S. Maturin

Cussin' a liberal because he/she/it thinks like a liberal is like cussin' a skunk for smelling like a skunk.

Skunk can't help it, liberals can't help it.

So, our ineffectiveness in our attempts to educate and/or convert liberals is to be expected. No surprise, right?

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

I am but a poor liberal who has to admit to having made mistakes.

What I fail to see is how you of such infinitive knowledge have been unable to present to the World your over all plan in a way that people would be flocking to except.
It would seem to me that what you have to say along with what Trump has to say surely there will be no problem over looked.

I feel the doors to the Promised Land will surely be open to all but Liberals.

After all even though Liberals will have plenty of room in their World for you. It would too demeaning for you to live with them.

I could say I was saddened by not being invited to live I your world. Some how I feel that befor to much longer even you will look forward to a world that excepts as many as it can,

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

Their taste buds are aflame with the last piece of the great American pie.
When that is gone they will be whimpering like babies as no one will be
able to refill their pie holes.

Gener

Boy is this ever accurate. I have watched for the time I have been on here and seen liberals just lie and lie and lie. They will not and cannot face the truth. Now, I have to admit, there are two kinds of liberals. The liberals at the top are outright liars and have an agenda to destroy freedom and democracy. Then there is the average person on the street who honestly believes he or she is right, as naive as that might be. There are a lot of liberals who have a lot of conservative values, and they have no idea how far the liberals in Washington have taken down the road to tyranny. They are liberals in certain areas, but do not know what liberalism in its totality means. Hopefully these people will soon come to see the light. Let's hope so because the lights are about to go out on freedom and democracy. But most will not.

YoOleMe Loc: Georgia ~ Alabama ~ Texas

- - - - - - - - - - - -

... So, simply wallowing in our own ineptitude is the answer, right!?!?!?! ... I have an sufficient World-class, 60-year empirical background to tell you, with 98% surety; WITHIN 69, OR FEWER DAYS; We shall ALL have received that "educat[ion]" OR -- Elohim FORBID: THAT "CONVER[SION]" pursuant to His Holy Accounting!!! ... I can only hope & PRAY we're ALL Revelation Chap/ 20:4 ~ 22:21 READY!!!!

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

RIGHTIE-O! ! ! ! ! !

LIBTURDS.....DON'T HAVE TO BE "RIGHT".....THEY LEAVE THAT { Debatable & dubious integrity}TO THE LIBERAL DICTATORS!

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

MOSTLY....THE "DIFFERENCE"....IS LIBTURDS: A-MORAL, NARCISSISTIC, CORRUPT, SELF ABSORBED, GODLESS, & TOTALLY IGNORANT OF AMERICAN PATRIOTISM!

ANY QUESTIONS? ? ? ? ? ?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

All caps doesn't make your post louder.

Steve700

Thank you for once again proving how simplistic, superficial, immature and childish the thinking of the liberal is. There is a difference between a person brought up with morals, values and a well-developed traditional understanding of world history and the American governmental system and a red doper diaper baby brought up by pot smoking liberal parents who bought into the introduction of Marxist philosophy during the hippie era. One has wisdom, morals, integrity and character with a proper understanding of the difference of governmental systems. The other has been taught by comparatively very self absorbed, self ingratiating, pleasure seeking, unappreciative, arrogant, narcissistic political fools who have had their mind molded by Marxist propaganda and yet don't even recognize Marxist propaganda to be what it is. Now tell me how I could be wrong.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

You could be WRONG if a liberal was brought up in a military family, such as myself. No 'red doper diaper baby' upbringing for me... no, siree. Traditional all the way....so at least one of your premises is wrong, though I doubt you will admit that.

Steve700

It's always possible for a kid to be brought up by good and wise parents and yet have a selfish rebellious spirit, perhaps from other bad influences like bad friends or a charismatic criminally minded cousin he thinks is cool, and turn out to be a rotten apple himself. What the hell happened to you ???????????????

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

" Now tell me how I could be wrong." That was the statement you made. I showed you how you could be wrong. Naturally you can't admit that.

Nothing happened to me....my family is proud of me and I am a proud member of my family. As my family's token liberal, I am still able to have civilized and constructive engagement with my parents and siblings on just about any subject. Of course, it helps that I am nothing like the bogey man liberal of your fevered imagination.

Steve700

Those aren't insults, those are facts. Do you expect a degenerate to believe or admit that he is a degenerate and a creep. I'm sure even Hitler thought of himself as a good person, after all he loved and was good to his dog. You are demonstrating the degree of deception Marxist propaganda has placed in your noggin when you say that the conservative Christian right is looking to expand form America into a fascist totalitarian government. That is pure PURE UNADULTERATED MARXIST BULL SHIT and so exactly opposite the truth. It is the left who is out to socially engineer and control and regulate everything. And the right who is for small unobtrusive government and individual and personal freedom. You damn well know that, but suppress it and spew out that indoctrinated Marxist propaganda like a parrot that doesn't even know what he's saying. [b] Anyone with a half a brain knows that totalitarian comes from the left whether it's from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pole Pot, Hugo Chavez who by the way, because of his plunge into leftism has the people of Venezuela hunting pigeons, eating the neighbors pets, waiting in line for hours for the bare necessities and often doing without toilet paper. Go ahead, put today's Venezuela or Venezuela after Hugo Chavez into the YouTube address bar and see for yourself the present day condition of that country. 110 - 120 million slaughtered in the 20th century because of Marxist philosophy and indoctrination. And you stupid son of a bitch say that the right is the one that wants to impose totalitarianism. Go ahead and tell me of one country that is ever had totalitarianism and slaughter of its own people from the right. Go ahead and tell me what Christian capitalist democracy has ever attacked another democracy. You are a typical idiot of the left, exactly the kind of stupid destructive useful idiots that are fucking up the world and leading it to disaster. The disaster that's coming and already happening, but that you can't even see because you are so blinded by your faulty own beliefs.

Steve700

Well that's nice for you and I'm happy for you. Nonetheless, you certainly seem to be a good example of the effectiveness of Marxist propaganda and programming. It's time for you to wake up and understand the history of the world and the Democratic Party (see Hillary's America, either now or soon free on YouTube) Liberalism is as I said a product of Marxist programming, immaturity, ignorance of history, a lack of understanding of why conservative values are far superior, narcissism and a propensity for self-delusion and living in a fantasy world. The fact that you can't see that in yourself is only what is expected. Read the post directly above this one and wake the hell up and realize that is an exact description of what leftism brings when it is allowed to go all the way to its full conclusion and don't think it can't happen here; it's already happening.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Let's just take a look at Hitler:

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Hitler's Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism/Marxism.