Liberals Forced to Bare Their Teeth

A

Apache

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
6
Location
CT
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/liberals_forced_to_bare_their_teeth.html

Liberals were a sorry spectacle this month, when they were forced to bare their teeth on the Planned Parenthood/Komen caper. A real hegemonic ruling class at the peak of its power doesn't need to make threats. Its natives don't even think about getting restless.

That, after all, is why liberals invented political correctness. Every American pretends to sneer at political correctness, but every American knows better than to say anything politically incorrect, else he'll find the local liberal enforcer paying a visit, and everyone in America knows what the PC enforcer can do to you. She can brand you with the liberal mark of Cain -- racist, sexist, homophobe -- and that could pitch you out of college or out of a job. Political correctness, or Chicago politics, or any other protection racket works best when Mr. Big never has to send the thugs around to make explicit the crude intimidation of "nice little column you got there..."

But once the Raj's local District Officer gets afraid and tells Superintendent Ronald Merrick order a police lathi (or Indian police baton) charge, well, then the end of the empire is just a matter of time.

And that's where liberals are today after the lathi charge on Komen and the fake retreat on the Catholic health insurance blunder. American women who don't want liberals legislating a culture of death over their families should know what's what. Faithful Catholics who continue to vote for Democrats have to ask themselves: what was the point of "Dagger John" Hughes, first Catholic Archbishop of New York, teaching the WASPs the time of day a century and a half ago? What was the point of building the Catholic school system to which the nuns devoted their lives, if today's Catholics just knuckle under to a new era of anti-Catholic bigotry?

And for what are people supporting the Democrats? It's not as if they will have much loot to hand out -- not after the government's finances go Greek on us.

Even here in India (where I'm vacationing for three weeks) liberals are worrying about the future of government programs. Sunil Khilnani writes in the Times of India about the problem of delivering policies over government's "last mile." India's capital throbs with great ideas and policies, he writes, but nothing seems to change.

The core problem, in domain after domain of social policy, lies in the inability to bridge that last mile -- to translate intention, law and resources into outcomes that improve individual opportunities. Take for instance the case of primary education. We have fine legislation in place that establishes a right to basic education.

And yet, as we know from a series of recent reports, the gains across India's school-bound young in literacy and numeracy are shockingly poor and depressing. It's that last mile -- delivering the actual classroom lessons that improve learning and the capacity to learn -- which is the weakest link.

Now, Khilnani is a good, faithful liberal teaching at King's College in London, and there's a charming naiveté in his faith in "intention, law and resources."

But if you want to deliver any service over the "last mile," you need a system that succeeds or fails on how it actually delivers to real citizens at the other end of that last mile. In politics, the last mile is not the delivery of literacy and numeracy to schoolchildren, or even "reproductive health" to at-risk women; it is getting that last one percent to win the next election or buying the last vote to pass a bill.

When he was running for president, Barack Obama used to talk a lot about his "faith tradition." Well, I have a faith tradition, too. It is called American exceptionalism, and I'll put it up against the president's faith tradition any day. My faith tradition says that when America needed someone to clean up the Revolutionary War debts and put the national economy on a sound footing, it got Alexander Hamilton. When it needed a president to end the suppurating wound of slavery, it got Abraham Lincoln. When it needed a president to show liberals that their politics and their economics stank, it got Ronald Reagan.

Back in 1860, the South gagged on Lincoln the way that the rest of the nation gagged on the stench of gangrene from America's Original Sin. In the 1980s liberals were the real amiable dunces who wouldn't read the verdict on Keynesianism and government dependency. So now liberals are going to have to learn the hard way. Just like the South did between 1860 and 1960.

Baring their teeth to the breast cancer folks and faking out the liberal Catholics ain't gonna save them. When America needed a president to show that liberalism was past its sell-by date, it got Barack Obama.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/liberals_forced_to_bare_their_teeth.html#ixzz1mLYXmi8s
Click to expand...
 
The average IQ level in this forum just dropped several points with this the above post.
 
So I hear you dont liek liberals Apache. Call a whambulance.
 
Apache, I think you need to switch to a different blend, the current one the medicine is dishing out has obvious side-effects besides soaring with the eagles...
 
Liberals always talk that they are for the little guy, that they want people to live healthy, happy and good lives. They talk about the right to privacy when supporting infanticide. They talk about the right to distribute wealth through the use of force. But mostly, they talk about the justness of their cause and the right to free speech; unless such speech provides a view other than theirs; then, the teeth come out. With vitriol and fake mirth, they lob ad-hominems, wish for violence and malice upon those that speak heresy, and most of all, denigrate and belittle. I have yet to see a liberal proffer rational and sound argument.
 
Well that was even sillier and more incoherent than the previous article from that site.
 
Came across this quote today. Pretty cool:

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear". ~William E. Gladstone, 1866
 
BandwidthAddict said:
They talk about the right to privacy when supporting infanticide.
Click to expand...
lol... definitely worth quoting.


I never saw the connection between infanticide and the right to privacy until now. :D Thanks for enlightening me.



"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ~John Kenneth Galbraith
 
mybb seems to be a trolling ground for anti-anything-if-it's-not-conservative-ideologies at the moment....
 
ghoti said:
Came across this quote today. Pretty cool:

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear". ~William E. Gladstone, 1866
Click to expand...

ghoti, I don't think you understand the meaning of that quote.

You need to consider the source, the period, the fact that words such as "liberal" and "conservative" have locational and temporal context. Just to help you out, this was 1866 in ENGLAND. Also hint, England used to be a true monarchy and the peasants were dictated to by aristocrats who would kill any peasant / unimportant person that annoyed them with impunity.

Translated to the modern times, peasants are the tax payers, aristocrats are the politicians and bureaucrats. Although killing with impunity has been outlawed (for now), the new age aristocrats have no problem with destroying people's lives or making those lives utterly miserable through massive tax or regulatory burdens both on a large scale and also aimed at "annoying" individuals.

This is a perfect example of the thought processes of modern day "liberals": overly emotional, lacking in cerebration.
 
BandwidthAddict said:
ghoti, I don't think you understand the meaning of that quote.

You need to consider the source, the period, the fact that words such as "liberal" and "conservative" have locational and temporal context. Just to help you out, this was 1866 in ENGLAND. Also hint, England used to be a true monarchy and the peasants were dictated to by aristocrats who would kill any peasant / unimportant person that annoyed them with impunity.

Translated to the modern times, peasants are the tax payers, aristocrats are the politicians and bureaucrats. Although killing with impunity has been outlawed (for now), the new age aristocrats have no problem with destroying people's lives or making those lives utterly miserable through massive tax or regulatory burdens both on a large scale and also aimed at "annoying" individuals.

This is a perfect example of the thought processes of modern day "liberals": overly emotional, lacking in cerebration.
Click to expand...

A conservative is a man who just sits and thinks, mostly sits. ~Woodrow Wilson
 
BandwidthAddict said:
ghoti, I don't think you understand the meaning of that quote.

You need to consider the source, the period, the fact that words such as "liberal" and "conservative" have locational and temporal context. Just to help you out, this was 1866 in ENGLAND. Also hint, England used to be a true monarchy and the peasants were dictated to by aristocrats who would kill any peasant / unimportant person that annoyed them with impunity.

Translated to the modern times, peasants are the tax payers, aristocrats are the politicians and bureaucrats. Although killing with impunity has been outlawed (for now), the new age aristocrats have no problem with destroying people's lives or making those lives utterly miserable through massive tax or regulatory burdens both on a large scale and also aimed at "annoying" individuals.

This is a perfect example of the thought processes of modern day "liberals": overly emotional, lacking in cerebration.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. Translated to the modern times, peasants are the poor people, aristocrats are the rich people.
Exactly like 1866 except the rich aristocrats are mostly corporate business people and investors (not politicians or bureaucrats).

The more things change the more they stay the same.
 
joelus said:
Totally disagree. Translated to the modern times, peasants are the poor people, aristocrats are the rich people.
Exactly like 1866 except the rich aristocrats are mostly corporate business people and investors (not politicians or bureaucrats).

The more things change the more they stay the same.
Click to expand...

That's because society must be built upon hierarchy. It is a necessary foundation for a group. Any ideology that preaches equality is either a liar, a hypocrite, or on a slippery slope to inevitable failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X