Professional Soldiers

Professional Soldiers (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   America's Second Civil War (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52035)

ddoering 02-01-2017 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyz (Post 623406)
My apologies. Anyway, so much is going to haunt libs..."nuclear option" - "executive authority" etc., etc. ...this is not going to be pretty.

Fuck them. Who cares what they feel.

tonyz 02-01-2017 15:41

No reason whatsoever to care how they feel (particularly after the past 8 years) but we conservatives generally hold ourselves to higher standards than liberals. Timely article below recognizes this phenomena.

That valuable middle ground of voters will undoubtably recognize this as well - if the liberal legislators continue their current immature behavior.

We have the high ground, all three branches of governement, and the best ideas. We do need to minimize cannablizing our own and push through a productive agenda. No gridlock. Limited government, lower taxes, strong national security, safe cities, improved education for all, better healthcare, individual liberty, energy independence, strong borders, fair trade, E pluribus unum.

BLM, Occupy Wall Street, high taxes, Obamacare, multicutluralism, open borders, unbridled immigration, anarchy and street violence...not so much. One need only look around the world...

Lower Conduct Standards for Liberals
Walter E. WilliamsWalter E. Williams|Posted: Feb 01, 2017 12:01 AM
Town hall

One can only imagine the widespread media, political and intellectual condemnation of Republicans and conservatives if, after the inauguration of Barack Obama, they had gone on a violent and vicious tear all over the nation as did Democrats and liberals after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. They committed acts such as assaulting Trump supporters, setting fires and stoning police.

Suppose Republicans/conservatives had carried signs that read "F--- Obama" or talked about "blowing up the White House." The news media, instead of calling them protesters, would have labeled them evil racists, obstructionists and everything else except a child of God. The reason for the difference in treatment is simple. Republicans and conservatives are held -- and hold themselves -- to higher standards of behavior. By contrast, Democrats and liberals are held -- and hold themselves -- to less civilized standards of behavior. Let's look at some of the history of conservative and liberal behavior.

One of the nastiest more recent liberal events was the Occupy movement around the nation. During Occupy protests, there were rapes, assaults, robberies and holdups. These people publicly defecated and urinated on police cars. The mess they left after their demonstrations can be described as no more than a pigsty. Does anybody recall any Democratic official, from the president on down, admonishing them to behave? Contrast their behavior with that of tea party protesters. Tea partyers didn't set fires, stone police or engage in the other kinds of despicable behavior the liberal Democrats did. On top of that, they left the areas where they protested clean.

Ask yourself whether you have ever seen Republicans/conservatives rioting, turning over police cars, looting, setting places of business on fire and shouting obscenities while marching. Have you ever seen conservatives marching with chants calling for the murder of police officers? You may have heard liberals yelling, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" In fact, virtually all of the violence against police -- whether it's throwing stones, ambushing or murdering -- is committed by liberals or people who'd identify as Democrats. The fact of the matter is that if we were to examine criminality in America -- whether talking about murderers, muggers or prisoners -- it would be dominated by people who would be described as liberals, Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters.

Democrats and liberals accuse Republicans of conducting a war on women. Assault, rape and murder are the worst things that can be done to a woman. I would bet a lot of money that most of the assaults, rapes and murders of women are done by people who identify as liberals, and if they voted or had a party affiliation, it would be Democratic.

One of the most glaring examples of how liberals are held to lower standards comes when we look at what they control. The nation's most dangerous big cities in 2012 were Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis, Memphis, Stockton, Birmingham, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta and Milwaukee. The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some cities -- such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia -- haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. It's not just personal safety. These Democratic-controlled cities have the poorest-quality public education despite the fact that they have large and growing school budgets. Most of these dangerous cities have suffered massive decreases in population. Some observers have suggested that racism has caused white flight to the suburbs. But these observers ignore the fact that black flight has become increasingly significant. It turns out that black people do not like to be mugged and live in unsafe neighborhoods any more than white people.

Republicans and conservatives, including President Trump, should not gripe or whine about different treatment by the liberal media. Magnanimity commands that we have compassion and try to understand our fallen brethren. We should make every effort to sell them on the moral superiority of personal liberty and its main ingredient -- limited government.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...&newsletterad=

ddoering 02-01-2017 21:00

I'm afraid the nuance is lost on liberals. What they do understand though is a good ass kicking.

Trapper John 02-02-2017 07:23

I know it's a minor point, but I suggest we no longer refer to the Occupy Democrats and various other agi-prop groups as Liberals. This would also include the new Democrat party - i.e. Schumer, Warren, Pelozi, and the like.

These clowns are anything but in the true meaning of Liberal as exemplified by Archibald Macleish (1930' and 40's) or John F. Kennedy (1960's).

Their tactics, their messaging, their rhetoric, and their philosophy is more accurately called "Neo-Fascist". Therefore, from now on, I will refer to these clowns as either the "Left" or more accurately, "Neo-Fascists". They simply are not worthy of being referred to as Liberal.

YMMV

Divemaster 02-02-2017 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapper John (Post 623511)
I know it's a minor point, but I suggest we no longer refer to the Occupy Democrats and various other agi-prop groups as Liberals. This would also include the new Democrat party - i.e. Schumer, Warren, Pelozi, and the like.

These clowns are anything but in the true meaning of Liberal as exemplified by Archibald Macleish (1930' and 40's) or John F. Kennedy (1960's).

Their tactics, their messaging, their rhetoric, and their philosophy is more accurately called "Neo-Fascist". Therefore, from now on, I will refer to these clowns as either the "Left" or more accurately, "Neo-Fascists". They simply are not worthy of being referred to as Liberal.

YMMV

Why not "communists" or "socialists"? Many of them adhere to Marx's teachings. Socialist Action even has a Marxist Education section on their website. One of Lenin's main tactics in bringing down the Czar (before open warfare) was anarchy. Today we're seeing the same playbook.

bblhead672 02-02-2017 10:29

Sarah Silverman calls for military overthrow of legitimate government.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ent-trump.html

Sounds like Ms. Silverman should be indicted for sedition. These people need to be taught a lesson about the rule of law.

tonyz 02-02-2017 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bblhead672 (Post 623526)
Sarah Silverman calls for military overthrow of legitimate government.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ent-trump.html

Sounds like Ms. Silverman should be indicted for sedition. These people need to be taught a lesson about the rule of law.

I've gotta think that calling for a Coup and inciting violence warrants a visit and temporary survellience at least. These useful idiots all walk so close to the line they have chalk on their shoes...these idiots (Madonna, Handler, Silverman, etc.,) must know that they whip up the masses.

DIYPatriot 02-02-2017 10:57

Didn't George cLOONEY and several of his friends call for a Hollywood strike until Trump resigns? Really wish they'd go ahead and follow through with that...of course, I'm sure most of them are living in their beloved Canada, now. Oh...that's right, Canada's immigration policies prevented them from easily walking in and setting up shop. It's strange how they never say, "I'm moving to Mexico!" or Venezuela, where so many of them advocated for Maduro and his brand of socialism. Maybe we can convince them to rally in the forgiving streets of Asadabad.

Old Dog New Trick 02-02-2017 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyz (Post 623527)
I've gotta think that calling for a Coup and inciting violence warrants a visit and temporary survellience at least. These useful idiots all walk so close to the line they have chalk on their shoes...these idiots (Madonna, Handler, Silverman, etc.,) must know that they whip up the masses.

I'd rather like to see it as a chalk outline. :D

Team Sergeant 02-02-2017 13:54

Sarah Silverman has the IQ of a condom
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bblhead672 (Post 623526)
Sarah Silverman calls for military overthrow of legitimate government.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ent-trump.html

Sounds like Ms. Silverman should be indicted for sedition. These people need to be taught a lesson about the rule of law.

And the people that actually listen to her, even lower.

Box 02-02-2017 15:35

Quote:

Sarah Silverman has the IQ of a condom


...now seriously. Do you really believe that? I think you are just posting that out of sheer spite. You read something that caused your temper to flare and decided to post something abrasive and divisive.
Being divisive out of spite is what neo-fascists like 'fake tears schumer' and 'tell them youre a muslim pelosi' do.
You're better than that.

A condom protects the user and the partner from disease...
...it helps prevent unwanted pregnancy
...it is versatile - you can use it to keep dirt out of a gun barrel
...it is pliable - one size will fit a wide range of people
...it is blind to race, creed, and religion - it doesn't discriminate
...it doesn't interfere with your activity
...it doesn't judge - you can use it on whoever you please
...if you are imaginative, you can even use it like a party balloon
...it understands that once you are finished with it, you get rid of it

Sarah Silverman is not very versatile at all - her way or the highway.
...she doesn't safeguard health, she encourages violence
...she isn't very versatile - her comedy is weak and her hit movies are nonexistent
...she is obsessed by categorizing people by their "identity group"
...she is clearly hyper-judgmental and prejudiced of those who don't fit into her 'mold'
...she cant help but interfere in the lives of others - and even dares to incite insurrection
...her "foil wrapper" was ripped open and cast away decades ago

Yet, you would still put her on the same pedestal as a condom.
...even the free generic condoms that the Army gives away have satisfied more people than Ms Silverman.

You should apologize to the lowly prophylactic for being so dismissive of its value.

Trapper John 02-02-2017 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divemaster (Post 623522)
Why not "communists" or "socialists"? Many of them adhere to Marx's teachings. Socialist Action even has a Marxist Education section on their website. One of Lenin's main tactics in bringing down the Czar (before open warfare) was anarchy. Today we're seeing the same playbook.

True, but neo-Fascist has a more visceral reaction attached to it and I think a more widely recognized means and methods that is associated with it.

Also, I think that extremism at either end becomes a distinction without a difference. For example, the neo-Nazi's and white supremacists compared with these extreme Leftists is just that - a distinction without a difference. Both are driving to dominate and oppress the masses to implement their ideology and they employ the same means and methods.

I am thinking in terms of messaging and suggesting that "neo-Fascist" is an accurate descriptor and a good label for eliciting the appropriate emotive reaction. No further explanation is needed by the receiver or from the communicator. Both parties understand exactly what is being communicated.

Airbornelawyer 02-02-2017 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divemaster (Post 623522)
Quote:

I know it's a minor point, but I suggest we no longer refer to the Occupy Democrats and various other agi-prop groups as Liberals. This would also include the new Democrat party - i.e. Schumer, Warren, Pelozi, and the like.

These clowns are anything but in the true meaning of Liberal as exemplified by Archibald Macleish (1930' and 40's) or John F. Kennedy (1960's).

Their tactics, their messaging, their rhetoric, and their philosophy is more accurately called "Neo-Fascist". Therefore, from now on, I will refer to these clowns as either the "Left" or more accurately, "Neo-Fascists". They simply are not worthy of being referred to as Liberal.

YMMV
Why not "communists" or "socialists"? Many of them adhere to Marx's teachings. Socialist Action even has a Marxist Education section on their website. One of Lenin's main tactics in bringing down the Czar (before open warfare) was anarchy. Today we're seeing the same playbook.

One of the main tenets of Communism is the withering away of the state. Many socialists concluded that this would not happen on its own; rather, they concluded that the State itself would become the embodiment of and vehicle for socialism. One of the main proponents of this view was an Italian socialist by the name of Benito Mussolini. For him, the State was paramount - "everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." He, of course, named his system of state socialism "fascism", after the bundle of sticks which since the Romans symbolized strength through unity. One of his disciples, a man named Adolf Hitler, rebranded his own party under the label of "National Socialist", since in Europe the modern state system and the concept of ethnic nationalism rose alongside each other.

Other fascist parties also embraced not merely statism, but ethnic nationalism, as they saw ethnicity as the strongest base by which the state could ensure the unity which would create strength. This was primarily a European phenomenon, since Europe had already moved so far in the direction of nation-states, although non-European fascist movements such as the Ba'ath in Mesopotamia and the Levant also embraced ethnic nationalism.

Elsewhere, such as in the United States, ethnic nationalism was not as important, but state socialism still had its appeal. American Progressives have pretty much whitewashed their own history, but before World War II, they were quite enamored of Mussolini and even Hitler, though Hitler's far more aggressively ethnic nationalism and anti-Semitism was a turn-off, especially after the Nuremberg Laws and later the Kristallnacht. Even then, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, American Communists dutifully followed Moscow's lead and defended Nazi Germany up until the Wehrmacht crossed the Soviet frontier in June 1941.

While Mussolini is practically viewed as a buffoon since World War II, it is useful to remember that his image before the mid-1930s was quite favorable in many circles. He was portrayed as a manly pillar of strength, and often photographed shirtless. His image was very much like that of another shirtless tough-guy by the name of Putin, who reflects a more recent incarnation of fascism.

After World War II, American Progressives and the rest of the Western left again took their direction from Moscow and its surrogates, as Stalin determined that henceforth fascism would always and everywhere be defined as a "right wing" movement. And, to be fair, there were probably many right-wingers, especially in Europe, who did see fascism as a more extreme version of what could be described as "right wing" values - support for a strong state and a proud military, defense of a common heritage and tradition, and aversion to economic liberalism's treatment of humans as barely more than commodities in a market.

This idea is, however, a hard sell in the United States, since we were created a nation of immigrants fleeing despotism and our common heritage and tradition are rooted in our shared Constitutional values of limited-government democratic republicanism, and not our ethnic origins. That of course, hasn't stopped the American left from constantly labeling the American right as fascist, no matter how utterly ignorant it is to label strong advocates of limited government as "fascist". Although Georg Orwell, certainly an expert on how language can be misused politically, observed decades ago that "fascist" had pretty much been reduced to mean, "anything I don't like".

One of the bigger trends in American politics since the 1960s, with the rise of the conservative revolution and the shift of conservative Democrats away from their old party affiliations, has been the realignment of the two major parties into more ideologically-aligned movements. There are few conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans left. Perhaps without fully realizing its implications, the modern American left has become rather fascist, in the sense of embracing state socialism. This is especially the case for the ones who embrace the "Progressive" label, who are merely returning to their movement's roots in the 1920s and 1930s. I wouldn't label all Democrats thusly; I imagine like Republicans, most rank-and-file Democrats probably don't sit around debating political theory.

I doubt most could identify the Mussolini quote above, but these modern-day Progressives do seem to share his view of the state and embody what is properly a fascist ideology. Based on their rhetoric and policy prescriptions, they appear to believe that there is no problem for which the solution is not more government, and, consequently, if you oppose the "government" solution, you clearly do not care about the problem. If you oppose particular environmental regulations, you obviously favor dirty air and water. If you question the effectiveness of state-run or state-controlled health insurance and pension programs, you obviously want to push little old ladies in wheelchairs over cliffs. And to the extent they ever even admit there may be a problem with failing public schools, the problem is only ever a few bad apples, and of course can be solved by more government spending, so if you favor school choice obviously you are the one who is an extremist. Oddly, national defense is one of the few areas where the left seems hostile to state power, although when they have the reins of government they seem perfectly content to use the armed forces and intelligence services to their ends.

Of course, having spent the last eight years content with having the power of the state on hand to target the enemies of progress, whether through IRS investigations or targeting journalists under the Espionage Act, it remains to be seen how the Progressive movement will react when out of power. So far, early indications are impotent rage and petulant obstructionism. And, of course, rank hypocrisy, although to be fair hypocrisy is one of the few constants in politics.

Old Dog New Trick 02-02-2017 15:58

^^^^as the world turns.

What really has me confused is that the "Left" or "Neo-Fascists" and/or New Social Order can't even see that they are espousing so much love (lust) for all that they claim to hate so much, has become their mantra.

You'd think they should be loving Vladimir Putin or even Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as their spiritual Imam.

I think I'll just continue to call them "assholes" and hopefully provoke them into a fight.

Trapper John 02-02-2017 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick (Post 623555)
........

I think I'll just continue to call them "assholes" and hopefully provoke them into a fight.

That works too! :D :D

Oh, and Airborne Lawyer, your post was "finest kind". :lifter


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:29.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers