XPost: alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, alt.poli
ics.usa.republican
XPost: alt.politics.democrats
From: trdell1234@spamnogmail.com

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:41:14 -0500, Dänk 42Ø  wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:37:44 -0700, MattB    . wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:15:25 -0500, Dänk 42Ø  wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:16:19 -0700, Hell Stomper blabbed:
>>>
>>>> The muzzies don't believe in free speech when it comes to religion.
>>>> They are conditioned to believe what their leaders say and are not
>>>> allowed to question it.  Those who do are considered to be something
>>>> like a traitor or a heretic.
>>>
>>>The official position of Islam is that democracy and free thought are
>>>heresy.
>>
>> Sounds a little like Progressives and thier agenda.  Liberals claim to
>> want freedom for all and yet support the progressives in thier ranks.
>
>Well, one can easily define "progress" as increased freedom.  You use the
>"progressive" term in their sense, that "progress" requires a continuous
>DECREASE in freedom.  Of course, this is not what you are trying to
>argue, but you wind up doing so by blindly accepting your opponent's
>Orwellian terminology.

Well when I think of Progressives in politics I believe it is progress
to a certain political agenda.  Socialist in nature and with limited
freedom.  The politics of these people has nothing to do with true
progress but with progress on thier agenda.  The original meaning is
just a ploy for weak minded people.

I mean these progressives on this NG are the ones that make threats
and wish harm on those that disagree with them.


>
>Since I tend to type WAAAYYY too fast, I shall try to keep this rant as
>short as possible. (Please bear with me and read all of what I have to
>say.  If you don't like it, please complain accordingly.)
>
>The traditional definition of "liberal" is roughly "anti-establishment."
>The 18th-century liberals who framed our constitution were rebels and
>ANTI-STATISTS.  18th-century liberalism was a rebellion against the
>status quo, rebellion against the monarchy and the filthy rich and
>morally corrupt aristocracy that oppressed and exploited the common
>people.
>
>This anti-statist liberalism  of the 18th century is now described as
>"classical liberalism" or "libertarianism," in order to distinguish it
>from "modern liberalism," which is equivalent to fascist statist
>socialism.

So true.

>
>Outside of its contemporary political meaning, the English word "liberal"
>generally means free, open, tolerant, permissive, etc.: e.g. "I sprinkled
>salt LIBERALLY over the chicken before cooking it."  Modern political
>"liberalism" is just the opposite: Modern liberals seek to *CONTROL*
>everyone and everything (sometimes even trying to redefine the laws of
>physics and biology to suit their "egalitarian" political agenda!).  The
>classical liberal sprinkles the chicken with as much salt he thinks is
>needed to make it taste good, while the modern liberal drafts thousands
>of pages of sodium regulations, and passes draconian laws mandating the
>execution of cooks who use too much of it.
>
>Freedom of choice ceases to exist under modern liberalism.  Thus, modern
>liberalism is actually a form of FASCISM.  Fascists are the ones who like
>to order people about, dictating what they must or must not do, always
>for their own good, of course.
>
>Modern liberals will quack that they can't possibly be fascists because
>of some arcane technical details between the forms of totalitarianism
>practiced by Adolf Hitler and his bitter rival, Josef Stalin.  But in the
>end both forms of totalitarianism are *FASCIST*.  Freedom is freedom,
>anti-freedom is *FASCIST*.  Modern liberals oppose freedom and seek to
>destroy it, therefore they are *FASCISTS*.  They can call "fascism"
>"progress" all they want, but it is still fascism.
>
>There is nothing "progressive" about a return to 1930s Stalinism.  If any
>scholar had to distinguish between these two forms of fascism, it would
>be that Adolf Hitler used poison gas to kill his opponents, while Josef
>Stalin preferred bullets.  Several decades later, their ideological heir,
>Pol Pot, leader of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia
>(1975-1979) decreed that bullets were too expensive to waste on petty
>thought criminals, that they should be beaten to death instead.
>
>All I know is that my Cambodian tour guide -- about the same age as me
>(about 40 in 2009) -- told my tour group about his *PERSONAL* memory of
>the Khmer Rouge socialist terrorist group invading his elementary school,
>asking the students who could answer what two plus two equaled, and every
>kid who answered "four" was dragged out and *SHOT IN THE HEAD****!!!!!!
>He was *EXTREMELY* emotional as he told the story, and I had no reason to
>disbelieve him.
>
>[Note: This was during an official "Sinh" tour out of Ho Chi Minh City
>aka Saigon.  Sinh tours are owned and operated by the Vietnamese
>Communist Party, so when its employees criticize the human rights abuses
>of Communism it means something!]
>
>I can't even relate this story without crying!!!  And even worse is a
>certain leftarded Obama disciple who trolls this newsgroup and who has
>accused me of *LYING* about what I heard from my very real Cambodian tour
>guide, of slandering the oh-so-fucking-progressive cause of Socialism, of
>having forged my thousands of "out of season stock photos" of the region
>(as if he would know what tropical Vietnam/Cambodia looks like in
>November) -- all in a pathetic attempt to make the progressive socialist
>Khmer Rouge genocide look bad -- because apparently I am a disciple of
>Rush Limbaugh. (In fact, I absolutely ***DESPISE** the fat fuck, and
>would probably commit homicide if that fat fuck tried to co-opt my words
>to advance his rightarded neocon agenda!!!!!!)
>
>But I'm NOT a disciple of Rush Limbtard, and the worthless welfare-
>leeching Obamatard accusing me of being one is just a miserable Canadian
>exile who hasn't traveled more than several kilometers beyond his
>Unabomber shack in the woods in Northern California in decades -- much
>less visited exotic foreign places like Cambodia.  Yet this morbidly
>obese, welfare-leeching Obamatarded blob, who can't even transport his
>buttocks to the nearest McDonald's to stuff his fat face with Chiken
>McFuckets, has the audacity to tell ME where I supposedly didn't travel
>four years ago.
>
>I highly recommend visiting Cambodia: cheap, very pleasant and attractive

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)