posted February 20, 2010 06:41 AM            

When leftists are challenged on any of their constant blather, they get all tongue tied and can't marshal up a logical argument to back up the blather. Everyone is supposed to take what leftists say at face value.

Long gone are those days when leftists could get away with saying so and so is true and everyone nods their heads and shrieks in unison..yes it is, yes it is. When the leftist chorus chimes in it's a matter of nothing plus nothing equals nothing.

"Seeing clearly" must be a relative thing...all across the landscape in LeftistLand.

In the real world, leftists can't see past their own noses. Their policies, whenever they get control of government...or anything else for that matter, produce chaos, destruction and failure.

As we approach 2012, we're closing in on a Century of fog in LeftistLand beginning with the Socialist Progressive Woodrow Wilson.

Leftists haven't learned a thing from history. Wilson gave/forced the income tax and Federal Reserve Act on America...both unconstitutional on their face...and BOTH are major planks straight from the Communist Manifesto written by the 5th rate 19th century so called thinker, Karl Marx.

Next up was Franklin Roosevelt, another Socialist Progressive who turned a normal business cycle recession into a depression and kept the depression going for more than 8 years by attempting to spend America out of recession by growing government. Roosevelt was aided in his attempt to bankrupt America by the Federal Reserve instituted by another Socialist Progressive, Wilson.

Then, there was Lyndon Johnson and his so called War on Poverty. What a joke. Trillions have been thrown at poverty in America and the result is....there are more people below the so called poverty line than when Johnson started. Another Socialist Progressive.

Jimmy Carter, came as close as a president has ever come to totally wrecking the US economy. Interest rates of 21%, inflation of the currency over 10% and unemployment of 10%. Americans couldn't wait to throw Carter out of the White House after 4 years of a wildly rising "Misery Index".

I'm going to give Clinton a pass here. He was headed in the very same direction until voters clipped his wings and elected a Republican House majority in 1992. Kicking, screaming and screeching, Clinton was forced to move to the center because his Socialist Progressive agenda was going nowhere with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. He and Hillary attempted to force HillaryCare on America. Sound familiar?

Which brings us to Barack Hussein O'Bomber, another Socialist Progressive...and a Marxist to boot.

It is said..doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result is the mark of insanity.

Nationalizing banks, insurance companies, auto makers and putting people in charge of overseeing or actually running major companies who have no experience IS utter insanity.

O'Bomber's stated wet dream of bankrupting the coal and utility sectors (energy) of the private economy...because of man made global warming is another nail in the coffin of O'Bomber's insanity.

Then, there's HillaryCare all dressed up in new lying psychobabble BS, which O'Bomber is attempting to ram through the Congress against the wishes and "Consent" of the American people who reject it by a large majority.

Leftists seem intellectually incapable of learning from history...or perhaps it's just too foggy in LeftistLand for leftists to read from the pages of history.

However, my bet's on a wide and deep vein of leftist insanity.

Like lemmings, Socialist Progressive demoscats are marching off the cliff for O'Bomber's Socialist Progressive agenda. Republicans didn't have to push them over the cliff...or even provide a nudge to make them jump.

Another day of reckoning is on Socialist Progressives horizons and November 2, 2010 is fast approaching. They're about to find out...again...what happens when they attempt to govern without the consent of the American people.

posted February 20, 2010 04:20 PM            

When are you going to learn a demur is not a reasonable argument on any subject?

Nevertheless, infantile arguments which nibble around the edges and never address issues head on is the stock in trade of leftist narcissists.

This post of yours fails to rise even to that level.

Seeing clearly is clearly not your strong suit.

posted February 20, 2010 09:12 PM            

quote:

---

When are you going to learn a demur is not a reasonable argument on any subject?

---

Tell me, if it weren't a reasonable argument, why are you threatened by it to the extent that you feel the need to try to minimalize it?

Now if you'll stop trying to save face by acting like I am avoiding arguing with you, you'll do much better in this forum. You know very well I can come in here and stomp you any time I like. You should welcome it when I only post one line.

quote:

---

Seeing clearly is clearly not your strong suit.

---

I see clearly that you are quite done-in by my assertion that I see clearly. That amuses me. In fact, "clearly" is my word around here, isn't it? Because I'm always pointing out what's obvious.

posted February 20, 2010 11:25 PM            

You have merely raised an objection, without stating a case for your objection.....and that's a dead bang loser.

It's not so much that leftists...which includes all communists; Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists and their umbrella group Socialists are ignorant. It's that their most cherished "knowledge" is not true. You're in the right phew.

posted February 21, 2010 01:54 AM            

quote:

---

You have merely raised an objection, without stating a case for your objection.....and that's a dead bang loser.

---

If it's a loser, you shouldn't be concerned about it. "Clearly" you are.

What I've always been is a Centrist. Only you try to paint me otherwise. Joe Lieberman was right in his comments about the Public Option, and his comments SHOULD HAVE BEEN the argument that Republicans used.

posted February 21, 2010 01:07 PM            

Your usual style is to never take on an argument head on but rather, to demur..make a non-argument to what was said.

The reason leftists must avoid on point arguments is because the factual tides run against their positions.

posted February 21, 2010 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Your usual style is to never take on an argument head on but rather, to demur..make a non-argument to what was said.

---

That is not a statement of reality. We all know this. My "style" is the opposite. My style is to stomp your point with the facts. No one would disagree.

This isn't a legal proceeding, so the use of "demur" is out of place. Something akin to "avoidance" would be more appropriate. If this were a legal proceeding I'm quite certain the judge would agree with my demur in this instance. You presented as true a series of untruths:

1. Leftists (by which you really mean Liberals) can't argue logically. Having been smacked down as many times as you have, you'd have a seriously difficult time proving that one.

2. "Their policies, whenever they get control of government...or anything else for that matter, produce chaos, destruction and failure." This statement is no more true for Democrats than it is of Republicans. Any rational judge would have to agree.

3. "As we approach 2012, we're closing in on a Century of fog in LeftistLand beginning with the Socialist Progressive Woodrow Wilson." Wilson was neither Socialist nor Progressive. He was an American Democrat. FACT.

4. "Wilson gave/forced the income tax and Federal Reserve Act on America...both unconstitutional on their face...and BOTH are major planks straight from the Communist Manifesto written by the 5th rate 19th century so called thinker, Karl Marx." There is no evidence that these economic moves were tied to the Communist Manifesto, nor were either act illegal.

posted February 21, 2010 04:53 PM            

7. "Which brings us to Barack Hussein O'Bomber, another Socialist Progressive...and a Marxist to boot." I'm certain a judge would take issue to the misspelling of his name, and the assertion that he's a Marxist or a Socialist.

8. "Nationalizing banks, insurance companies, auto makers and putting people in charge of overseeing or actually running major companies who have no experience IS utter insanity." Obama didn't nationalize insurance companies or auto makers. Any rational person, much less a judge, would have to acknowledge the plain, simple truth of that. Lumping in banks the FDIC has seen as prudent to take over is an act of regulation as well, and NOT one of nationalization.

9. "Then, there's HillaryCare all dressed up in new lying psychobabble BS, which O'Bomber is attempting to ram through the Congress against the wishes and "Consent" of the American people who reject it by a large majority." I think a judge would take into account the amount of times Obama has invited Republican input into this legislation before hastily agreeing that your point has merit.

10. "Leftists seem intellectually incapable of learning from history...or perhaps it's just too foggy in LeftistLand for leftists to read from the pages of history." Ironic for someone who claims everyone left-of-center is a Marxist to claim that these same people are ignorant of history. Unsensible I'd say. Not only so, but given Democrats largely positive influence on the nation in the past century, it would behoove Democrats to be cognizant of history. Any judge would have to agree.

11. "Like lemmings, Socialist Progressive demoscats are marching off the cliff for O'Bomber's Socialist Progressive agenda. Republicans didn't have to push them over the cliff...or even provide a nudge to make them jump." Republicans are currently trying to attack the Recovery Act even after having used those funds for the betterment of their constituents. I don't know if they believe people are too stupid to notice or what, but I don't think Republicans are standing on as firm ground as you'd have people believe.

__________________________

So there is my case for "demur." I'm certain the judge would side with me, as your post was precisely the "nonsense editorial" I claimed it to be.

quote:

---

The reason leftists must avoid on point arguments is because the factual tides run against their positions.

---

When a off-point post is made, an on-point argument is hardly necessary.

posted February 21, 2010 08:42 PM            

I've made it quite clear there is a vast difference between leftists and Liberals. I like Liberals...and "you" acoustic are no Liberal.

quote:

---

1. Leftists (by which you really mean Liberals)...acoustic

---

posted February 21, 2010 11:14 PM            

quote:

---

Since you started your nonsense with more nonsense acoustic; I see no reason whatsoever to respond to your nonsense

---

posted March 09, 2010 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

"As we approach 2012, we're closing in on a Century of fog in LeftistLand beginning with the Socialist Progressive Woodrow Wilson." Wilson was neither Socialist nor Progressive. He was an American Democrat. FACT....acoustic

---

One doesn't need to delve too deeply into your arguments to find your utter lack of knowledge on most any subject acoustic.

No need to spend a lot of time on this acoustic. Your argument is unsupportable on the facts associated with Woodrow Wilson...who was both a Socialist and a Progressive.

You would know that if you ever pulled your head out of your butt long enough to do the most basic research. But, that would require an ability to frame a basic search which so far is beyond your abilities.

Books have been written about the early 20th Century "Progressive" presidents...of which Woodrow Wilson was one.

Here's a partial list of so called "Progressives". Those who have always had their heads up ass of Karl Marx.

Notable progressives
Jane Addams, social worker
Florence Kelley, child advocate
Charles Beard, historian and political scientist
Louis Brandeis, lawyer and Supreme Court justice
William Jennings Bryan, Democratic presidential nominee
Lucy Burns, suffragette
Andrew Carnegie, steel and philanthropy
Carrie Chapman Catt, suffragette
Herbert Croly, journalist
John Dewey, philosopher
W. E. B. Du Bois, philosopher, intellectual
Thomas Edison, inventor
Irving Fisher, economist
Henry Ford, automaker
Charlotte Gilman, feminist
Susan Glaspell, playwright, novelist
Lewis Hine, photographer
Charles Evans Hughes, statesman
William James, philosopher
Hiram Johnson, California politician
Robert M. La Follette, Sr., Wisconsin politician
Walter Lippmann, journalist
John R. Mott, YMCA leader
George Cardinal Mundelein, Catholic leader
Alice Paul, suffragette
Ulrich B. Phillips, historian
Gifford Pinchot, conservationist
Walter Rauschenbusch, theologian of Social Gospel
Jacob Riis, reformer
Theodore Roosevelt, President
Elihu Root, statesman
Margaret Sanger, birth control
Anna Howard Shaw, suffragette
Upton Sinclair, novelist
Albion Small, sociologist
Ellen Gates Starr, sociologist
Lincoln Steffens, reporter
Henry Stimson, statesman
William Howard Taft, President and Chief Justice
Ida Tarbell, muckraker
Frederick Winslow Taylor, efficiency expert
Frederick Jackson Turner, historian
Thorstein Veblen, economist
Lester Frank Ward, sociologist
Booker T. Washington, social reformist, leader
Woodrow Wilson, President
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

From the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"In 1910 Wilson accepted the Democratic nomination for governor of New Jersey. He won the election in a landslide. His ambitious and successful Progressive agenda,.............. "
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.woodrow

Then, there's Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Kommander Korruption who said...she's not a Liberal at all but she's rather an early 20th Century "Progressive".

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Rob -- (laughter) -- you know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century. I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families. So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: So you wouldn't use the word "liberal." You'd say "progressive."

SEN. CLINTON: (Nods her approval.)

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/will_clinton_one_day_run_from.html

As I said acoustic; one need not read very far into your comments to find the
know-nothing nonsense you consistently spew here.

posted March 09, 2010 01:05 PM            

And with a link to wiki's take on the "Progressive Era" even. Smart.

These laws were not rigorously enforced, however, until the years between 1900 and 1920, when Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), Democratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), and others sympathetic to the views of the Progressives came to power.
(From that very same link)

Doesn't say that either considered themselves "Progressives," but merely that they were agreeable to the views of Progressives, which were neither Marxist nor Socialist. Some brilliant researcher you are.

Progressives moved to enable the citizenry to rule more directly and circumvent political bosses; California, Wisconsin, and Oregon took the lead. California governor Hiram Johnson established the initiative, referendum, and recall, viewing them as good influences for citizen participation against the historic influence of large corporations on state assembly including job reform.[10]

About 16 states began using primary elections to reduce the power of bosses and machines.[11] The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, requiring that all senators be elected by the people (instead of the state legislature).

Oh, that's just terrible, isn't it? Boy, would hate to be associated with those Progressives.

And then Clinton's words. Did you read them?

you know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Oh, yeah, that's totally Socialistic and Marxist!

posted March 09, 2010 03:26 PM            

heck

leads to
civil rights
women's rights
gay rights

I support all the above because I am Multiracial w/ black ancestry,
don't fit with male stereotypes with my high estrogen levels,low average testosterone levels
have relatives in my family that have history of same sex partners

if USA was still like 1776, I wouldn't have any civil rights. I probably wouldn't be able exist.

I guess that I will be added to those Progressive lists in the future as a neurodiversity advocate who is going to start a nonprofit neurodiversity organization,helping people with neurological/learning differences like myself,and push for education reform (to have schools to be a multisensory learning environment like Waldorf and Montessori) and psychiatric reform (to have psychiatrists to have their patients do neurological and psychological testing to differentiate neurodivergence from a psychiatric disorder).

hell yeah...I am a progressive.

It doesn't make me a Socialist nor Marxist.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted March 09, 2010 06:53 PM            

save the country from trending towards socialism!"

"The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism." - as per the RNC battle plan for regaining power.

and that is the sum total of the reason obama (and many others too) is called a socialist and the healthcare plan too - barefaced propaganda.

posted March 11, 2010 11:07 AM            

Well katatonic, you tell the truth about those who do and tell the truth about the policies these Socialist Progressives are putting forward. The evidence of their mismanagement and malfeasance are in full view for all to see.

They are unqualified to run a corner lemonade stand let alone the government of the United States....and that includes Barack Hussein O'Bomber, who is proving himself an utter failure as President.

November 2, 2010 looms on their horizons. Call that Doomsday for these blithering, blathering, bloviating bullshiiit artists.

posted March 11, 2010 11:19 AM            

Neither am I going to resurrect Woodrow Wilson so he can tell you personally that he was a "Progressive".

The evidence of Wilson's "Progressive" policies litter the landscape and are inescapable to anyone who has a particle of common sense. You categorize yourself as non-sensible by your refusal to admit the obvious.

"Wilson suffered political defeats in 1911 as the Republicans made gains in the New Jersey legislature. Moreover, his own drive for reform weakened, partly because many voters and politicians believed his reforms had come too fast, and partly because Smith and other important politicians opposed Wilson. Wilson's interest in New Jersey politics faded as his attention shifted to national affairs, and he often left the state on speaking engagements intended to make him better known throughout the country. In order to win broad support from other states, he moderated his demands for reform and distanced himself from his progressive associates. Wilson also reassessed his relationship to Colonel Harvey, who continued to line up support for him. In November 1911 he printed a “For President: Woodrow Wilson” banner on the editorial page of Harper's Weekly. He also enlisted for Wilson's candidacy a number of wealthy financiers and other influential people. However, Wilson believed that such backing might taint the progressive image on which he still depended. Wilson alienated Harvey when he told Harvey that his support was hurting Wilson's chances for the presidency. Harvey's subsequent efforts to hurt Wilson probably helped him because they separated him publicly from a man identified with conservative financial interests.

A more crucial issue in Wilson's campaign for the presidential nomination was a letter Wilson had written back in 1907 in which he attacked Bryan's leadership of the Democratic Party and wished that “we could do something at once dignified and effective to knock Mr. Bryan once for all into a cocked hat!” This letter, made public in January 1912, threatened to end Wilson's candidacy. His desperate advisors could only hope Bryan would be generous, and fortunately Bryan told the press that he would not encourage a rift between Democratic progressives.

posted March 11, 2010 01:47 PM            

and if you can call andrew carnegie, henry ford and the other big name capitalists leftists you have left the land of reason far behind!

posted March 11, 2010 02:10 PM            

However a review of the 20th century murderous Marxist Socialist Progressive regimes should give anyone with 2 neurons capable of bouncing off the inside of their craniums pause in ever electing any of them to power in the United States.

Hahaha, bringing up Ford and Carnegie tells me you still can't stick to the subject katatonic.

posted March 11, 2010 02:41 PM            

Frankly, I don't know what your issue is with calling DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS. You feel like you have to cling to some alternate label, because you think the alternate label proves them evil or something, which is laughable. Being a Progressive in their time or ours is NOT a bad thing. Nor is it equal to being a Communist. These simple points seem lost on you for some reason.

Progressives of the Progressive Era were for nonconsolidation of power and personal liberty. How does that match up with your own [bogus] definitions of Socialism or Marxism? It doesn't, does it? An ordinary person would know when they've been beat, and give up. What are you waiting for?

Let's just get down to the bare bones of this argument, because it's been a longstanding one of yours.

YOU HATE YOUR COUNTRYMEN.

Fair statement? Yes. You don't like that the people of your country, the people that make up your country's heritage, could have possibly thought differently than you. There is no evidence to suggest that this trend is EVER going to change. Ever! Understand? No amount of trying to demonize them is EVER going to work. It's a FOOL's errand.

quote:

---

Hahaha, bringing up Ford and Carnegie tells me you still can't stick to the subject katatonic.

---

You're one to talk about sticking to the subject. Kat was/is right. You should acquaint yourself with your country and your countrymen. Further, you should understand that America is under no danger of becoming a murderous regime of the type you have in your head. Complete nonsense.

posted March 11, 2010 03:16 PM            

Neither do your leftists friends and associates who make up about 10% of the population.

I haven't come across any mainstream American who would attempt to glorify terrorists who kill innocent civilians by calling them "ballsy"...because they're killing people they don't even know.

I haven't come across any mainstream American who would say the United States...and US citizens repressed/oppressed Iraqi civilians...while Saddam was torturing, raping and killing Iraqi citizens while at the same time ripping off the Oil for Food money and using it to build palaces around Iraq.

But you did acoustic. You're an extremist and an "accidential American" whose views are far outside the mainstream of American thought...as are the rest of the inhabitants of LeftistLand whose brains are so fogged up they can't see daylight.

Further acoustic, my views on government are perfectly aligned with the founders of the United States and the US Constitution...as written.

You have proved over and over you don't understand the first thing about the US Constitution...which was the intellectual output of the founders.