PM
...Sorry, but the time has come to choose sides.
Do you stand up for the rule of law, the preservation of the sovereignty and culture of America, the restoration of honesty in our institutions and pride in our nation, a strict interpretation of the Constitution or,
Do you advocate for open borders and unfettered immigration, the continuation of corruption which has permeated virtually every dept. of government, a Supreme Court which makes its decisions based on "experience" or "feelings" rather than a reading of the document, government control over industries?
This election gives everyone in the country a clear choice.
If you choose the former, I am on board with you.
If you choose the latter, I consider you, at best, an enabler of the Leftist Party, who would damage America beyond repair.
I've made no secret of my disdain for leftists. So this has come down to a contest between them and patriots.
May the one who believes in America, the Constitution, the rule of law, and freedom, win.
I'm on board with your ideals, DSB, but I fear this election is less about politics, and more about the oligarchs maintaining some semblance of control.
The oligarchs are really apolitical, and are capable of pulling the puppet strings equally as well on the right as on the left. Had the political winds shifted a bit earlier or leaned more right, there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary would have tried to run as a Republican.
I would argue the contest is now between the good citizens who do support the Constitution and the rule of law, and the oligarchs. Even if elected, Trump will have little power for real change, since the office of the President is not nearly as powerful as the media would have us believe. The oligarchs have used many of the communist tools to this point, and are poised to use many fascist tools if needed (actually that's what I expect next).
IMHO, the only option left that may lead to a less violent path to return our government into the hands of the people is a Constitutional Convention. I doubt we'll see it, but the Founding Fathers provided that "nuclear" option in Article V in the event things became too mucked up. At this point, with so many voters dependent on the Federal teat for their livelihood, we most likely have a much darker future ahead.
mostpost
10-25-2016, 04:03 PM
What kind of loony left thinking is this? The founders were leftists? I bet you'd like everyone to believe that BS.
If anything, the examples you give are Libertarian in nature, not leftist. The only freedoms that leftists believe in are those granted by the state.
The founders also believed in the responsibility of the individual. Leftists are diametrically opposed to that. They champion a "don't worry that you're non-productive, someone else will pay for it" approach that the founders would have considered deplorable (no pun intended).
Idiotic. Liberals believe that people should provide for themselves, but we also believe that we should provide help for those who can't. We care about people. We don't throw them in the garbage when times are tough. Unlike you, we don't mind spending a little of our money to help someone else. We are human beings.
The left is so opposed to the principles of the constitution that they try to diminish them every chance they get. Ignore the rule of law. Institute regulations that hinder the rights granted under the constitution. Corrupt the bill of rights in an effort to render them moot.
Idiotic. We favor the right to bear arms with reasonable safeguards. Pass a background check. Prove you are not mentally ill. Prove you are not a criminal. Prove you know how to use and properly store a weapon.
We favor freedom of religion, but we don't think a religion should dictate to those who are not members of that religion, nor do we think religion should dictate public policy. If your religion does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. Just don't tell the rest of the country they can't.
Do you honestly think that when they said "free press" they meant a state run media, which is what most people use for their information? No, exactly the opposite. They wanted the press to be a watchdog on government, not a propaganda arm of it, which the leftists have turned much of it into.
Idiotic. And hypocritical. You don't complain when Fox News and Daily Caller and Breitbart are the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.
There is no state run media. The closest thing to it is NPR and Public Television and those are scrupulously non partisan. All the other news sources are private for profit enterprises.
Even in your own example you admit that the founders believed in individualism over institutions. What the leftists have done in this nation is to institutionalize dependency... welfare, food stamps, medicade, etc. How would the founders feel about that? Try to be honest. I know it's damn near impossible for a leftist.
I'm going to leave this one for later. I will just say that you know nothing.
The left has used the general welfare clause of the constitution to expand its bloated welfare state while paying for it with other people's money. Next we will be expected to bail out Obamacare, another leftist failure, to the tune of trillions. Trillions we don't have and will never be able to repay. The left doesn't care about the future generations of Americans; spend now and let them pay later. You know, the productive members of society like my son, daughter, and grand children. I'd like to see the argument that the founders had this in mind.
The leftists, led by Obama and Clinton, have tried to erode the guarantees of the second amendment, and if elected, Clinton will stack the court and try to abolish it completely. Not surprising. No despot in history has wanted an armed populace. The founders placed the right to bear arms in the #2 list on the bill of rights for a reason. They knew that a government who can run roughshod over the citizenry will, and the best counter to that is an armed populace. Remove the weapons, remove the ability to resist a tyrannical government - exactly what Hillary Clinton and left would love.
I could go on and on, but I'm not going to.
Suffice it to say, the founding fathers were leftists?
You wish.
I don't have to wish, they were.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 04:19 PM
I see nowhere where the issue involves what was on the cake in what you present.
What part of this did you not understand:
But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 04:22 PM
Right, that's why we don't celebrate Christmas. You are back in the realm of the absurd.
To repeat, does a person have a civil right to force a professional photographer to take pictures the photographer considers immoral?
Not the issue here and thus immaterial. The issue is claiming religion as a cover to deny a defined civil right. Your example does not constitute a civil right. Read the article you yourself posted if you need to understand the concept.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 04:26 PM
What part of this did you not understand:
I understand all of it. What I don't see is what was so offensive that they were asked to do. there is nothing indicating what this so called design is. What were they asked to put two little plastic people of the same sex on top of the cake? Please show me that. Otherwise this is simply saying "I will not serve homosexuals".
Clocker
10-25-2016, 04:28 PM
Prove you are not a criminal.
In this country we presume innocent until proven guilty. Things may be different in the Peoples Republic of Illinois.
If your religion does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. Just don't tell the rest of the country they can't.
How is refusing to make a gay-themed cake telling the rest of the country what they should do?
How is the refusal of Catholics nuns to pay for birth control telling the rest of the country what they should do?
Clocker
10-25-2016, 04:31 PM
Not the issue here and thus immaterial. The issue is claiming religion as a cover to deny a defined civil right.
Your interpretation of what he says he believes. Without proof or knowledge you are calling him a liar.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 04:34 PM
I understand all of it. What I don't see is what was so offensive that they were asked to do. there is nothing indicating what this so called design is. What were they asked to put two little plastic people of the same sex on top of the cake? Please show me that. Otherwise this is simply saying "I will not serve homosexuals".
You are the one accusing him of wrong doing. Again, our laws are based on the presumption of innocence. Please show me that he is not acting out of honest religious belief.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 04:50 PM
In this country we presume innocent until proven guilty. Things may be different in the Peoples Republic of Illinois.
How is refusing to make a gay-themed cake telling the rest of the country what they should do?
How is the refusal of Catholics nuns to pay for birth control telling the rest of the country what they should do?
Not on point again. What is this so called theme you keep talking about? Nothing in your article speaks of that. The nuns are a case I do not know but if they have employees, they must comply with federal and state law. Again, if they have a problem with that, they should check their Bibles again concerning the above referenced statement.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 04:54 PM
You are the one accusing him of wrong doing. Again, our laws are based on the presumption of innocence. Please show me that he is not acting out of honest religious belief.
Talking about absurd. He was sued. That happens in civil court. Not criminal court. Our laws are our laws. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty when they are charged in criminal court. Not what happened here, so sorry, irrelevant. Please read the article you provided.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 04:56 PM
Your interpretation of what he says he believes. Without proof or knowledge you are calling him a liar.
I am calling him a liar. I base it on the findings of the judges in his original case and appeals and his own statements. You see I can do that just like you do to others.
Actor
10-25-2016, 05:07 PM
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.Name a third alternative.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.Why should not the fifth most powerful nation not be allowed in the U.N.?
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.Seems it did not work out that way. :cool:
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.All atomic testing has been banned. How is that not a good thing? Or do you like Strontium 90 in your food?
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.Isn't it?
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.Damn right. First amendment. What is outlawed is the overthrow of the government by force. If a majority of voters want a communist economic system should not we have such a system. What's wrong with having a communist candidate on the ballot.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.Everyone has access to the Patent Office. Everyone should have access to the Patent Office.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.You mean decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Abington School District v. Schempp?
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.I don't think they've all been eliminated but there's been progress.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."Won't happen. :bang:
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."Done! With the support of the Roman Catholic Church I might add. :ThmbUp:
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.Has this been done? I hope so.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.Like Gandhi in India?
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.Why not just turn it over to Panama? Wait. Didn't we do that? How's it working out?
jk3521
10-25-2016, 05:22 PM
Many of these have long been championed and/or accomplished by the Leftist aka "Democratic" party. Could be a leftist checklist...
Some of my personal favorites: 17, 20, 21, 35... check, check, check, check.
I'm sure everyone with have theirs.
Oh, and Catholics should take special notice of #27. We now know that this is underway.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Add in the open borders that Hillary Clinton dreams of, and you have a recipe for the destruction off the fabric of the Nation.
Russia trying to influence our elections? Don't make me laugh. The "Democratic" party may as well be Russia.
AGJDSd7pNrk
NJ Stinks
10-25-2016, 05:32 PM
I appreciate your efforts in Post 69, Actor. :ThmbUp:
Clocker
10-25-2016, 05:39 PM
Your example does not constitute a civil right.
Buying a custom-made cake is a civil right but having your picture taken is not?
The preceding has been brought to you by the Thought Police. I guess I'll have to go reread '1984' to see if I can follow lib logic. Bye. :D
Name a third alternative.
Why should not the fifth most powerful nation not be allowed in the U.N.?
Seems it did not work out that way. :cool:
All atomic testing has been banned. How is that not a good thing? Or do you like Strontium 90 in your food?
Isn't it?
Damn right. First amendment. What is outlawed is the overthrow of the government by force. If a majority of voters want a communist economic system should not we have such a system. What's wrong with having a communist candidate on the ballot.
Everyone has access to the Patent Office. Everyone should have access to the Patent Office.
You mean decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Abington School District v. Schempp?
I don't think they've all been eliminated but there's been progress.
Won't happen. :bang:
Done! With the support of the Roman Catholic Church I might add. :ThmbUp:
Has this been done? I hope so.
Like Gandhi in India?
Why not just turn it over to Panama? Wait. Didn't we do that? How's it working out?
This list is more than fifty years old. Many of your comments are made with the benefit of hindsight. Makes it easier to be flippant, doesn't it?
Some things have come to fruition, some haven't, and the end of the cold war has rendered some irrelevant.
BTW, you addressed none of the items I chose as my "favorites."
One note. A couple of your comments were directed at the UN. It's the ultimate example of "tits on a bull." Whenever there's an organization with members like Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and China, on its Human Rights Council, nobody can take it as anything but a joke. The hope of mankind resting on the UN? Then we're all frikkin doomed.
NJ Stinks
10-25-2016, 06:18 PM
Sorry, but the time has come to choose sides.
Do you stand up for the rule of law, the preservation of the sovereignty and culture of America, the restoration of honesty in our institutions and pride in our nation, a strict interpretation of the Constitution or,
Do you advocate for open borders and unfettered immigration, the continuation of corruption which has permeated virtually every dept. of government, a Supreme Court which makes its decisions based on "experience" or "feelings" rather than a reading of the document, government control over industries?
This election gives everyone in the country a clear choice.
If you choose the former, I am on board with you.
If you choose the latter, I consider you, at best, an enabler of the Leftist Party, who would damage America beyond repair.
I've made no secret of my disdain for leftists. So this has come down to a contest between them and patriots.
May the one who believes in America, the Constitution, the rule of law, and freedom, win.
Let's see if I can make clear my choices.
1. I know I don't stand up for the "culture of America" that you want. I don't want everybody I meet to be packing a gun. For a multitude of reasons but the main one is I don't want to have to worry about every fool I come near who is in a bad mood.
2. I don't know anyone who wants open borders or unfettered immigration. You've been watching too much FOX News or listening to the wrong radio stations.
3. Same with the government agency corruption charges. You don't know what you are talking about. I ought to know. I worked for the IRS for 33 years.
4. As for the Supreme Court, I'm not a big fan either.
Who cares about your disdain for Leftists? I know I don't. In fact, I'm kind of happy to note that you live in NJ! :)
And finally, as for your pompous BS that you are more of a patriot than I am, go fish.
dartman51
10-25-2016, 06:40 PM
There is a spectrum of political views. The absurd conflation of communism and liberalism is the same as the equally asinine position that conservationism equals fascism. A better representation..........
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/31/56/d5/3156d5a256d342f63de3aa9e34384777.jpg
Many of us are on the left but not "communists" as those on the right may be conservative but not "fascists".
A good definition of liberal.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d1/a6/42/d1a642447effb50a4aa7818b738c6d31.jpg
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.”
G. Gordon Liddy :p
Actor
10-25-2016, 07:35 PM
This list is more than fifty years old.You posted it. By the way, when I was in high school I read the book the list comes from.
Many of your comments are made with the benefit of hindsight. Makes it easier to be flippant, doesn't it?Also makes it easier to see how difficult prophecy is. The whole thing is deserving of flippancy.
Some things have come to fruition, some haven't, and the end of the cold war has rendered some irrelevant.But you did not point them out.
BTW, you addressed none of the items I chose as my "favorites."Was I supposed to?
One note. A couple of your comments were directed at the UN. It's the ultimate example of "tits on a bull." Whenever there's an organization with members like Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and China, on its Human Rights Council, nobody can take it as anything but a joke. The hope of mankind resting on the UN? Then we're all frikkin doomed.The U.N. is flawed but it's the only game in town. As long as individual nations have nuclear weapons a nuclear war is ultimately inevitable. Then we are all "frikkin doomed."
Actor
10-25-2016, 07:49 PM
BTW, you addressed none of the items I chose as my "favorites."Was I supposed to?
17. "Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks." I see no evidence that any of this has happened or is happening. In particular the communists are not in control of the schools, or of teachers' associations, nor is the "party line" in textbooks. And what the hell does "Soften the curriculum" mean?
20. "Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions." I see no evidence that this has happened or is happening.
21. "Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures." Same response as #20.
35. "Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI." Ditto.
27. This one I did address.
Are you a member of JBS?
ReplayRandall
10-25-2016, 07:56 PM
And what the hell does "Soften the curriculum" mean?
WE are the last generation of conscious, thinking and moral individuals. The millennials might be the dumbest and rudest generation in our country's history....I wonder why, don't you?? :rolleyes:
Let's see if I can make clear my choices.
1. I know I don't stand up for the "culture of America" that you want. I don't want everybody I meet to be packing a gun. For a multitude of reasons but the main one is I don't want to have to worry about every fool I come near who is in a bad mood.
So you're for disarmament of the populace? Because you're worried about some "fool" shooting you? Well, sorry but it's a constitutional right. I'm much more worried about A. not being able to defend myself against a criminal. B. not being able to defend myself in a terrorist attack. and to a lesser extent C. not being able to defend myself in an invasion and C. not being able to resist a tyrannical govt.
You can trust everyone else to defend you. I'd rather do it myself with my right to do so.
Just curious. With 300 million guns in America, how many times have you been shot by some fool?
2. I don't know anyone who wants open borders or unfettered immigration. You've been watching too much FOX News or listening to the wrong radio stations.
Well Hillary Clinton said so in a speech to South American interests. She said "I dream of open borders." Once she was exposed, she tried to make some lame excuse about transporting energy over the border or some nonsense.
Maybe you ought to watch Fox news more often. Otherwise you're just being fed leftist propaganda.
3. Same with the government agency corruption charges. You don't know what you are talking about. I ought to know. I worked for the IRS for 33 years.
Right.
And the IRS doesn't target political enemies of the administration. They don't target conservative groups such at the Tea Party or groups with the name "patriot" in them. John Koskinen isn't facing impeachment proceedings and Lois Lerner didn't plead the fifth repeatedly, like a common criminal. Don't worry. The totally uncorruptable DOJ will make sure justice is served.
Right.
Just when were you in the IRS, anyway? From 1920 - 1953? :)
HalvOnHorseracing
10-25-2016, 08:52 PM
Buying a custom-made cake is a civil right but having your picture taken is not?
The preceding has been brought to you by the Thought Police. I guess I'll have to go reread '1984' to see if I can follow lib logic. Bye. :D
You really should have done the research on the Colorado case before going off half-cocked. First, the baker was in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The case applies to Colorado, not the entire country. Second, the specific design of the cake was irrelevant and never came up in the court arguments. The plaintiffs asked the baker to design a wedding cake for them, the baker refused on religious grounds. An Administrative Law Judge originally made the ruling that held that you cannot use religion as an excuse to discriminate against protected classes, and ultimately the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The courts have also been clear that if a group is not a protected class under the CADA, the baker does have a right to refuse. For example, a black baker could refuse to make a cake depicting white supremacy because white supremacists are not a protected class under the CADA.
There are no thought police. The law is laid out clearly. If you are a public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, you are prohibited by law from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
I'm sure you'll want to rail on about the law, but it is in fact the basis for determining if the baker was within his rights to refuse to bake them a cake. And as I've noted on many other things, that storm blew over and life went on without some overarching repression.
Your question about the photographer refusing to photograph people having sex is absurd and irrelevant. If the photographer refused to take a picture of a gay couple that came to his studio on religious grounds, he suffers the same fate as the baker. I don't believe the CADA makes people having sex a protected class.
It doesn't matter if the baker was the most ardent Christian on the planet and everybody completely believed him when he said it was offensive to his Christianity. Much like a trainer doesn't get to say, the racing commission is wrong to ban this drug so I'm not in violation, the rules are laid out clearly before he decided to be a trainer. Same with the baker. He knew the law before he took out a business license, and a defense of, that law violates my religious beliefs well after the fact, cannot work. The thing to do is change the law.
The slippery slope is obvious. At what point do you decide a religious belief, no matter how offensive (I won't serve black people or I won't serve Jews or I won't serve midgets) gets to be an affirmative defense against discrimination? One of the things that the conservatives forget is that a lot of laws wind up getting passed because the majority of people believe the right to discriminate is simply wrong. I'll cite the civil rights act. We should have never needed to pass such a law, except a large class of people wanted to find ways to make black people second class. They assumed their legitimately held beliefs that black people were inferior to white people justified putting them in the back of the bus or using a blacks only toilet or not allowing them to stay at a hotel or keeping them out of baseball. Those are things that happened in your lifetime.
The one thing conservatives never contemplate is that they deserve some of the blame for creating liberals. If you weren't committed to doing things a great number of people find reprehensible in the name of individual rights and freedom of expression, we wouldn't have need laws like the civil rights act. The fact that you think it is ok to discriminate against a non-threatening group (like gays) based on religious beliefs is why we have the law you hate. And if you don't get that...
Was I supposed to?
[LIST]
17. "Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks." I see no evidence that any of this has happened or is happening. In particular the communists are not in control of the schools, or of teachers' associations, nor is the "party line" in textbooks. And what the hell does "Soften the curriculum" mean?
20. "Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions." I see no evidence that this has happened or is happening.
21. "Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures." Same response as #20.
35. "Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI." Ditto.
What started out as a blueprint for communist goals for America in 1963 turned into goals of the far left - they simply co-opted them as they have many other things. Wherever the word "communist" appears, just substitute "leftist."
It is the leftists who have gained control of the educational system, teacher unions (as well as all other unions), and curriculum. You see no evidence. The evidence is that after years of indoctrination, virtually all college professors are avowed leftists. They contribute 94% to leftist candidates. The pressure is on college students is to fall in line with leftist ideology. In this year's primary, the vast majority of youth thought that the country should be headed by a self-described socialist. Guess it's working, huh?
No evidence that the leftists have gained control of the press? Man, you have to open your eyes and ears sometime. Have you read the editorials in the WaPo or NYT? And policy making is a breeze - destroy anyone with an (R) after their name. The MSM is so biased that it's nothing more than an arm of the "democratic" party. No sense in arguing this at all. There's barely a (honest) person who denies it.
Hollywood is a cesspool of leftist propaganda and the executives at the networks - especially the ones who control news - push a far left agenda. Again, nobody - except maybe you - disputes it.
As far as the FBI goes, the left has done an excellent job by appointing a director who would do the bidding of the administration at the expense of the honesty and reputation of the bureau. You may not feel this has diminished it in any way. Millions of others disagree and that, after all, is the objective. Americans can not now be sure that their law enforcement agencies are conducting themselves in a way that ensures nobody is above the law.
By the way, the leftists in power now - Obama, HRC and their minions - employ tactics prescribed by their hero, Saul Alinsky. There is a striking similarity between the communist goals and the objectives of the far left for a reason. Alinsky employed and taught tactics based on radical Marxism.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-25-2016, 08:55 PM
WE are the last generation of conscious, thinking and moral individuals. The millennials might be the dumbest and rudest generation in our country's history....I wonder why, don't you?? :rolleyes:
I guess you can't blame their parents, eh?
ReplayRandall
10-25-2016, 09:19 PM
I guess you can't blame their parents, eh?
In a lot of cases, the term used would be "single parent". Could that be the source of most problems, eh?
HalvOnHorseracing
10-25-2016, 09:26 PM
In a lot of cases, the term used would be "single parent". Could that be the source of most problems, eh?
Just saying as we've gotten older we probably gave our parents a lot more credit (or blame) for how we came out. I think same thing probably applies to subsequent generations.
ReplayRandall
10-25-2016, 09:27 PM
Just saying as we've gotten older we probably gave our parents a lot more credit (or blame) for how we came out. I think same thing probably applies to subsequent generations.
Agreed...:ThmbUp:
In a lot of cases, the term used would be "single parent". Could that be the source of most problems, eh?
Single -parent households, another strategy of the democrats.
Subtle keeps them down on the farm beholding to the liberal handouts.
If your religion does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. Just don't tell the rest of the country they can't.
BS, as expected.
You do what you want, just don't involve me.
That means you buy a cake I make of get it somewhere else.
Simple.
Surprise a simpleton cannot get it.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 10:07 PM
You really should have done the research on the Colorado case before going off half-cocked. First, the baker was in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The case applies to Colorado, not the entire country. Second, the specific design of the cake was irrelevant and never came up in the court arguments. The plaintiffs asked the baker to design a wedding cake for them, the baker refused on religious grounds. An Administrative Law Judge originally made the ruling that held that you cannot use religion as an excuse to discriminate against protected classes, and ultimately the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The courts have also been clear that if a group is not a protected class under the CADA, the baker does have a right to refuse. For example, a black baker could refuse to make a cake depicting white supremacy because white supremacists are not a protected class under the CADA.
There are no thought police. The law is laid out clearly. If you are a public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, you are prohibited by law from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
I'm sure you'll want to rail on about the law, but it is in fact the basis for determining if the baker was within his rights to refuse to bake them a cake. And as I've noted on many other things, that storm blew over and life went on without some overarching repression.
Your question about the photographer refusing to photograph people having sex is absurd and irrelevant. If the photographer refused to take a picture of a gay couple that came to his studio on religious grounds, he suffers the same fate as the baker. I don't believe the CADA makes people having sex a protected class.
It doesn't matter if the baker was the most ardent Christian on the planet and everybody completely believed him when he said it was offensive to his Christianity. Much like a trainer doesn't get to say, the racing commission is wrong to ban this drug so I'm not in violation, the rules are laid out clearly before he decided to be a trainer. Same with the baker. He knew the law before he took out a business license, and a defense of, that law violates my religious beliefs well after the fact, cannot work. The thing to do is change the law.
The slippery slope is obvious. At what point do you decide a religious belief, no matter how offensive (I won't serve black people or I won't serve Jews or I won't serve midgets) gets to be an affirmative defense against discrimination? One of the things that the conservatives forget is that a lot of laws wind up getting passed because the majority of people believe the right to discriminate is simply wrong. I'll cite the civil rights act. We should have never needed to pass such a law, except a large class of people wanted to find ways to make black people second class. They assumed their legitimately held beliefs that black people were inferior to white people justified putting them in the back of the bus or using a blacks only toilet or not allowing them to stay at a hotel or keeping them out of baseball. Those are things that happened in your lifetime.
The one thing conservatives never contemplate is that they deserve some of the blame for creating liberals. If you weren't committed to doing things a great number of people find reprehensible in the name of individual rights and freedom of expression, we wouldn't have need laws like the civil rights act. The fact that you think it is ok to discriminate against a non-threatening group (like gays) based on religious beliefs is why we have the law you hate. And if you don't get that...
Thanks for explaining better than I could.
Actor
10-25-2016, 10:08 PM
What started out as a blueprint for communist goals for America in 1963 ...1958 actually. And, as I have stated, this so-called "blueprint" comes from the JBS. It's basically a list of their paranoia.
... turned into goals of the far left - they ...They? Who are "they?"
... simply co-opted them as they have many other things. Wherever the word "communist" appears, just substitute "leftist."
It is the leftists who have ...
"Paranoia strikes deep
"Into your life it will creep
"It starts when you're always afraid
"Step out of line the men come and take you away."
-- Buffalo Springfield -- Stop Children What's That Sound
You want to force people to make cakes they do not want to make, they you get what you deserve.
OTM Al
10-25-2016, 10:14 PM
WE are the last generation of conscious, thinking and moral individuals. The millennials might be the dumbest and rudest generation in our country's history....I wonder why, don't you?? :rolleyes:
You are aware the generation before yours said much the same about you, and the one before that said the same about them. The world changes and it is only our fault for not keeping up. In fact this current generation smokes less, drinks less, takes less drugs, has lower rates of teen pregnancy, and is better educated than that of their parents. Yeah, they are into weird stuff, many of our parents thought much the same of us.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 10:19 PM
You really should have done the research on the Colorado case before going off half-cocked. First, the baker was in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
I don't care about the Colorado law and I didn't go off half-cocked. If the law says that, in the words of Dickens, "the law is a ass".
If the law requires someone to violate their morals in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, the law is wrong. There is no constitutional right to having someone bake you a cake.
There are no thought police. The law is laid out clearly. If you are a public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, you are prohibited by law from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
He didn't refuse service on the basis of such factors except in the minds of the self-appointed Thought Police. The Thought Police, as represented by another poster in this thread, said that the baker refused to make the cake only because he was biased against gays. The baker said he refused to make a cake that represented an idea he was philosophically and religiously opposed to. The Thought Police determined that he was lying, and that they in fact knew his motive and intent was homophobia. This is progressive insanity at its finest.
This is the same idiocy that the FBI Director used to let Hillary off the hook on her violations of national security. Actions don't matter, only intentions. The Thought Police said that Hillary didn't intend to violate national security, therefore, no harm, no foul. The Thought Police say that the intent of refusing to design a gay wedding cake is homophobia, so hang 'em high.
ReplayRandall
10-25-2016, 10:43 PM
If your religion does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. Just don't tell the rest of the country they can't.
For 6,000 years, marriage has been between one man and one woman, no matter the religion, with few exceptions. But, in one perverted generation of 40 years, we have this generation telling the country what the redefined terms of marriage are, even though the majority disagrees, and then uses the Supreme Court to overthrow the will of the people. Heaven forbid we should have civil unions, which gave full rights to gays in all legal matters, that's not enough, they want to obliterate the sanctity of what marriage has always been, and redefine the "family structure", and how religion oppresses this redefinition.....Bottom-line Mostpost, YOU are what's wrong with society, and my opinion is in STRONG disagreement with yours. However, I will let God be the judge, may he have mercy on your soul....
ReplayRandall
10-25-2016, 10:59 PM
You are aware the generation before yours said much the same about you, and the one before that said the same about them. The world changes and it is only our fault for not keeping up. In fact this current generation smokes less, drinks less, takes less drugs, has lower rates of teen pregnancy, and is better educated than that of their parents. Yeah, they are into weird stuff, many of our parents thought much the same of us.
If only your reply was that simple an answer. Unfortunately, it goes so much deeper, to the core of the human soul, as to this generation's perversions and thinking processes. But what was there to expect, when you take God out of the schools, out of the public square, and substitute God with the extreme liberalism of absolute hedonism.....I take some responsibility for the downfall of our society, as I guess I didn't try hard enough to defend the faith......Shame on me.
EasyGoer89
10-25-2016, 11:01 PM
I don't care about the Colorado law and I didn't go off half-cocked. If the law says that, in the words of Dickens, "the law is a ass".
If the law requires someone to violate their morals in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, the law is wrong. There is no constitutional right to having someone bake you a cake.
He didn't refuse service on the basis of such factors except in the minds of the self-appointed Thought Police. The Thought Police, as represented by another poster in this thread, said that the baker refused to make the cake only because he was biased against gays. The baker said he refused to make a cake that represented an idea he was philosophically and religiously opposed to. The Thought Police determined that he was lying, and that they in fact knew his motive and intent was homophobia. This is progressive insanity at its finest.
This is the same idiocy that the FBI Director used to let Hillary off the hook on her violations of national security. Actions don't matter, only intentions. The Thought Police said that Hillary didn't intend to violate national security, therefore, no harm, no foul. The Thought Police say that the intent of refusing to design a gay wedding cake is homophobia, so hang 'em high.
If he's religiously or philosphically opposed to certain things, maybe he should get out of the business of serving the public, i don't know what types of licenses business owners are required to acquire, but you would have to imagine that in order to get a business license in the first place, they have to agree and adhere to current law, you can't get the license and then decide to make your own laws as you go along.
Can a business owner say 'i want this license but i'm going to decide who i serve and who i turn away' either they have the ability to stipulate this before they apply for a license or they don't, if they do have the ability to stipulate this beforehand and their exclusion of certain groups of people from their business is legal, than this isn't something that would ever come up as an issue.
ElKabong
10-25-2016, 11:02 PM
Bottom-line Mostpost, YOU are what's wrong with society, and my opinion is in STRONG disagreement with yours. However, I will let God be the judge, may he have mercy on your soul....
Vegas has it 50-1, No Mercy.
1958 actually. And, as I have stated, this so-called "blueprint" comes from the JBS. It's basically a list of their paranoia.
They? Who are "they?"
"Paranoia strikes deep
"Into your life it will creep
"It starts when you're always afraid
"Step out of line the men come and take you away."
-- Buffalo Springfield -- Stop Children What's That Sound
Actually the song is called "For What It's Worth" and it's apparently from my era, not yours.
If you want to know who "they" are, ask an Alinskyite. Perhaps Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "They" were their forerunners, not mine. I suppose Alinsky himself was one of "they."
It's irrelevant who came up with the list and when. The main thing is that it proved prophetic that someone with anti-American intent would put much of it into action.
It's only paranoia if it isn't true.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 11:08 PM
If he's religiously or philosphically opposed to certain things, maybe he should get out of the business of serving the public, i don't know what types of licenses business owners are required to acquire, but you would have to imagine that in order to get a business license in the first place, they have to agree and adhere to current law, you can't get the license and then decide to make your own laws as you go along.
What if he could make his own moral decisions when he started the business, and then years later the government came along and decided to impose its moral standards on him. Is that right? Is that fair?
HalvOnHorseracing
10-25-2016, 11:23 PM
I don't care about the Colorado law and I didn't go off half-cocked. If the law says that, in the words of Dickens, "the law is a ass".
If the law requires someone to violate their morals in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, the law is wrong. There is no constitutional right to having someone bake you a cake.
He didn't refuse service on the basis of such factors except in the minds of the self-appointed Thought Police. The Thought Police, as represented by another poster in this thread, said that the baker refused to make the cake only because he was biased against gays. The baker said he refused to make a cake that represented an idea he was philosophically and religiously opposed to. The Thought Police determined that he was lying, and that they in fact knew his motive and intent was homophobia. This is progressive insanity at its finest.
This is the same idiocy that the FBI Director used to let Hillary off the hook on her violations of national security. Actions don't matter, only intentions. The Thought Police said that Hillary didn't intend to violate national security, therefore, no harm, no foul. The Thought Police say that the intent of refusing to design a gay wedding cake is homophobia, so hang 'em high.
I'd write the same post again, except that you didn't have the cognitive ability to understand it the first time and I don't expect you received some thunderbolt from the sky to change that.
Dumb statement number one: I don't care about the Colorado law. Except that it was the basis for his loss. That didn't happen after he decided to be a baker. No matter how stupid you think the law is, it is the law until it changes. Nation of laws and all that.
Dumb statement number two: the thought police. The baker freely admitted his religious beliefs prevented him from making the cake. Nobody had to "divine" his intent. He told us all.
Dumb statement number three: There is no constitutional right to having someone bake you a cake. Actually, there is and there is a long history of common law that covers such cases. As I explained, the baker knew the rules when he went into business. He broke the law. Change the law if you don't like it. I've heard Donald Trump criticize Hillary for not changing some law or another.
Dumb statement number four: the Thought Police said the baker was homophobic. Nobody said he was homophobic. They said he broke a law. Pretty simple. If he had refused to make a cake because they were women and HE was a homosexual who hated women, he'd have been just as wrong. Same law, same concept.
Dumb statement number five: This was just like the FBI and Hillary. Not even close. Which led to dumb statement number six: actions don't matter only intentions. I'll type a little slower. It was the specific action of the baker that did him in. He refused service to a legitimate client in violation of Colorado law (and common law). He tried to dodge it by citing his religious beliefs. The court said, sorry, that is not a legitimate defense. So you don't like that. Once again, the law is the law, and if the law is a ass, change the law or get Bumbled. And if you are wondering why we have those laws, read your garbage.
Dumb statement number seven: the thought police knew he was lying. WTF are you talking about? Nobody accused him of lying. In fact, if he was accused of anything, it was telling the truth. Unfortunately, he didn't have the option to decide who he wanted to serve solely on the basis those people happened to be gay. This was a very straightforward case. Law says X. Baker violates law. Baker loses case. No lies.
Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke. I'm not going to explain that to you, but it applies here.
Clocker
10-25-2016, 11:57 PM
I'd write the same post again, except that you didn't have the cognitive ability to understand it the first time and I don't expect you received some thunderbolt from the sky to change that.
Dumb statement number one: I don't care about the Colorado law. No matter how stupid you think the law is, it is the law until it changes. Nation of laws and all that.
Dumb statement number one: blindly following a law without questioning it is an indication of "cognitive ability".
Dumb statement number two: a man should obey an unethical and immoral law because it is the law.
Hint: We sentenced people to death for that at Nuremburg.
NJ Stinks
10-26-2016, 12:04 AM
I'd write the same post again, except that you didn't have the cognitive ability to understand it the first time and I don't expect you received some thunderbolt from the sky to change that.
Clocker does remind me a little of Hamilton Burger. :p
Actor
10-26-2016, 12:26 AM
Actually the song is called "For What It's Worth" and it's apparently from my era, not yours.Thanks for the correction. What makes you think it's not from my era? What do think "my era" is?
If you want to know who "they" are, ask an Alinskyite. Perhaps Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "They" were their forerunners, not mine. I suppose Alinsky himself was one of "they."Doesn't really answer the question.
It's irrelevant who came up with the list and when. The main thing is that it proved prophetic that someone with anti-American intent would put much of it into action.Who is that "someone with anti-American intent?" What constitutes anti-American intent.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 09:20 AM
Dumb statement number one: blindly following a law without questioning it is an indication of "cognitive ability".
Dumb statement number two: a man should obey an unethical and immoral law because it is the law.
Hint: We sentenced people to death for that at Nuremburg.
How very liberal of you in the true sense of the word!!! But then you had to bring up Nazis. It always goes to Nazis eventually. I wonder what it always went to before we had Nazis to use? And you criticized me for making an ad absurdum argument. You just keep circling back on yourself.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 09:22 AM
If only your reply was that simple an answer. Unfortunately, it goes so much deeper, to the core of the human soul, as to this generation's perversions and thinking processes. But what was there to expect, when you take God out of the schools, out of the public square, and substitute God with the extreme liberalism of absolute hedonism.....I take some responsibility for the downfall of our society, as I guess I didn't try hard enough to defend the faith......Shame on me.
Yes and your generation was going to hell because of Elvis Presley and that awful rock and roll music. How'd that work out for you? Your last two posts are just priceless. This is beginning to become the thread that just keeps on giving.
Who is that "someone with anti-American intent?" What constitutes anti-American intent.
You can't figure out who I've been talking about? Geez, hope Alzheimer's isn't setting in, pops.
OK, let me spell it out for ya:
Leftist refers to someone on the far left side of the political spectrum, such as a progressive, socialist, communist or a particularly liberal member of the American Democratic Party. A leftist supports collectivism, more government control of the economy, direct government control over social policy, including Federal control over education at all levels, lower military spending, censorship of religion, a living constitution, a more unisex society, globalism, transnationalism, and taxpayer-funded abortion.
And, wait for it..... Government control of health care. Like Obama care. The little thing that was rammed through against the will of the people and threatens to bankrupt hard working American families. Another leftist failure that's imploding as we speak. That little thing that's wildly unpopular with Americans regardless of political leanings.
It's understandable why the left wants control of health care... for the good of the people, right?
Ha ha, just kidding. They want it because not only will it give govt. control of 1/6 of the economy (soon to be 1/4 once its fully under govt. control) but also control of the populace. When someone or something controls your healthcare, they control you.
The beliefs and agenda of the left is decidedly not American or, if you prefer, anti-American. It has it's roots in the communist and socialist states in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and China and is antithetical to just about everything the founding fathers intended for the nation.
Hope this helps you to understand. (but I doubt it.)
Oh, and I should remind you that there is a national election in less than two weeks. America will choose a new chief executive.
Can't tell the players without a scorecard?
Hillary Clinton - Leftist who adheres to the agenda of "leftist" listed above.
Donald Trump - Populist who rejects the leftist agenda in favor of traditional American values.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 09:41 AM
I haven't given any stock advice ever in my life but regardless of who wins the election I think investment in AA on the NYSE is a must!
...The problem with Alinsky's advice has been used so often for so long that it has no affect. I understand it's a tactic of the left designed to elicit a negative response from me.
Maybe that's why I was swamped by a torrent of leftists as soon as I posted the thread.
It was like attracting moths to a flame....Why do conservatives like you use Alinsky as a boogeyman foreboding of the communist conspiracy?
http://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/right-loves-to-hate-imitate-alinsky-034751#ixzz4OCKR6DWW
Alinsky resisted political labels and affiliations, once explaining “if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated.”
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 10:00 AM
Dumb statement number one: blindly following a law without questioning it is an indication of "cognitive ability".
Dumb statement number two: a man should obey an unethical and immoral law because it is the law.
Hint: We sentenced people to death for that at Nuremburg.
If there was an award for missing the point, you've got to be one of the finalists.
Actually, America has a long history of people engaging in civil disobedience against what they believe to be immoral laws. Women's suffragettes, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King. The difference is that they used their civil disobedience to change the unfair laws. This is the way the system works. The baker engaged in disobedience, went to court and lost. He lost for three reasons. First, because the law was neither unethical nor immoral. Second, because it was the will of the people. Third because he made an agreement when he took out his license and he broke the agreement. This was never about morality. It was about religion trying to trump secular law. He doesn't go to hell for making a cake. He doesn't lose his Christian credentials. He doesn't have to change a personal belief - no thought police.
You're comparing people who followed immoral orders with a person who didn't want to make a cake? Make a cake is one short step from eradicating the jewish population? C'mon man.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 10:01 AM
Clocker does remind me a little of Hamilton Burger. :p
Argument sounds good but he's always wrong?
Why do conservatives like you use Alinsky as a boogeyman foreboding of the communist conspiracy?
First off, I don't consider myself a conservative. I think the war on drugs has been a failure and that legalization is not only wise, but supports the notion of sovereignty over one's body. I'm pro-choice - to an extent. Hardly conservative views. I'm quite liberal, socially speaking.
I don't recall ever saying there was a communist conspiracy afoot. What I did say is that the list of goals I originally posted has been largely co-opted by the Left and that Alinsky is one of the fathers of the leftist movement. Alinsky was an avowed Marxist and his teachings reflect it.
People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions, plus Bill Ayres, as well as many of the leftist media members, are Alinskyites.
You may not like it, or even realize it, but when you cast your lot with the current and would-be regimes, you own that legacy because you support those who espouse it.
Or you may like it and may realize it.
Many do.
Clocker
10-26-2016, 10:08 AM
Argument sounds good but he's always wrong?
I was wrong to waste time trying to explain that there is a difference between 'legal' and 'moral' to progressives. My bad.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 10:12 AM
I was wrong to waste time trying to explain that there is a difference between 'legal' and 'moral' to progressives. My bad.
Everybody you are arguing with understands there is a difference between legal and moral. You seem to be the one that keeps conflating the two. So you just have to go to the straw man argument....why don't you start telling us the board is rigged and get it over with?
I was wrong to waste time trying to explain that there is a difference between 'legal' and 'moral' to progressives. My bad.
You assume a level of intelligence not supported by previous posts.
Hint: We sentenced people to death for that at Nuremburg.
May have to again before it is said and done.
Clocker
10-26-2016, 11:02 AM
May have to again before it is said and done.
I have been informed that a mention of Nuremburg is a Nazi reference, and therefore politically incorrect. I always thought that a mention of Nuremburg was a reference to morality trumping legality. Looks like I was wrong again. :blush:
I have been informed that a mention of Nuremburg is a Nazi reference, and therefore politically incorrect. I always thought that a mention of Nuremburg was a reference to morality trumping legality. Looks like I was wrong again. :blush:
It's a good thing our current DOJ and FBI weren't in charge of the prosecutions there.
we'd have to watch films of James Comey saying "Yes, they killed 6 million Jews, but I could not establish intent."
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 11:16 AM
I have been informed that a mention of Nuremburg is a Nazi reference, and therefore politically incorrect. I always thought that a mention of Nuremburg was a reference to morality trumping legality. Looks like I was wrong again. :blush:
Your reference was to the people we sentenced to death. That would be the direct object of the verb in the sentence you wrote. "We sentenced people to death for that at Nuremburg". The "at Nuremberg" part simple told us which people sentenced to death you were referring to. If you wish to go into the Nuremberg trials, we can do that too. But I am shocked, shocked to now find out that those people were Nazis.....
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 11:30 AM
I have been informed that a mention of Nuremburg is a Nazi reference, and therefore politically incorrect. I always thought that a mention of Nuremburg was a reference to morality trumping legality. Looks like I was wrong again. :blush:
It has nothing to do with politically incorrect. It has to do with the two things being related in the same way all humans are to Adam. In other words, by the tiniest of slivers are the morality and legality in any way equivalent. It is what the challenged (both sides by the way) use to suggest all situations somehow relate to the Third Reich. It was not a case where the baker had to change one thing about his beliefs. And to suggest baking a cake is somehow equivalent to gassing millions of human beings points out what I have previously called your lack of cognitive ability. If you can't see that it is solely because you got caught being ridiculous and you are continuing to defend an absurd comparison, which only makes you look more ridiculous.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 11:31 AM
It's a good thing our current DOJ and FBI weren't in charge of the prosecutions there.
we'd have to watch films of James Comey saying "Yes, they killed 6 million Jews, but I could not establish intent."
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 11:32 AM
I was wrong to waste time trying to explain that there is a difference between 'legal' and 'moral' to progressives. My bad.
You are right about one thing. You did waste everyone's time.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 11:35 AM
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
The Chief US Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, was the former US Attorney General, 1940-1941 btw. In case some here don't know it, the Attorney General is the head of the DoJ,.....but hey, who's counting....
Actor
10-26-2016, 12:14 PM
You can't figure out who I've been talking about?So far everything you've posted on this thread has been just vague enough to leave open the possibility of you accusing me of putting words in your mouth if I go with what you seem to be saying. Experience speaking.
OK, let me spell it out for ya:Please do.
Leftist refers to someone on the far left side of the political spectrum, ...What I get from the above is that the "left" is not an organized effort by a group with an agenda but rather a collection of individuals that you do not agree with politically. These individuals do not coordinate with each other nor do they have any sort of organization. They are not the Democratic Party per se. Your gripe is that they have been successful at achieving some of their goals. You perceive that in exercising their freedom as Americans they somehow endanger or deprive you of those same freedoms.
What I get from the above is that the "left" is not an organized effort by a group with an agenda but rather a collection of individuals that you do not agree with politically. These individuals do not coordinate with each other nor do they have any sort of organization. They are not the Democratic Party per se.
Bwaaa haaa haaa....
The leftist movement has co-opted, as in, has taken over, the former Democratic party.
What more organization can a group have than that?
If you don't get that....you don't get any of it.
What a surprise.
ReplayRandall
10-26-2016, 03:44 PM
Your last two posts are just priceless. This is beginning to become the thread that just keeps on giving.
You accidentally paid me a compliment, even though your intent was the opposite. Those posters who have discernment, understood exactly what I meant......Once again, thanks for the compliment, even though you don't have a clue...:rolleyes:
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 03:49 PM
You accidentally paid me a compliment, even though your intent was the opposite. Those posters who have discernment, understood exactly what I meant......Once again, thanks for the compliment, even though you don't have a clue...:rolleyes:
I understood perfectly well thanks. Your 6000 years comment was all I need to know. Your comedy is without peer.
ReplayRandall
10-26-2016, 04:14 PM
I understood perfectly well thanks. Your 6000 years comment was all I need to know. Your comedy is without peer.
I didn't realize who you were.:eek:....And I still DON'T.....You've got NO win with me, you're drawing stone-cold dead. You're wasting MY time....Off you go.
OTM Al
10-26-2016, 04:19 PM
I didn't realize who you were.:eek:....And I still DON'T.....You've got NO win with me, you're drawing stone-cold dead. You're wasting MY time....Off you go.
Clever...I guess....I don't know....I think you wasted your own time btw.
classhandicapper
10-26-2016, 06:16 PM
I'm not going to get into a debate about any specific law or case, but what this comes down to is whether you believe that private property or the politics of the day should drive "rights".
1. If you believe in personal freedom and private property, you risk allowing people to discriminate or do things that many people will find offensive. Those that object then have the option of opening competing businesses, boycotting the offending people/businesses, publicly embarrassing them etc... until they are eventually driven out of business and/or change. The downside is that it takes a LOT longer to do it that way than the majority simply imposing their will via law and saying "you are not allowed to do that".
2. If you believe in creating laws that prevent certain behaviors, you risk allowing others to impose laws on you that you think are unjust, unfair, reduce your personal freedoms, reduce your religious freedoms, reduce your freedom FROM religion or moralists etc...
Everyone understands why #1 is risky. Racism made that clear. That's why to a large extent it has been rejected by moderates.
Not many people understand why #2 is risky UNTIL someone from the political opposition comes to power and tries to take away their alcohol, gambling, smoking, eating/drinking certain foods, marijuana, guns, favorite web sites, favorite TV shows, favorite radio shows, best porn, sexual preferences, or whatever else it is you enjoy that someone else finds unhealthy, risky, costly to society, offensive, sinful etc...
(did I mention gambling? :lol: )
As a matter of principle, and as a libertarian, I personally don't think the right approach is as clear as most moderates think. Most people seem to be comfortable with the idea of the majority imposing their will on others because they assume they are right on the issue to begin with. I'm not so arrogant and sometimes I change my mind on issues. Plus, I have a lot of vices some people on both sides would probably like to take away. :lol:
I personally think the standard for any imposition on private property and personal freedom should be a lot higher than whoever is in power now (even when I agree with the goal).
JustRalph
10-26-2016, 06:18 PM
So far everything you've posted on this thread has been just vague enough to leave open the possibility of you accusing me of putting words in your mouth if I go with what you seem to be saying. Experience speaking.
Please do.
What I get from the above is that the "left" is not an organized effort by a group with an agenda but rather a collection of individuals that you do not agree with politically. These individuals do not coordinate with each other nor do they have any sort of organization. They are not the Democratic Party per se. Your gripe is that they have been successful at achieving some of their goals. You perceive that in exercising their freedom as Americans they somehow endanger or deprive you of those same freedoms.
Are you freaking nuts? Never heard of journolist?
Actor
10-26-2016, 08:09 PM
Never heard of journolist?Should I have?
Actor
10-26-2016, 08:14 PM
The leftist movement has co-opted, as in, has taken over, the former Democratic party.
What more organization can a group have than that?So this "leftist movement" (define movement) had taken over the Democratic Party. Was this done illegally?
ReplayRandall
10-26-2016, 08:14 PM
Should I have?
I'll be honest, I didn't know either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
HalvOnHorseracing
10-26-2016, 08:17 PM
I'm not going to get into a debate about any specific law or case, but what this comes down to is whether you believe that private property or the politics of the day should drive "rights".
1. If you believe in personal freedom and private property, you risk allowing people to discriminate or do things that many people will find offensive. Those that object then have the option of opening competing businesses, boycotting the offending people/businesses, publicly embarrassing them etc... until they are eventually driven out of business and/or change. The downside is that it takes a LOT longer to do it that way than the majority simply imposing their will via law and saying "you are not allowed to do that".
2. If you believe in creating laws that prevent certain behaviors, you risk allowing others to impose laws on you that you think are unjust, unfair, reduce your personal freedoms, reduce your religious freedoms, reduce your freedom FROM religion or moralists etc...
Everyone understands why #1 is risky. Racism made that clear. That's why to a large extent it has been rejected by moderates.
Not many people understand why #2 is risky UNTIL someone from the political opposition comes to power and tries to take away their alcohol, gambling, smoking, eating/drinking certain foods, marijuana, guns, favorite web sites, favorite TV shows, favorite radio shows, best porn, sexual preferences, or whatever else it is you enjoy that someone else finds unhealthy, risky, costly to society, offensive, sinful etc...
(did I mention gambling? :lol: )
As a matter of principle, and as a libertarian, I personally don't think the right approach is as clear as most moderates think. Most people seem to be comfortable with the idea of the majority imposing their will on others because they assume they are right on the issue to begin with. I'm not so arrogant and sometimes I change my mind on issues. Plus, I have a lot of vices some people on both sides would probably like to take away. :lol:
I personally think the standard for any imposition on private property and personal freedom should be a lot higher than whoever is in power now (even when I agree with the goal).
That was a cogent piece.
The essence of true democracy is for the majority to rule, while protecting the rights of the minority. Both things are simultaneously necessary. I have a slightly different view than the left simply thinks they are right. My observation is that when we see social legislation it is often in response to an issue that moderates and the left perceive as a highly problematic. Civil rights were a good example. They believe if government doesn't solve the problem, the problem will only grow larger. Of course at the same time libertarians say, problem, what problem - on a hot day I want a Big Gulp.
Too often the libertarians lose to the moralists, which in the case of the Colorado baker is pretty ironic. Libertarians lose to the moralists on legalization of marijuana, gambling, prostitution and other things. They lost previously on drinking. And then the libertarians will defend the baker's right to refuse service to anyone. Ironic since the Christian baker would not likely support the libertarian's right to smoke some weed before calling 1-800-HOTBABE.
The trick, and it is a very difficult trick, is to have enough governmental influence to avoid chaos and anarchy, which is the extreme outcome of libertarianism. If everybody is in charge, then nobody is in charge. In that regard I agree with you - we should impose limitations on private property and individual rights judiciously. But as the old saying goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.
Actor
10-26-2016, 08:17 PM
I'm not going to get into a debate about any specific law or case, but what this comes down to is whether you believe that private property or the politics of the day should drive "rights".
1. If you believe in personal freedom and private property, you risk allowing people to discriminate or do things that many people will find offensive. Those that object then have the option of opening competing businesses, boycotting the offending people/businesses, publicly embarrassing them etc... until they are eventually driven out of business and/or change. The downside is that it takes a LOT longer to do it that way than the majority simply imposing their will via law and saying "you are not allowed to do that".
2. If you believe in creating laws that prevent certain behaviors, you risk allowing others to impose laws on you that you think are unjust, unfair, reduce your personal freedoms, reduce your religious freedoms, reduce your freedom FROM religion or moralists etc...Can't I have both #1 and #2?
So this "leftist movement" (define movement) had taken over the Democratic Party. Was this done illegally?
(look it up)
define illegal.
JustRalph
10-27-2016, 12:23 AM
I'll be honest, I didn't know either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
400 journalist types colluded to control news coverage and push a pro left agenda. 400.....and then when the news broke they downplayed it.
It was proof positive of what was expected all along. It pre dated O'Keefe's vids etc. there has always been a left wing bias in the news. You can trace it back through Walter Cronkite. They don't even try to hide it anymore. In the last month we have found that the DNC gets to approve articles run on Hillary, even journalist begging forgiveness from DNC reps etc.
The mainstream media is a left wing cabal. It permeates all of media. Even Fox News. Megan Kelly trying to hide that she raised 70k for Hillary is the most recent news on that front. She denies but who knows.
Actor
10-27-2016, 05:00 PM
define illegal.
il•le•gal (ĭ-lēˈgəl)►
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Do you understand the question now?
Actor
10-27-2016, 05:01 PM
400 journalist types colluded to control news coverage and push a pro left agenda. 400.....and then when the news broke they downplayed it.
It was proof positive of what was expected all along. It pre dated O'Keefe's vids etc. there has always been a left wing bias in the news. You can trace it back through Walter Cronkite. They don't even try to hide it anymore. In the last month we have found that the DNC gets to approve articles run on Hillary, even journalist begging forgiveness from DNC reps etc.
The mainstream media is a left wing cabal. It permeates all of media. Even Fox News. Megan Kelly trying to hide that she raised 70k for Hillary is the most recent news on that front. She denies but who knows.Can you prove any of this? :rolleyes:
Tune in any lame stream media channel and watch for 10 minutes.
JustRalph
10-27-2016, 07:58 PM
Can you prove any of this? :rolleyes:
Jesus! This is old news from 2008. Get your head out of the sand and use Google. There were lots of stories written and buried. But they are out there.
http://gawker.com/here-is-the-archive-of-the-famous-liberal-media-journol-530195415
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/
Just look around....it's out there
There are none so blind,
as those who will not see.
Everything is beautiful.
Reality is so depressing, fantasy so, so, real.
Clocker
10-27-2016, 09:00 PM
Jesus! This is old news from 2008. Get your head out of the sand and use Google. There were lots of stories written and buried. But they are out there.
http://gawker.com/here-is-the-archive-of-the-famous-liberal-media-journol-530195415
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/
Just look around....it's out there
That stuff is so ancient history. :rolleyes:
Things have change a lot since then.
It is no secret that the mainstream media has a "slight" left-leaning bias in their political reporting. But newly leaked emails from Guccifer 2.0, obtained exclusively by The Intercept, reveal just how "cozy" and pervasive the Clinton campaign's relationship is with the press. From "off-the-record dinners with the key national reporters" to feeding pre-written propaganda pieces to "friendly" journalists, the new leaks reveal startling coordination between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media.
The first revelation comes from a January 2015 strategy document written by Hillary's press secretary, Nick Merrill, about how the campaign should approach reporting on Hillary's decision to run for president. The memo identifies "Maggie Haberman" of Politico as someone who had a "very good relationship" with the campaign and who had "teed up stories" for Hillary in the past.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/09/20161009%20-%20Hillary%20Press%201_0.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/09/20161009%20-%20Hillary%20Press%201.jpg)
Other documents revealed by The Intercept, listed those whom the campaign regarded as their most reliable “surrogates” – such as CNN’s Hilary Rosen and Donna Brazile, as well as Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden. The list also included "David Brock" as a "Progressive Helper"...of course, Brock has made headlines this weekend as the latest WikiLeaks dump of the "Podesta Emails" revealed that the Hillary campaign potentially coordinated directly with Brock's "Correct the Record" Super PAC, which is technically a felony (see "Podesta Emails Reveal Illegal Coordination With David Brock Super PAC")
The next memo comes from Clinton's deputy press secretary, Jesse Ferguson, who helped setup an "off-the-record dinner with key national reporters." The memo lists the goals of the dinner, one of which is to "give reporters their first thoughts from team HRC in advance of the announcement"...certainly wouldn't want anyone to form and/or report their independent, unbiased thoughts now would we?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/09/20161009%20-%20Hillary%20Press%203_0.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/10/09/20161009%20-%20Hillary%20Press%203.jpg)
And, of course, the guest list included the who's who of national reporters.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/new-email-leak-reveals-unprecedented-coordination-between-hillary-campaign-and-press (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/new-email-leak-reveals-unprecedented-coordination-between-hillary-campaign-and-press)
mostie will explain all of this, I am sure.
It must be doctored.......no thinking individual could excuse this.
Actor
10-27-2016, 10:32 PM
There are none so blind,
as those who will not see.
Everything is beautiful.
Reality is so depressing, fantasy so, so, real.I assume you intended this for the religion thread. :lol:
mostpost
10-27-2016, 10:50 PM
No it isn't. By your definition and graph, the more one advocates for personal freedom, free markets, and capitalism, the closer one gets to a dictatorship. Communism and fascism differ little in government control of the economy and the people. The difference is in nominal ownership of property.
JFK may have been a liberal by the standards of his time, but probably would not make the cut as a liberal today.
From the Boston Globe, which refers to its editorial policy as progressive:
Quote:
Today’s Democratic Party — the home of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore — wouldn’t give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.
The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the “confiscatory” property taxes being levied in too many cities.
He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state liberal. “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort,” Kennedy bluntly avowed during the 1960 campaign. One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for top White House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary austerity. “To the surprise of many of his appointees,” longtime aide Ted Sorensen would later write, he “personally scrutinized every agency request with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say ‘no.’ ”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html
__________________
You need to read a history book, or Mr. Jacoby does. The non liberal Kennedy supported school integration. He sent Federal marshals to University of Mississipi and Little Rock. He Federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent it to the University of Alabama. Many of his ideas on Civil Rights can be found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.
He supported women's rights, signing The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and established The Alliance for Progress, a partnership between the United States and Latin America.
He was pro Labor.
As for your tax cutting nonsense. Kennedy proposed cutting the tax rate from 20-90% to 14-65%. He would have laughed in your face had you suggested a top rate of 38.6%. When the top rate is 90%, there is room to cut it. There might even be room to cut it at 65%. When the top rate is 39.6% it is too low and needs to be raised. Or brackets need to be added at the top.
Kennedy a conservative? Don't make me laugh.
zico20
10-27-2016, 11:06 PM
You need to read a history book, or Mr. Jacoby does. The non liberal Kennedy supported school integration. He sent Federal marshals to University of Mississipi and Little Rock. He Federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent it to the University of Alabama. Many of his ideas on Civil Rights can be found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.
He supported women's rights, signing The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and established The Alliance for Progress, a partnership between the United States and Latin America.
He was pro Labor.
As for your tax cutting nonsense. Kennedy proposed cutting the tax rate from 20-90% to 14-65%. He would have laughed in your face had you suggested a top rate of 38.6%. When the top rate is 90%, there is room to cut it. There might even be room to cut it at 65%. When the top rate is 39.6% it is too low and needs to be raised. Or brackets need to be added at the top.
Kennedy a conservative? Don't make me laugh.
To a liberal a top tax rate of 90 percent means there is the possibility to add a percent or two so another vital entitlement program can be enacted to save the poor from starvation. I like how you said there MIGHT be room to cut at 65 percent. At least we now know where your top figure is. You want two thirds of peoples money. :ThmbDown:
JustRalph
10-27-2016, 11:20 PM
You need to read a history book, or Mr. Jacoby does. The non liberal Kennedy supported school integration. He sent Federal marshals to University of Mississipi and Little Rock. He Federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent it to the University of Alabama. Many of his ideas on Civil Rights can be found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.
He supported women's rights, signing The Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and established The Alliance for Progress, a partnership between the United States and Latin America.
He was pro Labor.
As for your tax cutting nonsense. Kennedy proposed cutting the tax rate from 20-90% to 14-65%. He would have laughed in your face had you suggested a top rate of 38.6%. When the top rate is 90%, there is room to cut it. There might even be room to cut it at 65%. When the top rate is 39.6% it is too low and needs to be raised. Or brackets need to be added at the top.
Kennedy a conservative? Don't make me laugh.
You left out he was a drug addicted philandering liar who passed his used women off to his brother when he was done with them. All the while playing Camelot and keeping a 20 yr old Suckratary who's only job was oral sex on call.
But Trump grabbed a woman by the crotch..........so let's forget all the rest.
Actor
10-27-2016, 11:23 PM
Jesus! This is old news from 2008. Get your head out of the sand and use Google. There were lots of stories written and buried. But they are out there.
http://gawker.com/here-is-the-archive-of-the-famous-liberal-media-journol-530195415
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/
Just look around....it's out there
What laws did these guys break?
Why should I care?
Actor
10-27-2016, 11:29 PM
To a liberal a top tax rate of 90 percent means there is the possibility to add a percent or two so another vital entitlement program can be enacted to save the poor from starvation.Are you against saving the poor from starvation?
I like how you said there MIGHT be room to cut at 65 percent. At least we now know where your top figure is. You want two thirds of peoples money.No. Two thirds of rich people's money.
The should be a tax bracket where the rate is 100%.
JustRalph
10-28-2016, 12:02 AM
What laws did these guys break?
Why should I care?
Find somebody else to play games with. Propaganda is a word I'm sure you are familiar with
Actor
10-28-2016, 02:17 AM
Propaganda is a word I'm sure you are familiar with
propaganda ► n. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Don't both the left and right do that?
il•le•gal (ĭ-lēˈgəl)►
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Do you understand the question now?
The Nazis came to power legally.
What's your point?
Actor
10-28-2016, 11:11 PM
The Nazis came to power legally.So you equate the Democratic Party with the Nazis. Since when does the Democratic Party espouse genocide?
What's your point?What's your point? Your chief complaint seems to be that many policies which you oppose have done well at the ballot box. Get over it. No one wins them all.
EasyGoer89
10-28-2016, 11:13 PM
So you are equating the Democratic Party with the Nazis.
What's your point? Your chief complaint seems to be that many policies which you oppose have done well at the ballot box. Get over it.
If the swastika fits.....
Parkview_Pirate
10-29-2016, 01:27 AM
...The mainstream media is a left wing cabal. It permeates all of media. Even Fox News. Megan Kelly trying to hide that she raised 70k for Hillary is the most recent news on that front. She denies but who knows.
Quite right. This is why the term "Alt-Left Media" is not heard.
I watched a documentary on PBS last night, American Reds, or something like that. History of the Communist party in America. It paralleled the union movement, and in fact, piggy backed it for decades. The two were closely intertwined and allied with Stalin.
Now, much of the stuff the workers were fighting for was 100% justified, and the Commie faction was far too erratic to last.
One guy, who was an organizer, was offered a large paycheck and he turned it down. He said he would accept the highest pay grad that any union member got and not a dollar more. He was told the party leaders got paid much more than that and he told them, "That is what is wrong with this party."
And he was promptly fired.
But the ties between unions, commies, progressives, and Stalin were real.
So you equate the Democratic Party with the Nazis. Since when does the Democratic Party espouse genocide?
You mean equate as in are equal? No. Although National Socialism and Alinskyite Marxism share many goals, their tactics differ.
As far as genocide goes, check the numbers. Non-combat deaths tolls attributed to Nazism are about 1/5 the number that have been inflicted by regimes imposing Marxist ideology. When it comes to killing people, the Nazis were amateurs compared to the Marxists. So they surely aren't equal in that regard.
Espouse? The victims of Marxism are dead whether their murderers announced their intent or not.
Unfortunately for the Alinskyites who occupy the government now - and by extension those who support them - they can't divorce themselves from the realities of Marxism. If one embraces the ideology, he embraces all the unsavory baggage that comes with it.
But then again, the ends justifies the means, right? If murder and suppression of freedom are needed to further the ideology, so be it. Such has always been the policy of Marxism. Truth, honor, justice, morality, and the like are irrelevant concepts to Alinskyites, and we're seeing the proof of that in our government today.
What's your point?
It should be obvious if you've been paying attention. Maybe that black beret you've been wearing since the 60s is too tight. Whatever, I'll recap for ya.
You asked if the Alinskyites in government came to power legally. If they have, it's not because their ideology prescribes adherence to the law - quite the opposite. Remember the Alinsky principle: "the ends justifies the means." Perhaps that's why there has been so much lying, deceit, back door dealing, circumvention of law, and dishonesty as we have witnessed in the past 8 years. It's like a Geico commercial. "They're Marxists. It's what they do."
I pointed out that "legally" has no connection to morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive. The Nazis came to power legally. Do you somehow equate "legal" with moral, honest, beneficial, or any other positive quality? (assuming you believe that morality and honesty are actually positive qualities. Alinskyites perceive them as weaknesses.)
I've outlined my opposition to Alinskyite Marxism and why I believe it's antithetical to American values.
As of this writing, this is still a free country and you're entitled to your vote and your opinion. (not that the Marxists in government agree with any of that.)
Just don't expect patriots to go down easily. We're used to fighting for our freedoms and will continue to do so until the last.
Got it all now, comrade?
The democrats are waging their own holocaust - abortion.
They have just perfected the nazi method to new levels of efficiency.
And both were legal.
Actor
10-29-2016, 07:35 PM
You asked if the Alinskyites in government came to power legally.No, I did not. I asked if the "leftest movement" had taken over the Democratic Party legally? This in response to your statement that "The leftist movement has co-opted, as in, has taken over, the former Democratic party." - #123
Actor
10-29-2016, 07:57 PM
I pointed out that "legally" has no connection to morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive.I've used the search engine to search the thread for the word "legally" and have come up with no instance where you pointed out any such thing. Did I miss it? Is it on some other thread?
But whether "legally" has any connection to "morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive" is irrelevant. Two people can have entirely different ideas as to what constitutes "morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive," but what is legal is written down. We are a nation of laws. No matter how much you may fear another group's political goals, if they can achieve those goals legally then everyone has to live with it.
No, I did not. I asked if the "leftest movement" had taken over the Democratic Party legally? This in response to your statement that "The leftist movement has co-opted, as in, has taken over, the former Democratic party." - #123
The leaders of the leftist movement, i.e. Obama, Clinton, and most of those in their inner circles, are Alinskyite Marxists. They've taken over the former Democratic Party.
Actor
10-30-2016, 02:05 AM
The leaders of the leftist movement, i.e. Obama, Clinton, and most of those in their inner circles, are Alinskyite Marxists. They've taken over the former Democratic Party.
pWdd6_ZxX8c
I've used the search engine to search the thread for the word "legally" and have come up with no instance where you pointed out any such thing. Did I miss it? Is it on some other thread?
You didn't have to look that far. I pointed it out in the same post. My example is that the Nazi Party came to power legally. I don't consider the Nazis to be examples of morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive.
Do you?
But whether "legally" has any connection to "morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive" is irrelevant. Two people can have entirely different ideas as to what constitutes "morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive," but what is legal is written down. We are a nation of laws. No matter how much you may fear another group's political goals, if they can achieve those goals legally then everyone has to live with it.
Just what Hitler would argue.
"Although Hitler realized that his ascension to power required the use of the Weimar Republic’s parliamentary system (founded on democratic principles), he never intended for the continuation of democratic governance once in control. Contrarily, Hitler proclaimed that he would "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy."
The leftist strategy is similar, if not identical: to use our political system and laws in order to destroy.... our political system and laws.
It's interesting that you point out that "we are a nation of laws."
Then you must agree that our Alinskyite president has been negligent in carrying out the laws of the nation, right? Beginning with my personal favorite: immigration law.
VigorsTheGrey
10-30-2016, 02:13 AM
You didn't have to look that far. I pointed it out in the same post. My example is that the Nazi Party came to power legally. I don't consider the Nazis to be examples of morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive.
Do you?
Just what Hitler would argue.
"Although Hitler realized that his ascension to power required the use of the Weimar Republic’s parliamentary system (founded on democratic principles), he never intended for the continuation of democratic governance once in control. Contrarily, Hitler proclaimed that he would "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy."
The leftist strategy is similar, if not identical: to use our political system and laws in order to destroy.... our political system and laws.
It's interesting that you point out that "we are a nation of laws."
Then you must agree that our Alinskyite president has been negligent in carrying out the laws of the nation, right? Beginning with my personal favorite: immigration law.
I agree with you...now what is the Alinsky agenda really? To establish a dictatorship like Stalins in order to gain control over commodities and wealth? To become oligopolistic themselves? What is their end game? To destroy America to achieve what exactly?
Actor
10-30-2016, 02:52 AM
You didn't have to look that far. I pointed it out in the same post. My example is that the Nazi Party came to power legally. I don't consider the Nazis to be examples of morality, truth, freedom, or anything else positive.
Do you?Red herring. You are the only one who has cited Hitler and the Nazis.
Just what Hitler would argue.Ad hominem.
It's interesting that you point out that "we are a nation of laws."Are you suggesting that we not be a nation of laws? What alternative would satisfy you?
I agree with you...now what is the Alinsky agenda really? To establish a dictatorship like Stalins in order to gain control over commodities and wealth? To become oligopolistic themselves? What is their end game? To destroy America to achieve what exactly?
I'm not a member of the leftist party, so I don't know exactly what the ultimate goal is. The Alinskyite Marxists who control the party - Obama, Clinton and their minions, don't share their objectives with me.
What we can glean from what's happened so far is that one of their biggest goals is to turn America from a strong, sovereign nation to a cog in a worldwide socialist dominated "worker's paradise", strictly out of the Marxist playbook.
That's why Obama has constantly ignored immigration law. A flood of unchecked immigration will lead to A. the weakening of America by overloading the social welfare system, B. The "globalization" of the populace by destroying the identity, language, and culture of American society.
This influx will also lead to a huge political advantage for the leftists who plan to turn the hordes into citizens who will vote for... guess who? Once that happens, opposition will never be able to overcome the added numbers and a one-party - the Leftist Party (formerly the Democratic Party) will reign unchecked. Say goodbye to the Constitution and therefore, to the America given to us by the founders.
The Marxists are very close to achieving this in America now. They've been able to consolidate the votes of low information voters by promises of redistribution of wealth - perhaps the oldest Marxist ploy. It's worked time and time again in various places at in various time periods. The only problem is, the leftists have never been able to deliver the utopia they promise and have had to fall back on strict control of the populace and government institutions to stay in power. Once in power, nothing is out of bounds to retain it. Not murder, intimidation, violence - nothing. One of the biggest Marxist principles is "the ends justifies the means", and we've seen that in our government today. The DoJ and FBI have been corrupted by the Alinskyites. Laws have been circumvented or ignored completely. The welfare state has been expanded in order to promote dependency on the leftist state. In the past 8 years, much has been done to further this goal of globalism with a populace dependent and under the control of a leftist Marxist government.
But the worst is yet to come. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong fan of Alinsky Marxism, would bring the goal to full fruition. She has said that she "dreams of open borders" for America. Such a policy would ultimately destroy the culture and language of America and turn it into the "global society" that every good Marxist has striven for for more than a century. Her SC appointments will ensure Leftist decisions for decades to come.
Will Clinton remain true to a genuine Marxist revolution? Maybe not. One thing we can also glean is that she and her family are capitalists when it comes to adding to their personal wealth. There are examples that suggest she could remain true to the vision of a socialist paradise while amassing vast wealth.
1. Fidel Castro has become insanely wealthy while systematically raping his island nation for nearly six decades. He apparently keeps up the charade of beneficence for the populace while personally enriching himself. However, it should be noted that he and his apparatus have stayed in power using the old tried and true methods of Marxism - murder, intimidation, imprisonment, control of propaganda, etc. In the end, every single populace that has fallen under Marxist control has suffered this fate. Ultimately, t's the only way leftists can stay in power once their promises have been broken - which is virtually immediately.
2. Vladimir Putin has gained his vast wealth by instituting an oligarchy with himself at the head. Once a devout communist, Putin has risen from the ashes of the Marxist state in Russia by morphing into a hybrid-leftist, less interested in furthering Marxist goals than consolidating power and wealth into the hands of his oligarchy.
Clinton could take either route or remain on track to turn America into a nation of Marxist globalism. It matters little. For her to retain power, she will have to complete the "fundamental transformation of America" dreamed of by Obama.
At any rate, it will spell the end for the America our founders gave us.
The only hope for those who don't want to see Clinton bring Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" to fruition is to defeat her at he ballot box on election day.
Then, perhaps the next president will purge the leftists from the DoJ, FBI, EPA, State Dept, etc., etc., etc. and restore our republic.
Post #162.....well thought out, intelligent reply.
Thanks for playing. :D
Post #162.....well thought out, intelligent reply.
Thanks for playing. :D
I didn't even play the thing. Just because a leftist plays the music doesn't mean I have to dance.
Actor
10-30-2016, 01:15 PM
Post #162.....well thought out, intelligent reply.
Thanks for playing. :DYou're welcome.
Post #162 gave post #161 all the attention it so richly deserved, perhaps more. :cool:
You're welcome.
Post #162 gave post #161 all the attention it so richly deserved, perhaps more. :cool:
And if that's what you really believe, you're more ignorant than I give you credit for.
Actor
10-30-2016, 01:23 PM
I'm not a member of the leftist party, so I don't know exactly what the ultimate goal is. The Alinskyite Marxists who control the party - Obama, Clinton and their minions, don't share their objectives with me.
What we can glean from what's happened so far is that one of their biggest goals is to turn America from a strong, sovereign nation to a cog in a worldwide socialist dominated "worker's paradise", strictly out of the Marxist playbook.
That's why Obama has constantly ignored immigration law. A flood of unchecked immigration will lead to A. the weakening of America by overloading the social welfare system, B. The "globalization" of the populace by destroying the identity, language, and culture of American society.
This influx will also lead to a huge political advantage for the leftists who plan to turn the hordes into citizens who will vote for... guess who? Once that happens, opposition will never be able to overcome the added numbers and a one-party - the Leftist Party (formerly the Democratic Party) will reign unchecked. Say goodbye to the Constitution and therefore, to the America given to us by the founders.
The Marxists are very close to achieving this in America now. They've been able to consolidate the votes of low information voters by promises of redistribution of wealth - perhaps the oldest Marxist ploy. It's worked time and time again in various places at in various time periods. The only problem is, the leftists have never been able to deliver the utopia they promise and have had to fall back on strict control of the populace and government institutions to stay in power. Once in power, nothing is out of bounds to retain it. Not murder, intimidation, violence - nothing. One of the biggest Marxist principles is "the ends justifies the means", and we've seen that in our government today. The DoJ and FBI have been corrupted by the Alinskyites. Laws have been circumvented or ignored completely. The welfare state has been expanded in order to promote dependency on the leftist state. In the past 8 years, much has been done to further this goal of globalism with a populace dependent and under the control of a leftist Marxist government.
But the worst is yet to come. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong fan of Alinsky Marxism, would bring the goal to full fruition. She has said that she "dreams of open borders" for America. Such a policy would ultimately destroy the culture and language of America and turn it into the "global society" that every good Marxist has striven for for more than a century. Her SC appointments will ensure Leftist decisions for decades to come.
Will Clinton remain true to a genuine Marxist revolution? Maybe not. One thing we can also glean is that she and her family are capitalists when it comes to adding to their personal wealth. There are examples that suggest she could remain true to the vision of a socialist paradise while amassing vast wealth.
1. Fidel Castro has become insanely wealthy while systematically raping his island nation for nearly six decades. He apparently keeps up the charade of beneficence for the populace while personally enriching himself. However, it should be noted that he and his apparatus have stayed in power using the old tried and true methods of Marxism - murder, intimidation, imprisonment, control of propaganda, etc. In the end, every single populace that has fallen under Marxist control has suffered this fate. Ultimately, t's the only way leftists can stay in power once their promises have been broken - which is virtually immediately.
2. Vladimir Putin has gained his vast wealth by instituting an oligarchy with himself at the head. Once a devout communist, Putin has risen from the ashes of the Marxist state in Russia by morphing into a hybrid-leftist, less interested in furthering Marxist goals than consolidating power and wealth into the hands of his oligarchy.
Clinton could take either route or remain on track to turn America into a nation of Marxist globalism. It matters little. For her to retain power, she will have to complete the "fundamental transformation of America" dreamed of by Obama.
At any rate, it will spell the end for the America our founders gave us.
The only hope for those who don't want to see Clinton bring Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" to fruition is to defeat her at he ballot box on election day.
Then, perhaps the next president will purge the leftists from the DoJ, FBI, EPA, State Dept, etc., etc., etc. and restore our republic.There's big money to be made with this kind of fiction. You should consider selling it to the Coen Brothers. :rolleyes:
There's big money to be made with this kind of fiction. You should consider selling it to the Coen Brothers. :rolleyes:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
This crap only works if the individual you're using it on doesn't know its objective.
Nice try, Che. But I'm not infuriated. The emotion this elicits is, well, pity.
You old leftys need to come up with some new material. Don't forget another rule:
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
And this shit is truly a drag.....
VigorsTheGrey
10-30-2016, 02:22 PM
I'm not a member of the leftist party, so I don't know exactly what the ultimate goal is. The Alinskyite Marxists who control the party - Obama, Clinton and their minions, don't share their objectives with me.
What we can glean from what's happened so far is that one of their biggest goals is to turn America from a strong, sovereign nation to a cog in a worldwide socialist dominated "worker's paradise", strictly out of the Marxist playbook.
That's why Obama has constantly ignored immigration law. A flood of unchecked immigration will lead to A. the weakening of America by overloading the social welfare system, B. The "globalization" of the populace by destroying the identity, language, and culture of American society.
This influx will also lead to a huge political advantage for the leftists who plan to turn the hordes into citizens who will vote for... guess who? Once that happens, opposition will never be able to overcome the added numbers and a one-party - the Leftist Party (formerly the Democratic Party) will reign unchecked. Say goodbye to the Constitution and therefore, to the America given to us by the founders.
The Marxists are very close to achieving this in America now. They've been able to consolidate the votes of low information voters by promises of redistribution of wealth - perhaps the oldest Marxist ploy. It's worked time and time again in various places at in various time periods. The only problem is, the leftists have never been able to deliver the utopia they promise and have had to fall back on strict control of the populace and government institutions to stay in power. Once in power, nothing is out of bounds to retain it. Not murder, intimidation, violence - nothing. One of the biggest Marxist principles is "the ends justifies the means", and we've seen that in our government today. The DoJ and FBI have been corrupted by the Alinskyites. Laws have been circumvented or ignored completely. The welfare state has been expanded in order to promote dependency on the leftist state. In the past 8 years, much has been done to further this goal of globalism with a populace dependent and under the control of a leftist Marxist government.
But the worst is yet to come. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong fan of Alinsky Marxism, would bring the goal to full fruition. She has said that she "dreams of open borders" for America. Such a policy would ultimately destroy the culture and language of America and turn it into the "global society" that every good Marxist has striven for for more than a century. Her SC appointments will ensure Leftist decisions for decades to come.
Will Clinton remain true to a genuine Marxist revolution? Maybe not. One thing we can also glean is that she and her family are capitalists when it comes to adding to their personal wealth. There are examples that suggest she could remain true to the vision of a socialist paradise while amassing vast wealth.
1. Fidel Castro has become insanely wealthy while systematically raping his island nation for nearly six decades. He apparently keeps up the charade of beneficence for the populace while personally enriching himself. However, it should be noted that he and his apparatus have stayed in power using the old tried and true methods of Marxism - murder, intimidation, imprisonment, control of propaganda, etc. In the end, every single populace that has fallen under Marxist control has suffered this fate. Ultimately, t's the only way leftists can stay in power once their promises have been broken - which is virtually immediately.
2. Vladimir Putin has gained his vast wealth by instituting an oligarchy with himself at the head. Once a devout communist, Putin has risen from the ashes of the Marxist state in Russia by morphing into a hybrid-leftist, less interested in furthering Marxist goals than consolidating power and wealth into the hands of his oligarchy.
Clinton could take either route or remain on track to turn America into a nation of Marxist globalism. It matters little. For her to retain power, she will have to complete the "fundamental transformation of America" dreamed of by Obama.
At any rate, it will spell the end for the America our founders gave us.
The only hope for those who don't want to see Clinton bring Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" to fruition is to defeat her at he ballot box on election day.
Then, perhaps the next president will purge the leftists from the DoJ, FBI, EPA, State Dept, etc., etc., etc. and restore our republic.
I fully agree with what you say here... Thank you for writing this exposé... One thing that comes up for me here in your piece is the old quote that the end justifies the means, which is often attributed to the Jesuits of the RCC...the RCC seems to me to be right in the center of this Marxist scheme to transform America... All you have to do is watch the All Smith dinner benefit party to understand the enormous influence the RCC has on america politics, military, Georgetown University, etc, etc,... The RCC's role in this Marxist scheme needs to be thoroughly examined... Before any clear idea of how America functions as a cog of some global empire address this please..
EasyGoer89
10-30-2016, 02:40 PM
Fantastic write up dsb couldn't agree more she isn't putting America first w open borders they just want to groom a culture of more voters no matter how many Americans have to die to achieve that. Just awful we are so buried for she wins, America is finito as we know it.
The goal of the duhmocrats is have everyone dependent on them.
Since they have no patriotism, no sense of sovereignty, it matters not who the people are or where they come from.
The USA means nothing to the duhmocrats, only power.
There are three legs to the duhmocrat's stool - greed, evil, stupid.
VigorsTheGrey
10-30-2016, 05:07 PM
I fully agree with what you say here... Thank you for writing this exposé... One thing that comes up for me here in your piece is the old quote that the end justifies the means, which is often attributed to the Jesuits of the RCC...the RCC seems to me to be right in the center of this Marxist scheme to transform America... All you have to do is watch the All Smith dinner benefit party to understand the enormous influence the RCC has on america politics, military, Georgetown University, etc, etc,... The RCC's role in this Marxist scheme needs to be thoroughly examined... Before any clear idea of how America functions as a cog of some global empire address this please..
I will relieve others of the need to address the above by submitting for your perusal and enjoyment a very informative article... I encourage all of you to read it in it's brief entirety as it is well worth it!
https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/bronterre/2014/06/28/catholic-marxism
"From a Jewish communist group, the Church evolved a cosmopolitan bureaucracy to tie the far flung organization together..."
HalvOnHorseracing
10-30-2016, 09:58 PM
I'm not a member of the leftist party, so I don't know exactly what the ultimate goal is. The Alinskyite Marxists who control the party - Obama, Clinton and their minions, don't share their objectives with me.
What we can glean from what's happened so far is that one of their biggest goals is to turn America from a strong, sovereign nation to a cog in a worldwide socialist dominated "worker's paradise", strictly out of the Marxist playbook.
That's why Obama has constantly ignored immigration law. A flood of unchecked immigration will lead to A. the weakening of America by overloading the social welfare system, B. The "globalization" of the populace by destroying the identity, language, and culture of American society.
This influx will also lead to a huge political advantage for the leftists who plan to turn the hordes into citizens who will vote for... guess who? Once that happens, opposition will never be able to overcome the added numbers and a one-party - the Leftist Party (formerly the Democratic Party) will reign unchecked. Say goodbye to the Constitution and therefore, to the America given to us by the founders.
The Marxists are very close to achieving this in America now. They've been able to consolidate the votes of low information voters by promises of redistribution of wealth - perhaps the oldest Marxist ploy. It's worked time and time again in various places at in various time periods. The only problem is, the leftists have never been able to deliver the utopia they promise and have had to fall back on strict control of the populace and government institutions to stay in power. Once in power, nothing is out of bounds to retain it. Not murder, intimidation, violence - nothing. One of the biggest Marxist principles is "the ends justifies the means", and we've seen that in our government today. The DoJ and FBI have been corrupted by the Alinskyites. Laws have been circumvented or ignored completely. The welfare state has been expanded in order to promote dependency on the leftist state. In the past 8 years, much has been done to further this goal of globalism with a populace dependent and under the control of a leftist Marxist government.
But the worst is yet to come. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong fan of Alinsky Marxism, would bring the goal to full fruition. She has said that she "dreams of open borders" for America. Such a policy would ultimately destroy the culture and language of America and turn it into the "global society" that every good Marxist has striven for for more than a century. Her SC appointments will ensure Leftist decisions for decades to come.
Will Clinton remain true to a genuine Marxist revolution? Maybe not. One thing we can also glean is that she and her family are capitalists when it comes to adding to their personal wealth. There are examples that suggest she could remain true to the vision of a socialist paradise while amassing vast wealth.
1. Fidel Castro has become insanely wealthy while systematically raping his island nation for nearly six decades. He apparently keeps up the charade of beneficence for the populace while personally enriching himself. However, it should be noted that he and his apparatus have stayed in power using the old tried and true methods of Marxism - murder, intimidation, imprisonment, control of propaganda, etc. In the end, every single populace that has fallen under Marxist control has suffered this fate. Ultimately, t's the only way leftists can stay in power once their promises have been broken - which is virtually immediately.
2. Vladimir Putin has gained his vast wealth by instituting an oligarchy with himself at the head. Once a devout communist, Putin has risen from the ashes of the Marxist state in Russia by morphing into a hybrid-leftist, less interested in furthering Marxist goals than consolidating power and wealth into the hands of his oligarchy.
Clinton could take either route or remain on track to turn America into a nation of Marxist globalism. It matters little. For her to retain power, she will have to complete the "fundamental transformation of America" dreamed of by Obama.
At any rate, it will spell the end for the America our founders gave us.
The only hope for those who don't want to see Clinton bring Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" to fruition is to defeat her at he ballot box on election day.
Then, perhaps the next president will purge the leftists from the DoJ, FBI, EPA, State Dept, etc., etc., etc. and restore our republic.
I have no doubt you believe most of this stuff. I also have no doubt there is almost nothing anyone could say to dissuade you from believing most of this.
I was listening to a fascinating story about a congressman from Minnesota who swore that Dearborn, MI was ruled by Sharia law. When the national reporter doing the interview pressed him, he noted this was simply a fact that everyone knew. When the reporter called officials in Dearborn, they thought that was silly. Of course it is not true any more than Brooklyn is ruled by Hassidic law. Within the Muslim or Hassidic or the Catholic community there are situations where the religious community may settle certain disputes - divorce or annulment for example - but they do not have the force of law for civil or criminal matters. The Constitution and the laws of America are still very much firmly in place. But we see very small perceptions borne out of fear become immutable truths to those who want to believe and voila, we have a systemic problem that needs to be addressed, like Oklahoma approving a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts. Problem solved. What problem remains a mystery.
It is pretty much standard for high ranking government officials to command large speaking fews once they leave the government. You ever look up how much Rudy Giuliani commanded in speaking fees? You would be quite naive to think the phenomenon of making a lot of money from speaking fees was started or perfected by the Clintons. Everybody who wants to can make millions giving people their opinion. Do you know who the top paid public speaker in America was - that's right, Donald Trump. Ronald Reagan was commanding $1 million a speech. Even Sarah Palin for quite a while was right up there when it came to big speaking fees. Sarah freekin' Palin.
Clinton doesn't believe in open borders. That is simply nonsense. But again, there is no disabusing those who need to believe that is the case. They even put it in quotes.
Clinton is a well known neocon. a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy. But that's ignored as well.
Many Democrats would love a do over in terms of nominating Hillary. Despite what you might think, it's a small group that has real Hillary worship. Many Democrats believe she is an incredibly flawed candidate. But you're not going to sell very many centrists/moderates that in four years America will be some unrecognizable hell hole, the end of America as we know it. You also don't understand why Democrats are willing to vote for such a flawed candidate over Trump, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or Marxism. You need to understand why a majority of Americans believe the scariest candidate in the election is Trump and that may make a lot of things clearer.
If I have to use my own money to bet I'd be willing to put it on the side of things won't be anywhere near as dire as the far right wants to believe. Most of the time when I read stuff like you wrote I think, you have such little faith in America, and perhaps that is the major difference between the Trump people and the Clinton people. The Trump people see the beginning of the end of the world with Hillary's election. It seems we're going to find out.
Hillary has two positions, remember. She said so.
A public one, to feed to the peasants, and a private one.
She said so.
So how can you be sure she is not for open borders?
She told the bankers, who pay her weel she was, and she told "us" who pay her nothing that she was not.
Shaky ground for you to say she is not.
Unless you are a banker.
Are you a banker?
EasyGoer89
10-30-2016, 10:20 PM
I have no doubt you believe most of this stuff. I also have no doubt there is almost nothing anyone could say to dissuade you from believing most of this.
I was listening to a fascinating story about a congressman from Minnesota who swore that Dearborn, MI was ruled by Sharia law. When the national reporter doing the interview pressed him, he noted this was simply a fact that everyone knew. When the reporter called officials in Dearborn, they thought that was silly. Of course it is not true any more than Brooklyn is ruled by Hassidic law. Within the Muslim or Hassidic or the Catholic community there are situations where the religious community may settle certain disputes - divorce or annulment for example - but they do not have the force of law for civil or criminal matters. The Constitution and the laws of America are still very much firmly in place. But we see very small perceptions borne out of fear become immutable truths to those who want to believe and voila, we have a systemic problem that needs to be addressed, like Oklahoma approving a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts. Problem solved. What problem remains a mystery.
It is pretty much standard for high ranking government officials to command large speaking fews once they leave the government. You ever look up how much Rudy Giuliani commanded in speaking fees? You would be quite naive to think the phenomenon of making a lot of money from speaking fees was started or perfected by the Clintons. Everybody who wants to can make millions giving people their opinion. Do you know who the top paid public speaker in America was - that's right, Donald Trump. Ronald Reagan was commanding $1 million a speech. Even Sarah Palin for quite a while was right up there when it came to big speaking fees. Sarah freekin' Palin.
Clinton doesn't believe in open borders. That is simply nonsense. But again, there is no disabusing those who need to believe that is the case. They even put it in quotes.
Clinton is a well known neocon. a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy. But that's ignored as well.
Many Democrats would love a do over in terms of nominating Hillary. Despite what you might think, it's a small group that has real Hillary worship. Many Democrats believe she is an incredibly flawed candidate. But you're not going to sell very many centrists/moderates that in four years America will be some unrecognizable hell hole, the end of America as we know it. You also don't understand why Democrats are willing to vote for such a flawed candidate over Trump, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or Marxism. You need to understand why a majority of Americans believe the scariest candidate in the election is Trump and that may make a lot of things clearer.
If I have to use my own money to bet I'd be willing to put it on the side of things won't be anywhere near as dire as the far right wants to believe. Most of the time when I read stuff like you wrote I think, you have such little faith in America, and perhaps that is the major difference between the Trump people and the Clinton people. The Trump people see the beginning of the end of the world with Hillary's election. It seems we're going to find out.
People, it seems, want to actually hear Trump speak. Hillary? She can't get people to see her for FREE and we are to believe Goldman needed to pay her in the hundreds of thousands for something essentially worthless?
HalvOnHorseracing
10-30-2016, 11:06 PM
Hillary has two positions, remember. She said so.
A public one, to feed to the peasants, and a private one.
She said so.
So how can you be sure she is not for open borders?
She told the bankers, who pay her weel she was, and she told "us" who pay her nothing that she was not.
Shaky ground for you to say she is not.
Unless you are a banker.
Are you a banker?
You already know the answer to this one. She was for the open flow of goods across borders. Oil, trees from Canada, maple syrup, tequila - the important stuff. That's what she told Wall Street. She may believe that with all her heart, or it may have been a politically expedient position, but only the true believers give a crap. But luckily for us all, opening the borders, whatever she means, isn't simply her decision. It isn't even mostly her decision. Sort of like when someone promised to close Guantanamo without the real power to do so. I'll tell you who is not stupid - the Wall Street Bankers. They knew what they were paying for. What she was not for was the unlimited flow of immigrants across the border. Not then, not now, not after the election. You know why? Because almost nobody in the country is for that. They might be for a sensible immigration policy that doesn't shut the door on refugees, but open border? You've got to be delusional to believe that.
If I had a nickel for every statement a politician had to nuance or walk back, I'd have more money than Bill got from speaking fees.
You can't possibly be that unsophisticated about this stuff. What exactly do you think Mitt Romney was doing when he made is comment about the 47%. Hmmmm....wild ass guess.... playing to his base? First time a politician ever did that eh? The fact you think everybody is stupid doesn't make it true. Most people are smart enough to discern what is said for political purposes and what is exploited for political purposes.
Cut the phony indignation. You sound like Louie in Casablanca. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
HalvOnHorseracing
10-30-2016, 11:13 PM
People, it seems, want to actually hear Trump speak. Hillary? She can't get people to see her for FREE and we are to believe Goldman needed to pay her in the hundreds of thousands for something essentially worthless?
If the measure of a president was mesmerizing speaking ability, Obama would have been a top five in history president. And Reagan too. I refer you to the fable of the tortoise and the hare. But I'll bet Hillary could give LBJ or Gerald Ford, or Tricky Dick a run for their money. And don't you believe Goldman didn't get their money's worth. Something tells me in the long run Goldman is more likely than not to get their money's worth.
Clocker
10-30-2016, 11:28 PM
Clinton doesn't believe in open borders. That is simply nonsense. But again, there is no disabusing those who need to believe that is the case.
Dilemma: Hillary telling the truth, or lying to bankers for big bucks?
It's Hillary Clinton's dream of an America without borders, as expressed to investors of a Brazilian bank, in comments leaked by WikiLeaks.
An America without borders, Hillary? How positively George Soros of you, Madam Secretary.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-open-borders-kass-1012-20161011-column.html
EasyGoer89
10-31-2016, 12:05 AM
If the measure of a president was mesmerizing speaking ability, Obama would have been a top five in history president. And Reagan too. I refer you to the fable of the tortoise and the hare. But I'll bet Hillary could give LBJ or Gerald Ford, or Tricky Dick a run for their money. And don't you believe Goldman didn't get their money's worth. Something tells me in the long run Goldman is more likely than not to get their money's worth.
I think the question is did she even really speak on every occasion where they paid her as well as strictly paying her for the speech and no 'favors' afterward or down the line. Seems if it was just for the speech, they could have 'gotten her' for much less of a price.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 12:34 AM
I think the question is did she even really speak on every occasion where they paid her as well as strictly paying her for the speech and no 'favors' afterward or down the line. Seems if it was just for the speech, they could have 'gotten her' for much less of a price.
I wonder how much kickback and grease palming goes on with this group? The kind of money these flunkies get for speaking is really a national scandal. I mean really....it makes a mockery of working wages..nothing that these jerks bloviate about is worth that kind of money...that fact that they buy into their own self-importance and accept these speaking fees attest to their own moral bankruptcy...
EasyGoer89
10-31-2016, 03:18 AM
I wonder how much kickback and grease palming goes on with this group? The kind of money these flunkies get for speaking is really a national scandal. I mean really....it makes a mockery of working wages..nothing that these jerks bloviate about is worth that kind of money...that fact that they buy into their own self-importance and accept these speaking fees attest to their own moral bankruptcy...
There's an e mail somewhere that showed Bill Clinton getting a ton of money for a speech in a country when hillarys log/planner showed him nowhere near that country on that specific day.
What a surprise.
You already know the answer to this one. She was for the open flow of goods across borders.
I say she is lying.
History is on my side.
You buy her public BS if you want to, she is not one to tell the truth publicly.
You can't possibly be that unsophisticated about this stuff. What exactly do you think Mitt Romney was doing when he made is comment about the 47%.
Telling the truth.
But he underestimated the percentage.
I have no doubt you believe most of this stuff. I also have no doubt there is almost nothing anyone could say to dissuade you from believing most of this.
Clinton doesn't believe in open borders. That is simply nonsense. But again, there is no disabusing those who need to believe that is the case. They even put it in quotes.
Of course she does. She's a globalist in the mold of Europe complete with open borders. Here's what she said: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
The first part of the statement is just a reinforcement of her support for the type of globalism that has been embraced by Europe. This is characterized by a regional common market (EU) and open borders for unfettered immigration. The second part of the statement, following the comma after the word "borders" just panders to the "greenies" in the crowd.
All of the talk about "common" this and "common" that is strictly from the Marxist manifesto.
So is a one-world (globalist) Marxist government. Ya ready for that, comrade?
Clinton is a well known neocon. a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy. But that's ignored as well.
It should be ignored because it isn't true. Everything she's done since the 1960s has been Marxist in nature. She was not only a faithful follower and sycophant of Saul Alinsky, she also met several times with her mentor before his death in 1972. She wasn't even an elected official when as first lady she tried to implement the Marxist program known as Hillarycare.... the blueprint for the great leftist failure known as Obamacare. She's been a champion of just about every redistribution of wealth scheme put forward by her ilk. Hillary Clinton a conservative? That's so inaccurate as to be laughable.
But you're not going to sell very many centrists/moderates that in four years America will be some unrecognizable hell hole, the end of America as we know it.
How many centrists/moderates or anyone else knows about any of this? Maybe if the MSM informed the populace about it, they would reject it. Unfortunately, most of the citizenry aren't politically savvy, something that works to the advantage of the Leftist elements in govt. who depend on deceit, obfuscation, and propaganda to achieve their agenda.
Oh, and if you don't think there's a great chance that this country will be unrecognizable if Clinton orders the border guards to stand down and stacks the SC with leftist justices who will allow the destruction of the constitution, you are dead wrong.
Imagine millions of people storming across the border - people who have nothing in common with American culture or language and have no intention of assimilation - people who don't want to be American except for the social benefits we can provide them - and you get a picture of what a Marxist society will look like. Now add in that these people will be made legal and given the right to vote (Leftist/Democrat) and the Marxists will have total control over the government forever. Say goodbye to our borders, language, culture, laws, freedoms, and everything else that makes (most) of us Americans.
No thanks. I'll take a sovereign America with borders, history, culture, laws and the Constitution given us by the founders.
This is the essence of patriotism. And we reject the vision of an open borders, globalist nation championed by Hillary Clinton.
You also don't understand why Democrats are willing to vote for such a flawed candidate over Trump, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or Marxism. You need to understand why a majority of Americans believe the scariest candidate in the election is Trump and that may make a lot of things clearer.
If I need to understand why, then how come you didn't explain why?
It seems we're going to find out.
Maybe not.
They might be for a sensible immigration policy that doesn't shut the door on refugees, but open border? You've got to be delusional to believe that.
Really? Let's leave Clinton's comments aside for the moment.
How the hell did 30 million illegals get into this country up until now? Could it be by refusal to enforce our immigration laws?
Open borders could just be a refusal to defend them - on steroids.
Just because a majority of citizens don't want something doesn't mean that the Leftists - those who know better despite the will of the people - won't implement it.
Ever hear of Obamacare?
Actor
10-31-2016, 01:08 PM
How the hell did 30 million illegals get into this country up until now? Could it be by refusal to enforce our immigration laws?11.1 million according to Pew Research.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 01:08 PM
Market oligopolists could care less about borders and patriotism. They views human beings as consumptive entities that fuel their profit machines....they want to get as many people packed into/ along their distribution lines so they can reap the windfalls of their energies and lives...they view humans as a type of livestock to be rendered in their entirety, everything from birth to burial has a cost and a price tag to be paid for and since the vast majority live hand to mouth, to be labored for first, in order to pay for the cost of their own servitude...that is the truth of the new capitalism we see today...
....on the other hand we know where socialism and communism leads also...just study the history of the former USSR and learn how all their utopic ideals of equality and the brotherhood of man were just sham covers for unbridled and endemic corruption, violence, greed, and mafia style political organization... That is the truth of socialism/ communism.
It is time for something different....but what? There's no returning to the past... We don't live in the same world our founders lived in...their solutions cannot possibly be ours....the world changes...empires rise and fall, like it or not, and the american empire will not be exceptional in this respect either...
Humans beings have evolved to survive and will gravitate toward their existential needs whatever the cost...borders are artificial constructs that cannot withstand the trespass of desperate human beings in their struggle to survive on the planet... Things like national identities are no match against hungry bellies...if you want secure borders, you have to be willing to keep those people out but at what cost to your own humanity?
Market oligopolists could care less about borders and patriotism. They views human beings as consumptive entities that fuel their profit machines....they want to get as many people packed into/ along their distribution lines so they can reap the windfalls of their energies and lives...they view humans as a type of livestock to be rendered in their entirety, everything from birth to burial has a cost and a price tag to be paid for and since the vast majority live hand to mouth, to be labored for first, in order to pay for the cost of their own servitude...that is the truth of the new capitalism we see today...
....on the other hand we know where socialism and communism leads also...just study the history of the former USSR and learn how all their utopic ideals of equality and the brotherhood of man were just sham covers for unbridled and endemic corruption, violence, greed, and mafia style political organization... That is the truth of socialism/ communism.
It is time for something different....but what? There's no returning to the past... We don't live in the same world our founders lived in...their solutions cannot possibly be ours....the world changes...empires rise and fall, like it or not, and the american empire will not be exceptional in this respect either...
Humans beings have evolved to survive and will gravitate toward their existential needs whatever the cost...borders are artificial constructs that cannot withstand the trespass of desperate human beings in their struggle to survive on the planet... Things like national identities are no match against hungry bellies...if you want secure borders, you have to be willing to keep those people out but at what cost to your own humanity?
Yeah, well have them apply to enter the country legally.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 01:32 PM
Yeah, well have them apply to enter the country legally.
And if they don't and come anyway what are you prepared to do? Shoot them?
And if they don't and come anyway what are you prepared to do? Shoot them?
Don't have to. The existing immigration laws just need to be enforced.
That's a good start.
You do believe that laws should be enforced, don't you?
woodtoo
10-31-2016, 01:38 PM
Border guards are armed so that is one possibility or build a wall.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 01:56 PM
Don't have to. The existing immigration laws just need to be enforced.
That's a good start.
You do believe that laws should be enforced, don't you?
It's all too easy for this to devolve into an us/ them mentality...we speak from the priveledge of being on this side of the border already and view newcomers as threats to our own welfare and future....this is a very common human feeling so I understand where you are coming from...even illegals fear more immigration once they are here for much the same reason...its the pressure of human competition over basic foodstuffs, land, and crowding....
...our existence on this planet is not what you think it is or what you think it should be....laws are not the be alls, end alls of our existences....laws are not things written in stone and even if they were, the very stones themselves would weather away and leave no trace that laws were ever written there...
Laws can oppress as much as they quell so it is important not to be overly legalistic in our thinking...
It's all too easy for this to devolve into an us/ them mentality...we speak from the priveledge of being on this side of the border already and view newcomers as threats to our own welfare and future....this is a very common human feeling so I understand where you are coming from...even illegals fear more immigration once they are here for much the same reason...its the pressure of human competition over basic foodstuffs, land, and crowding....
...our existence on this planet is not what you think it is or what you think it should be....laws are not the be alls, end alls of our existences....laws are not things written in stone and even if they were, the very stones themselves would weather away and leave no trace that laws were ever written there...
Laws can oppress as much as they quell so it is important not to be overly legalistic in our thinking...
Sorry. This kind of globalism is the domain of the Leftist/Democrat Party.
Deaf ears here. Not interested in the least.
You know, if you're anxious for your views to come to fruition, you really needn't wait. You can just move to Europe and enjoy their benefits immediately.
Europe went down the Marxist/globalist road a long time ago...
Enjoy!
PS: I guess your answer to my question of whether our laws should be enforced or not is no.
Not really a surprise.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-31-2016, 02:15 PM
How the hell did 30 million illegals get into this country up until now? Could it be by refusal to enforce our immigration laws?
Open borders could just be a refusal to defend them - on steroids.
Whatever the correct number of illegals, the sad fact is most of them got here legally and simply didn't leave. temporary work visas, tourist visas, student visas. It's not that hard to get in if you promise you're going back. How many people do you think visit as tourists every year?
I actually did work at the southern border crossings a year or two before 9/11. I watched those guys for months, and believe me, they took their job seriously. The border personnel were really vigilant about people coming through the crossing. The border crossings themselves were never the problem. Even if Trump built a wall, the greatest number of illegals are not slipping across the border out in the wide open spaces. The Mexicans aren't even the largest group overstaying their welcome. That honor goes to the Chinese, then the Indians, both of who exceed the Mexicans with regard to staying here illegally.
The problem is less refusal to enforce immigration law than the fact that the problem would take ridiculous numbers of enforcement people. If you built a wall and staffed it like the Berlin Wall you would add at least 20,000 border guards. No wonder they endorsed Trump. Doesn't sound like shrinking government.
To solve the problem you have to understand the problem, and Mexico is only a piece of the explanation.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 03:25 PM
Whatever the correct number of illegals, the sad fact is most of them got here legally and simply didn't leave. temporary work visas, tourist visas, student visas. It's not that hard to get in if you promise you're going back. How many people do you think visit as tourists every year?
I actually did work at the southern border crossings a year or two before 9/11. I watched those guys for months, and believe me, they took their job seriously. The border personnel were really vigilant about people coming through the crossing. The border crossings themselves were never the problem. Even if Trump built a wall, the greatest number of illegals are not slipping across the border out in the wide open spaces. The Mexicans aren't even the largest group overstaying their welcome. That honor goes to the Chinese, then the Indians, both of who exceed the Mexicans with regard to staying here illegally.
The problem is less refusal to enforce immigration law than the fact that the problem would take ridiculous numbers of enforcement people. If you built a wall and staffed it like the Berlin Wall you would add at least 20,000 border guards. No wonder they endorsed Trump. Doesn't sound like shrinking government.
To solve the problem you have to understand the problem, and Mexico is only a piece of the explanation.
I think you are right about foreigners arriving here legally and just not leaving as they promised to do...if you visit Southern California, huge swaths of geography are now inhabited by Asians, entire upscale condominium complexes in Irvine and many other locations filled with Chinese people, whole families here illegally....there is a definite pattern to how all these people are able to arrive here and stay on without the official protocol followed....they simply do not care if they follow the laws or not.
Get deported? Who cares? They are here longer than they have the right to be here already.....who pays for their fare back to China anyway? The US?
What is the cost of sending all these illegals back to their home countries?
Its like a massive never ending revolving door where we pay their airfare to go back where they came from....so you are right, they come here as legal visitors, hole-up in their relatives condos for awhile, then simply disappear into little Chinatown, little Saigiontown, little Islamabadtown, Monterey Park Santa Ana or any of the other multitude of ethnic neighborhoods far from official prying eyes....
Whatever the correct number of illegals, the sad fact is most of them got here legally and simply didn't leave.
Right. The problem of illegal immigration entails more than just border crossings.
It ALL must be addressed.
I think you are right about foreigners arriving here legally and just not leaving as they promised to do...if you visit Southern California, huge swaths of geography are now inhabited by Asians, entire upscale condominium complexes in Irvine and many other locations filled with Chinese people, whole families here illegally....there is a definite pattern to how all these people are able to arrive here and stay on without the official protocol followed....they simply do not care if they follow the laws or not.
Get deported? Who cares? They are here longer than they have the right to be here already.....who pays for their fare back to China anyway? The US?
What is the cost of sending all these illegals back to their home countries?
Its like a massive never ending revolving door where we pay their airfare to go back where they came from....so you are right, they come here as legal visitors, hole-up in their relatives condos for awhile, then simply disappear into little Chinatown, little Saigiontown, little Islamabadtown, Monterey Park Santa Ana or any of the other multitude of ethnic neighborhoods far from official prying eyes....
Whatever the method or reason they got here, there is a solution, and Trump has touched on it.
If an illegal is caught and deported, then comes back again and is caught, mandatory jail sentence.
Once someone realizes that breaking the law has consequences, they will think twice before breaking it.
VigorsTheGrey
10-31-2016, 04:33 PM
Whatever the method or reason they got here, there is a solution, and Trump has touched on it.
If an illegal is caught and deported, then comes back again and is caught, mandatory jail sentence.
Once someone realizes that breaking the law has consequences, they will think twice before breaking it.
Simplistic theory, what are the economic and political realities that would accompany this? For example, what would the process look like, say, a neighbor suspects another neighbor to be residing here illegally.... What happens next? Which agencies are involved? Does the accused have to answer questions? Innocent until proven guilty right? Do they have a right to an attorney? Where do you house them? How much does that cost? What about their children who are born here? What happens to them? Who takes care of them.
We already lock up a greater percentage of our pop than any other country I believe....I suppose you want to turn our country into another gulag archipelago? What are the costs of locking all these people up? Who pays for that? Trumps ideas on immigration amount to a prison planet...we just create more enemies...do you even know what it feels like to be locked up?
I doubt it...why don't you give it a whirl before you so calvalierly suggest it for others...
Simplistic theory, what are the economic and political realities that would accompany this? For example, what would the process look like, say, a neighbor suspects another neighbor to be residing here illegally.... What happens next? Which agencies are involved? Does the accused have to answer questions? Innocent until proven guilty right? Do they have a right to an attorney? Where do you house them? How much does that cost? What about their children who are born here? What happens to them? Who takes care of them.
We already lock up a greater percentage of our pop than any other country I believe....I suppose you want to turn our country into another gulag archipelago? What are the costs of locking all these people up? Who pays for that? Trumps ideas on immigration amount to a prison planet...we just create more enemies...do you even know what it feels like to be locked up?
I doubt it...why don't you give it a whirl before you so calvalierly suggest it for others...
I don't have to worry about any of this.
Our elected officials are responsible for protecting us against illegal immigration.
I'm sure they've either thought about all of this or will in the near future.
I just want the laws enforced.
Period.
Oh, and I don't know what it's like to be locked up. I don't break the law.
HalvOnHorseracing
10-31-2016, 05:07 PM
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.
I'd point out two key phrases. My dream and sometime in the future.
Back here in the present Clinton is not advocating for open borders solely for the United States. As a matter of fact, even "dreaming" about it "sometime in the future" she isn't suggesting that the United States should be alone in the hemisphere as having open borders. Are there things that would have to pre-date a hemispheric common market - no doubt about it. But telling a bunch of bankers - in Brazil by the way - that you have a dream that we can be closer partners somewhere down the road hardly constitutes a carte blanche effort to stop enforcing immigration law and letting the unwashed masses of Spanish (and sure, Portuguese) speaking people trot across the border unmolested.
You can oppose the type of globalization Hillary seems to favor, and that is fine, but as I've said, assuming Hillary gets in and the borders are just flung open is simply ridiculous. And assuming Hillary gets in and gets that one by Congress, she'll be the most powerful president we've seen in our lifetimes.
Open borders. Not going to happen regardless of the election.
Actor
10-31-2016, 05:26 PM
What are the costs of locking all these people up?About $30,000 per prisoner per year for the Federal Government. Kentucky spends about $15,000 per prisoner per year, New York about $60,000.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.