The Left Is Reaping the Whirlwind of the Culture They Made
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 7:8
It was after a school shooting near Spokane last September that Spokane Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich addressed a clutch of reporters:
When I was in high school, every one of those rigs in the high school parking lot had a gun in the gun rack. Why? We went hunting on the way home. None of those guns ever walked into a school, none of those guns ever shot anybody... Did the gun change or did you as a society change? I'll give you odds it was you as a society. Because you started glorifying cultures of violence. You glorified the gang culture, you glorified games that actually gave you points for raping and killing people. The gun didn't change, we changed.
It seems clear to me the sheriff was speaking about rap music with its hateful, violent and misogynistic lyrics, and video games like Grand Theft Auto, where you can have sex with a prostitute then strangle her or pull an innocent person out of a car, beat him, then steal his vehicle.
I am a First Amendment purist and don't want to see expression censored in any way. And I don't argue that there's a straight line between any specific cultural creation and bad acts. But surely, a culture in which those in authority approve of and argue for things like gangsta rap and GTA — and indeed for the use of violence to silence speech that offends them — well, such a culture becomes a machine for transforming madness into murder.
It reminds me of some wisdom from another two sheriffs, the fictional sheriffs from the Coen Brothers movie of Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country for Old Men discussing the mindless violence that has taken over society.
"Once you stop hearing 'sir' and 'ma'am' the rest is soon to follow," says one.
"It's the tide, the dismal tide," says the other. "It's not the one thing."
The left wants to defend gangstas and "transgressive" art and antifa thugs — but when the shooting starts, they blame the guns.
The left wants to get rid of feminine modesty and masculine protectiveness and social restrictions on sex — but when the abuse and rape and harassment rise to the surface, they start whining about toxic manhood. Perhaps they should have listened to the Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton, who wrote about the difference between reforming society and deforming it — a passage that was neatly paraphrased by John F. Kennedy: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
Now the left wants to legitimize disrespect for the flag and for Christianity. They want to ignore the rule of law at the border and silence protests against Islamic ideas that are antithetical to every good thing the west stands for. They should look to Europe where all that's been accomplished. And now, when European women are molested in the public square, the gormless authorities advise them to behave more modestly lest immigrants get the wrong idea. When Islamic knives come out and Islamic bombs go off, the police rush to harass — who? Those who question the dictates of the Koran.
The left wants us to reel in shock that Donald Trump chased women or praised Russian strong men? Who was it who defended the infidelities and possible rapes of Bill Clinton? Who was it who turned a blind eye to Barack Obama consorting with terrorists and hate-mongers like Farrakhan?
For fifteen years and more, I have been complaining that the right is silenced in our culture — blacklisted and excluded and ignored in entertainment, mainstream news outlets, and the universities. But the flip side of that is this: the degradation of our culture is almost entirely a leftist achievement. Over the last fifty years, it's the left that has assaulted every moral norm and disdained every religious and cultural restraint.
The left owns the dismal tide. They don't like the results? They're looking for someone or something to blame? Maybe they should start by hunting up a mirror. https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/left-reaping-whirlwind-culture-made/
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
“The left wants to defend gangstas and "transgressive" art and antifa thugs — but when the shooting starts, they blame the guns.
The left wants to get rid of feminine modesty and masculine protectiveness and social restrictions on sex — but when the abuse and rape and harassment rise to the surface, they start whining about toxic manhood. Perhaps they should have listened to the Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton, who wrote about the difference between reforming society and deforming it — a passage that was neatly paraphrased by John F. Kennedy: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
Now the left wants to legitimize disrespect for the flag and for Christianity. They want to ignore the rule of law at the border and silence protests against Islamic ideas that are antithetical to every good thing the west stands for.”
One needs to look no farther than the white house to find the leading example of moral bankruptcy in America.
Hey, they set the standards, didn't they? What was it, how low can you go?
They the democrats are still setting their standards as to how low they can go.
That was the last White House administration. The current one is a big improvement.
If one more porn star or centerfold comes out of the woodwork, Melania might be carving the donald up with WH cutlery after he dozes off some night. As soon as she figures out her tell-all is more valuable than her prenup, she can renegotiate from a greater advantage.
And yet it is Conservatives who love fat fuck and Democrats who hate him. Seems you have your parties mixed up.
Among consrvatives yeah.
and independents.
Really? What is the best value? The cheating? Lying? Fraud? Sexual harassment? Arrogance? Greed? I'm just trying to understand the debauched values republicans want to inflict on us.
Surely you recognize that both parties have members who are guilty of those things?
Or do you believe that ONLY Republicans are guilty of them?
two wrongs don't make it right. Maybe the party you are supporting should be at least try to do better, not just say they do it so why cant we....
Awww. Upset still?
Wow, smashing comeback, I feel all sad inside...sad for you.
Glad you continue to defend the indefensible.
Ummmm......doesn't the 1st Amendment do that already?
Christian nationalism is synonymous with fascism, at least for all the fascist governments in modern history. The latest example might well be Putin's Russia where neither criticism of the state or of the Russian Orthodox church are tolerated by the government.
No, the 1st amendment does not legitimize disrespect of anything, much less that of the flag and Christianity.
Your statement is 100% wrong. What country are you from?
Shouldn't that mean that people on the right have to respect the Dems or even the minorities?
Seems to me I saw a lot o arguments the other way, where the first amendment allowed the right to say anything, to anybody at anytime and any place. Funny how that somehow change to fit the mood.
LOL... no
it means you can say anything short of yelling fire in a crowded theater
but that does not mean the 1st automatically lends any respect to that free speech or that other people must listen to or respect that speech.
No, but what it does mean is that such speech is legitimate in the literal sense of the word.
The OP's comment that such speech is "illegitimate" is what fascists would like you to believe.
Patriotism and spirituality is apparently as thick as the skin of some conservatives.
Since when is anyone required to respect shitianity? Or the flag? Don't recall that ever being a part of any of our founding documents.
no one says they have to stand for our pledge... has anyone even suggested that be a law or something?
they are allowed to kneel, and we are allowed to hate them for it.... it is actually fairly simple like that
on a side note?
if you want someone to respect your concerns? disrespecting the concerns of others first will not garner support for your concerns.
don't believe me?
walk up to a friend of yours.... stomp on their toes like ya mean it, and then ask them to loan you 20 bucks.
then walk up to another friend, do not stomp on their toes, and ask them to loan ya 20bucks
(the results will be ever so predictable but still... it will be a fun experiment I am sure.)
Cheers
This one. It allows and tolerates reprobate behavior but it in no way makes such deviance legitimite.
Couldn't give less of a fuck.
But it is funny to me.
And why would I? I like my firends, not gonna do anything to intentionally piss them off. The people I shit talk on these types of boards though, they are not my firends hence why i don't care about them or their feelings/opinions.
My free speech rights guarantee my right not to respect you your religious beliefs or any flag. Your religious beliefs do not supersede my constitutional rights. Respect is earned.
It sounds like you don't even understand what these words mean. Are you a native English or a Russian speaker?
What remains illegitimate?
Patriotism is strong in me.
I think nationalism not patriotism is strong in you
Why not? You cant have friends who dont have same views as you? Is that how the supposed tolerant left leaning democratic liberals are supposed to be? but yet they are not. They are nothing more than snakes in the grass.. ( or on a plane ) !!! LOL..
Are you suggesting that when a liberal or a progressive responds to what you say that they are proving that they are intolerant? Do you believe that being disagreed with by another person is a threat to your free speech or religious rights?
That is the part I quoted from thrawn.. and I replied to him.. what in the hell are you now talking about? Its quite clear what I said to him, about what he said.. that the supposed tolerant left, is not so tolerant after all are they..
Then your two cents doesnt add up to two cents.. make sense :P
If so it doesn't seem to be for this country.
Russian patriotism.
but you expect them to listen or even care about anything you have to say?
and I always thought the idea of a protest was to inform others and change minds... guess I was wrong about that..
according to you it seems protests are just to piss people off. (progressive much?)
too funny
your opinion... others might disagree because "times ARE changing"
most people in this country have no interest in the globalist BS
Since when are gangstas liberal?
What is transgressive art?
Stop being a fascist and the Antifa won't bother you.
If you have to revert to guns because you don't like the speech or the beliefs of others then you have a problem that you must address and not by trying to decide what others can do.
My rights aren't determined by you, other white men or your religion and you don't get to decide how I live or who I love. Once you learn to keep your religion out of my life and stop trying to limit the rights of others we will get along much better.
Antifa are the fascists in America.
How can Antifa fascists when they only exist to fight fascism Anti(against) fa(fascism)? Fascism is the extreme radical right of conservatism if you bothered to understand political science/civics.
Under fascism, the state and corporations work together to control power and the government endorses religion and oppose civil rights and unions. That is obviously not liberal.
Don't forget nationalism
Nationalism is a thin veil over racism and xenophobia.
That's what makes it a very good descriptive term
Left-wing fascism is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist because it cannot exist. You cannot change the definition of words to suit your beliefs.
Fascism is a conservative idea.
Definition of fascism
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
I think I will take merriam -websters definition.
left wing fascism cant exhist? IMHO , the last presidential administration ( 2009-2016) showed that it does , having a phone and a pen to circumscribe the legislative process was both autocratic , and dictatorial in nature to achieve a specific political/societal agenda not able to pass the legislative test, meaning , it wouldn't have made it into law through legislation.
Mussolini was an avowed socialist. The Nazis were virulently anti-capitalist. The idea that fascism, with it's emphasis on collective rather than individual rights, is "right wing" is nonsensical
From the the original fascist manifesto:
Clearly liberal fascism is with us. The last administration was fascist. The domestic progressive movement is liberal fascism. Conservatism never ever advocated tight government controls over business, production, capital, etc.
So a group that strongly opposes fascism, is fascist. That's some next level spin you have going on there. Or, one could just say, "I know you are but what am I", and be done with it.
Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini ( / b ə ˈ n iː t oʊ m ʊ s ə ˈ l iː n i , m uː s ə -/ ; Italian: [beˈniːto mussoˈliːni] ; [1] 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who was the leader of the National Fascist Party ( Partito Nazionale Fascista ; PNF). He ruled Italy as Prime Minister from 1922 to 1943 – constitutionally until 1925, when he dropped the pretense of democracy and established a dictatorship.
Known as Il Duce ("The Leader"), Mussolini was the founder of Italian Fascism . [2] [3] [4] In 1912, Mussolini had been a leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), [5] but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I , in opposition to the party's stance on neutrality. Mussolini served in the Royal Italian Army during the war until he was wounded and discharged in 1917. Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on nationalism instead of socialism and later founded the fascist movement which came to oppose egalitarianism [6] and class conflict , instead advocating revolutionary nationalism transcending class lines. [7] Following the March on Rome in October 1922, Mussolini became the youngest Prime Minister in Italian history until the appointment of Matteo Renzi in February 2014. After removing all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes, [8] Mussolini and his followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship . Within five years, Mussolini had established dictatorial authority by both legal and extraordinary means and aspired to create a totalitarian state. Mussolini remained in power until he was deposed by King Victor Emmanuel III in 1943, but a few months later he became the leader of the Italian Social Republic , a German client regime in northern Italy – Mussolini held this post until his death in 1945. [9]
Saying Mussolini was an avowed Socialist and having it be true are two different things. Like Hitler (whom he inspired) he was indeed a Fascist.
Known as the classic "Pee Wee Herman" strategy. Especially if the word "infinity" is added.
Where do you get this nonsense? I thought that Obama was a radical lefty social and closet communist but now you are claiming that he was a fascist. You cannot possibly be both a communist or socialist and a fascist. It just isn't possible, if you know what that words mean. Socialist is an economic idea of the workers owning the means of production. Socialist is not about authoritarian governments because you can have socialism without an authoritarian government. It is not my fault that Fox News and the conservative echo chamber has fed you a diet of happy lies.
How could Obama have been dictatorial when Congress stopped most of his ideas after the 2010 midterms? How were the Republicans able to shut down the government if Obama was a dictator? If Obama was a dictator we would have single payer instead of a conservative idea such as the ACA that forces us to buy a for-profit healthcare and doesn't address the excessive profits of pharmaceuticals and hospitals.
Do I need to explain to you that terms like fascist aren't just generic insults like calling someone an asshole or an idiot? They are well-defined terms. If you don't understand these definitions and chose your words wisely we cannot have an intelligent conversation because your ideas are incoherent. You need to understand what you are saying and choose the proper term to convey those ideas.
Seconded.
First , you wont find anywhere where I, personally called the last president any of those things , might find where I might have said , that his actions and policies were of a particular stripe politically, but then again he did bounce around the political board and couldn't really been pinned down , to my satisfaction as any one single political policy . I make my judgment on actions , those always speak louder than words , to by pass the legislature to make law , well that fits a dictatorial definition to a degree, not all despots have legislatures that will do as they wish . so saying he had no other choice after he lost control of the legislature ( which it was actually the voters in this country that decided they needed a check to his executive power and they then didn't do enough to balance his policy agenda with actual legislation ) really doesn't cut it..
What I think many fail to realize that within the political spectrum there is a left , right and center, and within all three of those , there is also a left , right , and center as well. depending on where you put yourself , everything to the left of your own personal beliefs is left ,and everything to the right is to the right.
I consider myself center , I lean mostly right , but dependant on the issue I can also lean left .
As for my opinion I used my personal observation of actions , and the definition readily available , notice the one I supplied from websters , does not mention the left/right paragrim, simply actions . so if the shoe fits , dance with it.
or maybe , I can do as I have with randy in the past , just agree to disagree, without invoking impasse, so that a discussion can mature. we disagree, so I agree we disagree with each other.
I want to know what transgressive art is? I really do.
Yep. It's worked for us in the past.
Thank you.
Why is it that conservatives have less of an understanding of how the government works than what was taught in the 1970s era cartoon Schoolhouse rock? The President of the US does not and cannot control the legislature that is by design. We have 3 equal and separate branches of government in the US to prevent one branch from taking control and creating a dictatorship. The legislature is controlled by the Speaker of the house and the President of the Senate. When they are of the same party as the POTUS they tend to work together but that cooperation is obviously not guaranteed.
I am tired of explaining to people what they should have learned by middle school or were required to learn before high school graduation in the mandatory civics class. If you are attempting to discuss politics it would be nice if you had a reasonable grasp of the subject.
fascists are easy to spot.
all fascist wish to silence the speech of those who disagree with them.
By your own words, Donald Trump is a fascist because he sought to use violence to shut a protester at his rally up.
roughed up is not shut up
heck, I've bitch slapped a few on the left, (Austin antifa) as I would anyone who calls me a Nazi to my face. I did not tell them to shut up, they where free to call me a Nazi again (if they still had the balls)
but what you do not see is rightwingers in mass, starting riots because some leftwinger is going to speak at some college.
How exactly are lefties the fascists when it is the supposed leftist ACLU that defends the free speech rights of the Klan, Neo-Nazis and even Limbaugh?
What the Antifa does is to use the tactics of Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and the Klan against them because it is obvious that you cannot fascism by non-violence.
The right-wing schedules riots and then run people over who show up to protest them. How many times did conservatives protest when the statues of their racist heroes were taken out of the public scare?
You do not have the right to have someone not oppose your speech.
A real trait of the liberal fascist.
Here are the 14 points that define fascism. The site is a very conservative site that often cross-links Alex Jones and panders in conspiracy theories, so you cant claim that its liberal source. Obviously, none of these 14 ideas are liberal.
he site is a very conservative site that often cross-links Alex Jones and panders in conspiracy theories,
Rense is not a conservative it site, it's a conspiracy driven website that traffics in topics like Holocaust denial, 9/11 trutherism and chemtrails. That should be your first warning that you are deep in crazy town. Why anyone would use a site that traffics in Holocuast denial as an authority on a historical topic is beyond me.
This list was created by the loony fringes as a means to attack George Bush, and should be understood as such. The 9/11 Truthers wanted to paint Bush as a fascist, so they defined fascism in a way they believed applied to Bush. It has nothing to do with actual, historical, fascism, as anyone familiar with the basics of the historical fascist movement could tell you The author is a business executive/novelist and is not a Doctor, as your link falsely claims.
aying Mussolini was an avowed Socialist and having it be true are two different things. Like Hitler (whom he inspired) he was indeed a Fascis
Of course he was a fascist. That's why I cited him as an example of fascism. Rather than cut and paste wikipedia, I'd advise you study any basic history of Mussolini's rise or even look at his speeches to see that he was a socialist, one of the leaders in Italy. Mussolini's fascism was a dissident form of socialism that split off during World War 1. he became a nationalist as opposed to an internationalist, but his economic policies were modeled on Lenin's, NEP.
Jeff Rense didn't write the essay on the defining characteristics of fascism. It was written by another man and only posted on his site. It was also posted on many sites after the passage of the USA PATRIOT ACT post 9/11.
It was written by Italian philosopher, essayist and intellectual, Umberto Eco.
You cannot possibly be a fascist and a socialist at the same time because those economic ideas are on different ends of the economic spectrum. Your statement is akin to calling someone a 6'-4 midget.
I wish that people would learn to use the word socialism correctly. It refers to an economic system where the workers own the means of production, with or without the state. It does not refer to any authoritarian state. Socialist economic policies can take place in the vast spectrum of governments from democratic, civil libertarian, anarchist or authoritarian.
He started out as a Socialist leader, but then rejected Socialism during WW1 and became a Fascist leader. One can not be a Fascist and a Socialist at the same time. The two are like oil and water. You can not be both. He was just a Fascist as he rose to power to control Italy and no longer a Socialist in any meaning of the world. Learn the meanings of the political terms you are using before you use them as you are not using them correctly. It is like epistte said, saying he was a Fascist and a Socialist is as impossible as saying he was a 6ft 4in Midget. It's like saying he is a Star and a Moon at the same time. A Dog and a Cat at the same time. It's not possible for him to be both.
And you cited him as an example of Socialist, not Fascist.
Mussolini was an avowed socialist.
I wonder why these unschooled right wingers never mention that Mussolini was also the leader of the Republican Fascist Party ? It must be because it hits a bit too close to home with our orange-tinged Il Duce in the White House.
And you didn't get arrested for assault?
If someone ran their mouth to me I would have done the same.. Of course I would had made it more inconspicuous like I tripped and my head fell into their face.. something like that... But once again that is the extreme side of being pushed beyond a threshold where I feel threatened.
You do realize that smacking people around is against the law even if they "ran their mouth at you".
And here I thought you were a good Christian boy. Or maybe you don't subscribe to "turn the other cheek".
nah, cops saw the whole thing. they laughed, I was good to go.
when someone is spitting BS in your face? it is called "self defense"
everyone gets a warning from me first.
I told them to back the fuk up and stop spitting on me, but youngsters today think they are special.
the word "nazi" simply had too much moisture behind it.
I did just that.
now you can have your fun convicting me in your court of opinion.... matters not.
Cheers
You didn't say that they spit on you. Are you changing your story?
And I didn't make the turn the other cheek comment to you. skirting the CoC [ph]
because... yrs later... I always recount every little detail, without fail, when spouting off online?
that would make me a perfect witness... LOL yepp, not so much
what others think about me is none of my business.
Cheers
Maybe I didnt clarify enough, or you didnt read all that I said. I said if they were continually running their mouth to me after I tell them to get out of my face, as in being hostile to me with their words, which in case would be assault, and I would indeed protect myself.
As for being a Christian, there is nothing that states being a Christian means being a wimp. If anything we are called to stand hard on our beliefs, and I will indeed fight for those beliefs if threatened.
Me accidentally falling head first into their face is just an added protection :P
Now if i grabbed them by their hair , pulled them down to the ground, set their top front teeth on a curb, and then kneed them in the back of the head, I probably couldnt get away with a defense strategy could I?
As long as no one is getting violent with me, every one will have a pretty good day :D
Isn't that why you conservatives call liberals snowflakes? I thought words were just words and weren't harmful?
if you look around on this site and in general on social media - "snowflake" doesn't exclusively apply to liberals as many of the conservative minded wish it did.
apparently some people are very sensitive and need a "safe space" from certain words
Many conservatives appear to believe having someone criticize them or disagree with their words/ideas is a free speech or religious belief violation.
I wish that I could post what I think when I read these assinine claims, but if I did so I would be in Perrie's time-out chair until 3 weeks after their imaginary Rapture.
Cant say I have used that word myself.
Snowflakes are fantastic! Look at them closely and you will see that almost magically none of them are exactly alike. If you get enough of them they cover rolling hills in the country and the ground and trees in snow covered paths in the woods. If you take a walk down such a path on a sunny winter day you will see the incredible light show as the sun reflects on the different shapes of the piles and drifts. Then in the spring the snowflakes all melt and flow into brooks and rivers, providing life for fish and frogs and minnows and other wild life. They also flow down to farmland to grow crops for food for all of us. Without snowflakes we would all die and so would so many other animals and so much other vegetation. So when someone calls me a snowflake I am not insulted. I am complimented. I am honored.
It’s a typical strategy of the left fringe to list conspiracy crazy sites along with actual genuine conservative sites.
that's a very positive way to look at it !
i'm not stating whether or not the term is good or bad or anything like that - but i know it's usage is against liberals due to the stereotype that liberals are more "sensitive", but if you look around (especially on this site) you'll see it doesn't apply solely to liberals for that usage, there are quite a few conservative minded posters who are just as (or more) "sensitive".
. It was also posted on many sites after the passage of the USA PATRIOT ACT post 9/11.
The fact that left wing lie factories like the Dailykos share material with a site that promotes holocaust denial and chem-trail conspiracy theories isn't really a surprise. Peas in a pod and all that.
It was written by Italian philosopher, essayist and intellectual, Umberto Eco.
Now I have to question if I'm the only person here who actually read your original link. You apparently didn't. This is the first line of your link, I'm not sure how you missed it:
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
Of course, Lawrence Britt is not a Doctor. But faking credentials to gain credibility among uninformed left wingers is barely noteworthy in this pile of inaccuracy.
Eco wrote a completely different essay than your original link. I don't know whether you don't read your links or don't expect the leftwingers here to,(which is a safe bet), but they are obviously two different essays, written by tow different authors years apart. To claim Eco authored the first essay you linked to is simply false, which is the nicest way I can put it.
That's silly. Fascism is simply a form of socialism, much like communism is. Mussolini didn't reject being a socialist, he rejected a version of socialism. As should be obvious, socialism has many branches, from Communism to the more democratic versions popular in Europe. Anyone's who understanding of history goes beyond wikipedia understand that.
The fact that you keep spouting simplistic cliches rather than actually support your conclusion, makes clear that you don't have anything more than a surface grasp of the topic.
I know going deeper than Wikipedia isn't your thing, but try and understand that history is more complicated than what you were taught in eighth grade.
My argument relies on Mussolini's own description of his politics, his writings and his actions. You rely on silly cliches.
Well said. You make very good and irrefutable points.
I stopped reading after this statement if ignorance. There is no point in continuing this discussion if you are so uninformed.
It doesn't get any crazier or conspiratorial than World Net Daily and Alex Jones.
You can’t refute that both communism and fascism are offshoots of socialism.
I know you're just posting this fishing for a reaction to pull this back onto the front page, but I'll play along anyway.
All three are completely different forms of government and none of them evolved form each other.
There C4P, it's back on the front page for now.
Where do you get this nonsense? Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels did not give rise to fascism. In your mind, those 3 words are akin to calling someone an asshole or a shithead, but to others who have actually studied the subject of political science, they are well-defined terms. Communism and socialism are economic ideas or various degrees of group ownership of goods and the means of production. Neither socialism or communism are required to be an authoritarian or totalitarian government, despite what you may believe or have been told.
Fascism is an authoritarian government, usually a dictator, with an extreme example of capitalism.
Fascists hated both democratic governments as did communists and both hated capitalism.
He simply doesn't have any idea at all of what each term means. He has no idea of what Fascism, Communism and Socialism are, how they function and in what countries they have been tried. What results have each one had. What are the pros and cons of each. What history each one has. To him, just like many right wing people on this site, they just know that have heard that they are just "bad words" in some way that they use as insults without realizing that they are reveling their ignorance of history and political systems.
Fascism is capitalist.
Spend $10.00 and learn the basic ideas and terminology so you aren't so uninformed.
According to the founders of the national socialist party in Germany, there was a strong hatred of capitalism and capitalists in their ideology. It is clear in their writings.
I always thought the term "snowflake" was actually a better fit for right wingers since they tend to be extra white and quite fragile.
That was just the Nazi's name and it had nothing to do with the kind of government or economic system they advocated. The Nazis were fascists and they opposed socialism.
Hitler used that party to get gain power, but it is obvious that Hitler was not a socialist. The German people would not have elected Hitler if he admitted that he was a fascist.
And Hitler worked closely with the Capitalists in Germany, both to gain power then to take them over once he attained power. They were still allowed to be Capitalist profitable companies for most of the successful part of the war though and under the control of Albert Speer and his partial slave labor, were more then happy to profit manufacturing the machines of war, along with the ovens and Zyklon-B.
Even the Bush family profited by supporting Adolph Hitler.
The Krupp steel consortium also profited greatly by their alliance with Hitler.
Adolf Hitler himself was a Capitalist. He made a fortune off from sales of "Mein Kampf". I mean it's not like it was given away for free, even though every loyal Nazi and German was expected to have a copy. Before he became Chancellor Hitler had a huge tax debt from the millions in Marks he made in proceeds, which suddenly disappeared after his election. Good old fashioned Fascist Capitalism.
Many of the founders got murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.
Can you cite the writing that backs up your claim?
I can say with complete authority that you just haven't lived until you have shopped the local Piggly Wiggly buck-ass nekkid.
And masculine protectiveness? We are sooooooo lucky to have a leader like Donald Trump to teach the importance of that one. I'm so relieved by the example that he's been setting his entire life, I plan on voting for him twice in the next election.
In addition, never-you-mind about those social restrictions on sex. Trump will feel up your daughter/sister/wife/mother/auntie/grandmother at any time in any place and they will let him because...he's a star/rich/great looking/has an enormous penis/wants to date his own hot daughter, blablabla.
Look, XX, or whomever you are at the moment, I know that seeding crap like this article is part of your personal agenda/job description/whatever, but you and I both know it's nonsense and inflammatory. It's also eye-rolling tiresome. I was raised Southern Baptist, so I am well-aware of rule number three: You have to walk it before you can talk it. The bad news is that you're coming up short ten different ways from Sunday. But whatever gets you through the week, I guess. By the way, rule number one is mastering the ability to live with the hypocrisy, which coincidentally, is also rule number 2. Congrats on your success with those.
I once ran buck neekid through the cauliflower at Whole Foods...I was banned for life from the veggie section when they found out.
I was grateful that there were some young ladies there that were not modest at all and helped me into a shopping cart for my escape.
Dang ! That was good !
You should work on your understanding of the English language because apparently it is only you that has a problem understanding his ideas. I'd start with YouTube videos for non-native speakers.
Being a Northerner I can proudly say I've been to The Piggly Wiggly and The Jitney Jungle in Louisiana. The South. I will say no more.
It's claptrap, Brainy Smurf.
I thought that I was the ivory tower lefty intellectual elitist. When did that change?
I went commando in a Asheville NC Harris Teeter once. Life has never been the same.
Don't feed the trolls.
Yowzers!
I'm not a member of any team.
I love that store...
When I was stationed in Grand Forks ND I saw a Piggy Wiggly for the first time. I thought they were kidding.
It was my first and only time in a Harris Teeter. I was visiting my sister and she asked me to get a few things for dinner on the way home. I had been hiking in the hills of the Blue Ridge Parkway for the day.
For nothing....
Don't forget...I know what you look like. They weren't helping you escape...they were taking you home with them.
I always experience a brief moment of clarity before my hallucinogens kick in. I took advantage of the moment.
It was beautiful and classic Sister Mary Agnes!
We visit friends every year in Asheville. Love the area and town and the store...BTW, there is a plaque just outside the veggie department honoring a streaker...Hmmmm, was that you?
LOL, I'm really happy that no one called ''hostage rescue'', sister.
I've only ever seen on in Hot Springs, AR
My sister and nephew live in Asheville.
Not that I know of. I was wearing a tennis skirt at the time, but I also had a Marylin Monrow scene when there was a sudden gust of wind.
And you were going commando at the time?
Why, episette, you little devil you!
Too many years ago, I stopped in a PW ( just across the street from the County Courthouse) and just strolled through the front door like I owned the place.
Before I could get too far the manager swooped up behind me all apologetic, saying that he didn't know I was "coming today".
I introduced myself and said I was interested in some hams for my employees for the holidays.
He was shocked. He said "Your not from the Health Dept"?
The supermarkets were apparently still segregated back then.
The hams were outstanding....while some of the 'brands' throughout the store were very 'interesting'
A sudden gust of wind in the market???? I didn't realize that Harris Teeter was an open air market epistte.
A streaker, or a Piggly Wiggly? Or a streaker in a Piggly Wiggly?
On a distant, yet somewhat related note, my auto correct keeps substituting Jiggly for Piggly.
Jiggly Wiggly?
I've only ever seen a Piggley Wiggley. Have never seen a streaker. Tho, I suppose if one wanted to see a streaker in Arkansas, Hot Springs or Eureka Springs would probably be the place to go
As I walked out the door.............
After all it was Arkansas, sister. They speak a little differently thar...
Kavika doin' the Jiggley Wiggley in Blue Eye Arkansas.
OK, I'll buy that. (maybe)
That's the cultural center of Grand Forks.
Nope, the cultural center is East Grand Forks, MN at the Blue Moose bar....just across the Red River.
I never went to the Blue Moose? I used to go to a place called Whiteys (a real hole in the wall right by the railroad bridge that claimed to have the biggest selection of beer in the area) or the Level Seven, both of course just barely on the East side of the river where the drinking age was 18 then. Once I had Rank enough to be allowed to move off base I moved to the East side so I had less chance of getting in "trouble" on my way home.
Giggity.
I walked out of the automatic doors and there was a breeze.
The left isn't blaming guns. It's blaming the politicians for making it so easy for people to get guns.
This kid was only 19 years old. That means he isn't old enough to buy cigarettes, or alcohol but he can buy an AR-15?
That's a bit extreme don't you think?
Cruz is still alive, and still 19-years-old. He's not dead.
In Florida, the legal age to buy tobacco products is 18. Alcohol purchase is 21 throughout the USA so you're correct about that. BUT - I'm sure you're well aware of the tens of thousands of young people who have fake IDs or have older people do the tobacco or alcohol buying for them.
FL's laws also allow 15-year-olds to hold a driver's learner permit and then a provisional license at age 17/18. Imagine how many people a mentally ill person like Cruz could mow down with his deadly vehicle! Oh wait ... it's only GUNS that take on a life of their own and kill people. My bad!
Yes. Nikolas Cruz was of legal age to buy the AR-15 and passed the FBI's background check.
Put the BLAME for what he did on his school district (THREE schools), adoptive mother, local police, and FBI. ALL of them KNEW about his mental instability that was documented since he was in middle school. I don't believe for a second that his "host family" was as clueless as they've portrayed themselves. Even students at the high school where their son is a student KNEW how mentally ill and violent Cruz is.
Did you know that Cruz sold knives in his schools? Keep focusing on the AR-15 as if that's the only "deadly weapon" Cruz had access to.
And stop blaming FL's politicians - Cruz LEGALLY owned 5-6 guns. Put THAT blame on the crappy FBI's so-called background check.
I think it's pretty cool that Cruz is too young to buy a handgun in Floriduh but old enough to buy an assault rifle and 100-round magazines.
Can't rent a car til he's 25........
Which is why the national background check needs to be seriously fixed and upgraded, including the closing of the person to person loophole. Also the age limit needs to be brought up to 21 years of age for legal possession of any gun nationwide, with the only exceptions being serving officers of the law and active duty military personnel.
the progressive left is losing influence rapidly.
their anti american bs under the guise of being patriots has been fully exposed
traffic to leftwing sites has fallen off a cliff and still heading south
they will not be making a comeback until they support secure borders, sovereign country and fair trade deals.
in other words... when the dems kicks the progressive socialists/communists from their party they will be electable again. knowing the left, it will be a decade until they figure that out.
Cheers
the progressive left losing power looks like this...
funny how all those traffic patterns look the same. (going down fast)
meanwhile?
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/drudgereport.com
again... very similar traffic patterns (going up)
and 7 million democrats / obama voters straight abandoned their party on election day
the democrat party will have to have their own version of a tea party take over or continued irrelevance be thy name
the result was 7 million obama voters who voted trump.
because yes, some on the left support secure borders, fair trade deals, low taxes, and such. but those are not progressives and they will not return to the progressive leftwing fold. that split is permanent while progressives remain in control of the dnc
more mayberry / less fallujah
So far, so good. Let’s keep it going that way! The better America does, the better the election results will be.
I'm about as far left as is possible, a democratic socialist, a Bernie voter and I don't read any of those sites. I don't like Arriana Huffington and Daily Kos are partisan Democrats. I don't need a website to tell me what to believe and how to vote.
Yes, epistte, it's best that you DON'T read any opinions save for those certified to meet your personal beliefs.
A few days ago I read in a posted article this particular sentence:
On my first day in law school, we were addressed first by the Dean, whose first words were:
The second thing he said was:
So the sentence I read in the posted NT article was already familiar to me, but I felt it was very unfamiliar to many of the members who are absolutely and irretrievably convinced that they themselves are right and the "other side" HAS to be wrong. Well wake up. Folk singer Joni Mitchell is smarter than that, and I know she never went to law school. She composed this in the early 1960s:
The failing of those so dedicated to THEIR side of the story is that they remain only 2-dimensional, and will never allow themselves to see the total picture of anything.
Yet where would we be with no one challenging conventional wisdom? We'd still be the center of the universe, and flat to many, so would we ever have made it to the moon? I doubt it. Progressives move us forward, conservatives hold us back, like a seat belt, which can be good at times but is still far too restricting.
I left the Democrat Party in the late 1970’s because the radical Mc govern wing and their watergate babies took over the party and pushed it way to the left.
How can anyone be sure about what is right, when they have no idea what is wrong? Both sides now, as Joni sang.
Progressives move forward, perhaps, but what happens when one moves too far forward, too fast - then that seat belt can save their life.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of us, even conservatives, don't want to live in a country ruled by fear and anger? That we don't want a theocratic state where only the privileged have any rights at all?
I think that is what some of you are pushing for. The days of Mayberry are over and they are not coming back
Lets not forget this started 4 years before the election of Trump. Obama made history by losing millions upon millions of voters his second time around.
You could start to see a shift in the way America wanted to go then. Also another shift is when he lost Congress.. His famous words.. I am not on this ballot, but make no mistake, my policies are... and guess what .. America spoke LOUDLY.. Not once, not twice, but three times... Congress, his second election, and the 2016 Presidential election of Trump and the thumping of Hillary.
We are no where even remotely close to such a thing. Even if the Bible were being taught again like it used to be in our schools since the beginning of the nation until more recently in the past century, we still were never a theocratic anything...
Actually we're still ridding our legal system of the theocratic crap your ilk keeps enacting.
Oh yes, the ilk word...Its too bad you and YOUR ilk are incapable of being rational and know truth and facts. There has been nothing theocratic about this nation .. and incase you havent looked this nation of Christian people has been falling apart because of YOUR ilk who are so hostile toward Christians taking away a guiding light for our kids. So reap the chaotic america we live in today, reap kids not respecting each other, and killing each other.. reap people being assholes to each other... that is the America you want.. skirting the CoC [ph]
That's an obviously false claim give this country's long history of anti-gay laws, anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow laws, coverture laws, blasphemy laws, blue laws, laws prohibiting atheists from running for public office, and even laws mandating the teaching of Cretinism and other Christian superstitions in our public schools. None of those laws ever had any legitimate secular purpose and they were all deeply rooted in Christian superstitions.
Society advances every time your ilk loses.
Sounds like you think the US has become a shithole because of non-xtians. Bullshit. We're not a xtian nation and never will be.
ummmm no... LOL
playing devils advocate is merely taking the other side of an argument and in no way assigns credibility to either side of the argument.
however when it comes to compromise?
no deal with the devil is the best deal you can get.
The you and your ilk insult in its last week standing....
Skirting the CoC [ph]
nation definition- a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
Nation and Government are not the same thing. Our Federal Government = secular. Our nation = Christian as long as the majority are Christian and it remains a common descent, history, culture.. etc..
And before you go off on a tangent about Treaty of Tripoli, it doesnt matter. Article 11 when read in full context, makes those words the left likes to use so much null.. Also Treaty of Tripoli that did say those words, is null and void by the following treaty of tripoli that came out a couple years later. Also those words were not said by anyone in our nation, it was a treaty written by the Muslims who hated the US, and killed our men and destroyed our ships over off the Barbary coast. There are many other instances said by our government people stating it is a Christian nation.
You can say not a Christian Federal Government. I am fine with that. I dont want our Government to decide which religion, but as for this nation as a whole, it is a Christian nation.
Then why dont you leave this nation and all that hate, fear and anger would leave along with you, and the rest of the left wing intolerant most hating people I have ever seen .
No, it was the intolerant left democratic liberal ilk and their slime that was in support Jim Crow laws. You can thank the GOP once again bring this nation out of a dark evil place and once again into a beautiful light, by running the hateful Democratic Jim crow people out.
You may not accept it, but its the truth. Its hard to swallow, but normally a truth pill is pretty big when it comes to the Leftist mindset. They have small heads with small throats, and swallowing the pill of truth chokes them every time.
The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s.
But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.
Thumpers ain't seen nothin' yet.
I don't gaf about how ignorant and gullible teavangelicals are. I choose not to be. Your screed neglects to mention how the southern dixiecrats switched to the republican party after the civil rights bill was passed. Get off that cross before it catches fire.
You should look in a mirror.
Great post Micheal. Well written.
LOL. The only thing that's changed about southern conservatives and southern bible-babblers in the past 150 years is their party affiliation. Otherwise they're the same dumb bigots they always were.
Sorry, only one person changed sides. I am ready to debunk your party switch BS anytime sweetheart.
Who has ever heard of parties just swapping sides and beliefs.. That is the most ridiculous thing ever thought of. But then again it comes from leftist views, liberal false history , that teaches BS, distorts truth.
You are so wrong Shrekk, like usual, I will have to give you all a history lesson and keep awake you might actually learn something.
The Left loves to smear the Right with cries of racism, but when the Right points out that it's the Democrats who are the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow, the Left always reverts to the claim that both parties "switched" following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and uses the fact that the South is now consistently won by Republicans somehow as "proof."
The South is now a Republican voting bloc — but not because of the mythical party switch.
Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain explains in PragerU's latest video that there are three myths behind the myth that both parties switched after the Civil Rights Act passed.
The first myth is that the Republican Party only began to win the South when they started to pander to Southern white racists in the 1960s, when in fact Republican presidents Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower won Southern states prior to the 1960s. And, just as a reminder, the Republican Eisenhower is known for sending the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, to uphold the Supreme Court's decision to de-segregate schools, against pushback from Democrats. The truth is Republicans were able to win over many Southern voters prior to the '60s without "pandering to racists."
The second myth is that segregationist Democrats bolted to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. In actuality, 20 of the 21 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act remained Democrats and their seats remained in Democratic hands for over 20 years. (PragerU breaks down all the specifics in the "Facts and Sources" section .)
The third myth is that the Republican Party has maintained a stronghold on the South with their use of the so-called "Southern Strategy."
"Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968," said Swain. "In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 — 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia."
Swain added, "The truth is, Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act."
Rather than the offensive allegation in the Democrats' convenient, racially-charged narrative, the Republican stronghold in the South today is grounded in the fact that over time, racism has dissipated in the South while conservative values have gained more and more traction.
"In short, history has moved on," said Swain. "Like other regions of the country, the South votes values, not skin color. The myth of the Southern Strategy is just the Democrats’ excuse for losing the South, and yet another way to smear Republicans with the label 'racist.'"
So in other words conservative southerners are the same bigoted bible-babblers they've always been but the GOP is now their true home today.......as David Duke and his KKK buddies realized when they gleefully endorsed Trump.
By the way one of the leaders at CPAC said that the only reason Michael Steele was hired as RNC chairman was because he's black. I suspect that's quite true. No wonder there are so very few black Republicans today. Steele must be quite embarrassed that he's surrounded by a party of white supremacist morons.
Michael Steele only lasted at the GOP until the TEAbags gained control of the party after the 2010 midterms.
Its too bad you and YOUR ilk are incapable of being rational and know truth and facts. There has been nothing theocratic about this nation .. and incase you havent looked this nation of Christian people has been falling apart because of YOUR ilk w
Here's some facts; enjoy them lovers of rationality, truth and facts.
Ahhh, Christianity in America. Or should I say, the single greatest cause of atheism today. You know who I’m talking about, right? The type of people who acknowledge Jesus with their words, and deny him through their lifestyle. The ones who preach the importance of traditional family values, all while holding a rally and offering standing ovations for a man who preyed on 14-year-old girls. The ones who look to excuse the despicable allegations directed at Roy Moore by literally quoting the bible, comparing his molestation to Joseph and Mary. I give you the most hypocritical religious group in America, Evangelical Christians.
First of all, for the record, I grew up Catholic in Scotland. I went to church, and greatly respected the community in which I was raised. I truly believe that religion can help instill wisdom, guidance and a sense of belief when all else seems hopeless. So I get it... to an extent. But what I have never understood is why someone feels the need to impose their beliefs on another. Especially in America. Especially with regard to evangelical Christians. Aside from preaching anti-LGBT rhetoric and abstinence to the world, evangelical Christians have proudly touted themselves as righteous do-gooders doing the Lord’s work. Until you insert politics into the mix. Then “the Lords’” work means about as much to them as consent means to Donald Trump.
In 2016, 72 percent of evangelicals reported that immoral leaders could still govern ethically, which was validated when 81 percent of white evangelicals who voted last year cast their ballot for Donald Trump. They were happy to shelve their morality in order to justify electing a thrice-married, casino mogul who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy and rarely goes to church ― but yeah, thanks Jesus. And now they’re ratcheting up the hypocrisy even further with the stern defense of alleged child molester Roy Moore.
Thank you for setting the record straight.
Your comment makes 0 sense
He'll fall off his cross, take his bible and go home by the end of the week. Then come back a couple months later with a new cross.
Good, that means its the truth because the leftist mindset cant comprehend it :D
Please go back and read what you responded to. Then maybe you'll see why I said you make 0 sense.
I'm not the one who lets fear and anger guide me....
I'm sorry dear, but when one begins a post with such obvious grammatical errors, especially while boasting about giving everyone a history lesson, one tends to lose credibility before the next sentence is read.
So what is the republican parties excuse today whom the KKK and other racists, narrow minded individuals, and homophobes are now full members of and elected officials of. Should there not be a full effort to kick them out and let them create their own 3rd party. So the Republicans can continue their fight against inequality.
The answer is no, the Republicans need their votes and will not do anything to upset them. Bought and paid for.
I think that the real difference between the right and left is one is will sell their soul and their beliefs to the highest bidder (aka Trump) whereas the other polices its own and is willing to cast out the bad apples when they are discovered. (for the most part)
AWESOME A Grammar Nazi.. I didnt know they still existed.. Check it... Is this you ?
I would say one side , the Republicans, are the ones who are realistic, use logic and think long term about cause and effect. , while Democrats are more idealistic, use feelings, and think about the here and now more than long term future.
i see it exactly opposite, there is nothing long term about a majority of the policies republicans support Tax cuts and corporate pandering (short term). Dems policies revolve around securing the future of ALL people and the environment (long term) policies
Well said. The GOP has the long term best interest for the future of America and her citizens at heart with its policy initiatives.
But see your being specific, focusing on just 1 or a couple things.. I am talking about Ideologies over all how the two views compare.
Is this the reason why a House of Reps seat in Kentucky that voted overwhelming for Trump just went to a Democrat by a wide margin?
When y'all get close--you know, at least within a hundred seats or two--of regaining the over-1000 seats you lost under Obama, then you can start talking again how you'll retake the Senate, and the House, and the WH, and state legislatures.
It's already starting. And how many repubs are resigning/retiring from congress before the 2018 elections? 35? 40? Alabama? Did you forget that? Trump is an anchor made of lead for main stream republicans and they know it. 2018 will in all likelihood, be an EPIC beating for the right wing.
When you get back 800 of those 1000 lost seats, get back to me, okay?
LOL
that is funny stuff
they could well mess up 2018. The GOP is coming back in the generic matchups and the better the economy does the stronger the GOP will perform in November unless the Dems can generate a huge turn out of angry voters upset about the strength of the US economy, the increases in wages, the lower unemployment, and reduced tax rates are rage inducing among idiots.
dont forget independents are supporting the GOP more right now than the Democrats.
I dont doubt that the dems will finally win again.. it depends on how many illegal people they can get into the country and get illegal votes..
Eventually if we keep letting the left get their way, it will be too late to ever get sane people back in congress and the white house.
If it ever comes to that where the GOP can never win again, its time to get out of the USA and find a more conservative country.
You could always move to Russia. They seem to support your values more closely than our secular constitution does.
Naw, I think I will stay here and keep electing Bible believing God fearing people in office who aren't afraid to express it in office, and who put people on the bench who will actually follow the Constitution and what it says. Not the BS words you make up trying to change it.
The Bible or your God are not part of the US Constitution, despite your claims.
These are the words of Thomas Jefferson, about the false claim of the US being a Christian nation.
Yes I seen your quote there, but I think there is much more too it. I was just reading something interesting about it in this book I found .
Religious Scandals
Chapter 5
It has the quote you said, but then it goes on to talk about , but as Jeffersons words suggest, the idea of protecting those who were not Christian troubling.
Many people felt Jefferson and Madison view scandalous.
To them the First Amendment meant simply that the federal government could not favor one Christian denomination over another. Their country was and was forever meant to be a Christian nation, and for over 150 years the Courts agreed.
I am going to have to read this book in its entirety, sounds more realistic.
There is no evidence by the SCOTUS that the US is a Christian nation or that our laws out founded on Biblical ideas. The Abrahamic God, Jesus or Christ are not found anywhere in US law.
Reynolds v. US
Engle v. Vitale
Everson v. Board of Ed.
Abington v. Schempp
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Christians have the very same constitutional rights to worship as they choose and to believe in god but they do not have the right to use their religious belief to trample the religious rights of others or to weaponize the state so that others must live by their religious beliefs. Why is it that conservative Charians in the US are horrified at the prospect of Islamic Sharia law in the US but seek to legislate their own conservative religious views in the very same way? If Sharia law is wrong then so is Christian law. Anything else reeks of religious hypocrisy.
Jefferson was not a member of any orthodox Christian religion and Madison, while likely being a Presbertarian, was a strong believer in the strict separation of church and state as witnessed by the essay Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. Read paragraphs 1-11. Jefferson wrote the Virginia state for religious freedoms during his time in the Virginia state legislature. There is no evidence that even suggests that the US was created on Biblical ideas or that religious rights in the US are given more toward Charians than other religious or those who are not believers. David Barton and others are lying to you so stop reading that dominionist idiocy.
You are correct that Jefferson was accused of being a heretic when he ran for POTUS.
Do you expect others to ignore the fact that you cannot prove that your god exists to people who refuse to take part in your religious self-delusion of blind faith and belief? The Bible is the obvious work of an ignorant group of bronze age men seeking to enforce patriarchal ideas.
We can choose to elect to office whomever we want. The USA government is officially secular but that doesn’t mean we can’t elect people who think and believe as we do to fill those positions and act on our behalf.
Those politicians cannot pass laws that support one religion over another or endorse religious belief over non-belief. That is why we have the concept of judicial review to keep both the legislative and executive body in check for the protection of the rights of all people and not just the majority or the politically powerful.
Why is it that conservatives claim that they have read and understood the US Constitution but in practice, their knowledge of civics wouldn't allow them to pass a high school civics midterm or the US citizenship exam?
And remember the Judicial branch is the weakest branch of Government. Our fathers intended for it to be that way because they knew how dangerous a few select judges could be to this nation.
Also SCOTUS can have their rulings overturned if enough states agree to an amendment change.
Why is it that conservatives are so uninformed on basic constitutional ideas?
The judicial is not the weakest. It is the slowest and the most reactive branch, but it has the very same power as the legislative and executive. It can only be that way if we have 3 equal branches as a check and balance to the other two.
The SCOTUS is just a small part of the judicial branch of the federal government. Those judges are appointed for life for a very good reason., If they were elected and had to be re-elected on a regular basis then they would not be able to make the constitutionally correct but unpopular decisions that they are required to do.
Do you understand the Marbury v. Madison decision?
It is very difficult to pass a constitutional amendment because of the number of states involved.
It is the weakest because it cant make laws or change laws. It is only a check.. The fact the the other two branches can bypass the Judicial court shows that the other two are stronger. As I said they can bypass the court by getting the states and the president to pass an amendment.. Think about Dred Scott. SCOTUS was trumped by an amendment. Their ruling becomes invalid. It is a passive branch of government. It has no power of sword nor money. It can only decide if laws are constitutional or not and even then not all the judges agree on matters.
Many of our founding fathers recognized it as the weakest branch. But they see it as weak because it can only judge, not legislate law and enforce them. So in essence SCOTUS has limited powers on what it can do, and it can be bypassed by Congress / States super majority, and the President making Amendments.
The SCOTUS can change laws when they can rule a law unconstitutional. The legislative or executive cannot bypass the judicial without committing a crime. Those decisions are laws unto themselves and cannot be ignored by the other 2 branches. They are also very difficult to overturn.
Dredd Scott was a horrific decision that led directly to the Civil War. It might be their worst decision.
It is irrelevant if a decision is unanimous. The Supreme Court only needs a majority. You are very uninformed about the government and the Constitution. The POTUS does not write Amendments.
"Now the left wants to legitimize disrespect for the flag and for Christianity." Total nonsense. Taking a knee during the anthem isn't disrespecting the flag and pointing out Christianity is just another religion with the same rights as any other faith such as Islam isn't disrespecting them.
"They want to ignore the rule of law at the border and silence protests against Islamic ideas that are antithetical to every good thing the west stands for." More nonsense. If you refuse to accept religious freedom you reject one of the cores of our secular constitution.
"They should look to Europe where all that's been accomplished." Where? Europe is not one unified behemoth that's rejected Christianity and embraced Islam. Quite the contrary.
"And now, when European women are molested in the public square, the gormless authorities advise them to behave more modestly lest immigrants get the wrong idea." Total BS, the extremists are tracked down, arrested and brought to justice.
"When Islamic knives come out and Islamic bombs go off, the police rush to harass — who? Those who question the dictates of the Koran." Again, just a bunch of fact-less hyperbole. When extremists attack they are hunted down no matter where they are hiding.
This author is trying to distract from the responsibility of gun owners by claiming people are just more violent today because of video games and "gangsta rap". What utter ignorance, what shameless deflection. To them the culture that has brought us 300,000,000 guns has nothing to do with the mass shootings, it must be the music and video games.
Conservatism has no memory, honor or soul. This is why it fear liberalism so much.
Conservatives are only comfortable with the status quo or even the past. Progressives want to move forward, to progress. Conservatives are terrified of the future. They want Sheriff Taylor and Aunt Bea and Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best, etc. They want to back to a B/W TV world. They want to go back small towns like Mayberry where there were no Black people or Hispanic people or Gay people or Native Americans that never really existed outside of a back-lot at Desilu Studios.
Conservatives are honor, soul, and positive traditions and thus why liberalism fears it so much.
Lol. They elected Donald Trump. So much for that theory.
Well done. You win a three week paid vacation to Hawaii.
Isn't Hawaii part of Kenya?
no
I'm not so sure. I mean didn't the Donald have a team of investigators over there who were finding out some "amazing things" when they were looking into President Obama's birth? So since President was born there and since he was convinced that Barack was born in Kenya the only conclusion he could have come to was that Hawaii is in Kenya.
Thank you Andrew for telling it like it is.
The usual response for liberals who hate hearing it like it is. Liberalism is the ideology of race, retribution, victimology and hate.
Well said both of you. Thanks for your contribution here.
Tea Party Conservatism is an ideology of nationalism, authoritarianism, cronyism, hypocrisy, dirty dealing and hate.
Is that why the IRS disabled the "Tea Party" before the 2012 election?
Why, a Democratic Admin. would NEVER use any governmental agency to further their own goals, would they?
S/
It must not have worked there snowflaking everywhere online.
It worked very well. Obama got a second term
Sure, the IRS who never closed down any Tea Party group is responsible for the second term of Obama. s/ Did they have secret meetings with the FBI in the basement of the pizza restaurant that was selling baby parts to fund his re-election?
The best part of that is that the pizza parlor in question didn't even have a basement. And those retards STILL bought it.
The IRS targeted Liberal groups as well. The notion that they only went after Conservative groups has been thoroughly debunked.
The best part of that is that the pizza parlor in question didn't even have a basement. And those retards STILL bought it.
Proving you can fool about 30 some percent of fools most of the time...and one of the idiots actually showed up and shot up the place! To quote the great Bugs Bunny "What a maroon!" He's going to prison because of a completely ignorant conspiracy theory that anyone with an I.Q. above double digits could have seen through!
It shocks me really....people like that will believe some outlandish story like that, that no sane person would believe, (considering the source), but these same people REFUSE to believe, even with the mountains of proof, that Russia tried to influence our elections. It truly is astonishing that people like that really live in this country. I would say they have the IQ of a turnip, but turnips....are much smarter.
The frightening part is that some of those gullible folks who fall for all these right wing myths are in the Trump regime, or were in key positions. Mike Flynn would have been national security adviser, and Trump believes everything he hears on Fox.
I know. I drop in on Hanniety once in awhile and I can not believe the obvious lies he tells? Now granted he says he is an advocate and not a news man, but still!
Oh and Alex Jones is pushing the idea that the school shooting last week was all an act, just like he said that Sandy Hook was a fake too.
Remember the nutty right wing professor in Florida who was fired because he was moonlighting as a "Sandy Hook Truther" and harassing the families of murdered kids? I wonder what ever happened to that moron. Where is he now that the gun huggers need him? Or maybe he's already working for Alex Jones.....
It just blows my mind that there are actually people who believe that shit. I put them on the same level as people who believe that the Earth is flat, except that they are despicable in the pain that they cause people who lost their children that day.
The posts here are exactly why I have given up on the US. The population is, honestly, just too fucking stupid for a functional democracy to survive. Virtually no one posting here knows what the "isms" they are using actually mean. We will descend into an autocracy, and of course it will be the ones who demonize liberalism who will lead the way. Not because they actually hate liberalism but because they are fucking retards and have no idea what it is.
we know what liberalism was and what it has become which is why the left has lost so much power over such a short time/
just curious here... what is it like to have your arse handed to ya by retards?
If Conservatives had their way:
We'd continue to live under the British monarchy. The Loyalists were conservative.
Slavery would continue to exist. The Confederacy was conservative.
Workers would continue to work in sweatshop conditions. Conservatives opposed workers' rights.
Jim Crow laws would still be in place. Conservatives implemented and supported them.
Any many more. Conservatives have almost always been on the wrong side of history.
awesome reply...
except for the part where everything you said is complete BS
Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party , the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. [61] To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights , and right to keep and bear arms of blacks. [61] The Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror against Republican leaders both black and white.
In 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant (republican) signed Butler's legislation. The Ku Klux Klan Act and the Enforcement Act of 1870 were used by the federal government to enforce the civil rights provisions for individuals under the constitution.
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States . Enacted by white Democratic -dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period , these laws continued to be enforced until 1965.
At the time of the things you posted, those were done by Conservatives, who were in the Democratic party.
Throughout the Civil Rights era and especially the Southern Strategy, the parties essentially switched (particularly in regard to the Dixiecrats) to what they are today.