Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The liberal problem is the final solution of Christians. 
Can a modern day "liberal" also be a "patriot"?
- Thread starter MAGA MAN
- Start date
You mean "win the marketplace of babbling communist nonsense".
No, fuck you, comrade. I'll take kicking your asses on the battlefield, instead.
maineman
Banned
ftfyYou mean "win the marketplace of babbling communist nonsense".
No, commander. I'll take kicking your asses on the battlefield, instead.
what "battlefield" will that be, pussy?
ConservativesAreCancer
New member
The irony is liberals are pretty much the only people who support the Constitution, conservatives just think they do.
The only 'people' they recognise are their thieving selves.
Robo
Verified User
Fucking Commies!!!!!
America loves to be able to see its enemy clearly, comrade. Thank you for your brutal honesty.
Last edited:
This was posted a ways back and nobody had anything to say . . . maybe you will be my huckeberry?
------------------------------
I'll offer my analysis as to the OP and say that no, a "modern day liberal" can not be considered a patriot in the USA because "modern day liberals" see the US Constitution as an impediment to the public policy goals and society they would like to see created. "Modern day liberals" actively endeavor to craft work-arounds for the Constitution's limits or just happily and unashamedly ignore them.
I find it sickening that "modern day liberals" announce with great self-congradulations that they respect rights but in practice they are hostile to the fundamental American concepts of liberty and equality. Their political philosophy in fact demands they abandon the foundational principles of "rights" the founders / framers embraced and substitute collectivism and statism and discrimination in their place. That, coupled with the authoritarian governing model that needs to be established to force universal compliance / obedience, violates every concept of what "liberty" is.
The original Lockean concept of rights, embodied in the justification for the American Revolution and the source of authority for the U.S. Constitution, is based on restricting state interference in the lives of citizens by forcing government to respect the citizen's natural, civil and political rights. This was achieved primarily by the very structure of the Constitution being founded on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.
The US Constitution is founded on the maxim that all governmental power originally resides in the people and the People confer a limited amount of that power to establish government and charge government to perform specific limited duties. This means that all not surrendered is retained; since no aspect of our rights were placed in the care and control of government, government can assume no power to dictate to the citizen in those matters.
This novel structure of the US Constitution was a primary reason why there was such resistance to the addition of a bill of rights. As Hamilton argued in Federalist 84:
"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
Sadly, by "modern day liberal" definition, rights are no longer "exceptions to powers not granted" but are instead, entitlements the framers mistakenly didn't include.
Obama has spoken openly that he feels that that fact, that the Bill of Rights only secures "negative" rights, is a "fundamental flaw" of the Constitution.
For Obama, it is an oversight that the Bill of Rights "says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." In Obama's view, rights should be redefined into special grants of power to compel others to act. This line of thought has no connection the the US Constitution and is solely a product of 20th Century communitarian ideals and is the political offspring of the 1917 Soviet Revolution.
The emergence of these new, "second generation" economic, social, and cultural rights, demand a very different role for the state in the lives of the people, completely foreign to the powers conferred to government by the US Constitution.
"Modern day liberal" rants demanding our "rights" to health care, prescription drugs, education, affordable housing, internet access, a living wage and that most basic of human rights, an abortion, are demands that someone else provide these things under governmental order. That is never the true definition of a right.
Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.
Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.
The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges and entitlements that, upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" -- for our own good of course.
This agenda of redefining rights and outright denying the existence of original, preexisting rights is the most egregious violation of foundational constitutional principle and for me, a good start on what I consider "modern day liberals" to be and what they stand for and why they cannot be considered patriots here in the USA (somewhere else?, yeah, sure).
All the people who betrayed their own countries and went to America obviously cared about others - not! Would-be capitalists, far too many of 'em, as well you know, without morals, self-respect or religion - cynical scoundrels, almost all. Fortunately some of their children have grown up. Try it.
Last edited:
Robo
Verified User
So in your pathetic world of commie misery and your insane little pea-brain, you opine that folks that escape the misery of communism and flee to where they can practice the blessings of capitalism are all immoral Atheist devoid of self-respect, right Commie?
Here's reality commie. Communist nation's governments mandate morals dictated by the government. Communist nation's governments mandate Atheism. And in communist nations there is no such thing as "self" respect, all respect is directed to the "collective" government by the government's gun in the back and the threat of the Gulag.
How ironic that you don't think you're a stupid partisan asshat. But alas, you're an idiot who can't comprehend the obvious.
Based on the repugnant stupidity you erupt with on this forum; you really are THAT stupid.
Now run along dunce; your buffoonery only lowers the forum IQ.
maineman
Banned
So... am I to infer from that reply that you think that you are smarter than a West Point valedictorian? And if so, why?
How amusing that you think Democratic liars win in the marketplace of ideas. Hell, if they had an ounce of honesty they wouldn't ever win an election. That is why they have to feign conservatism and pass laws like Obamacare only by having a majority in BOTH houses and control of the White House along straight party lines.
Do you think that if Democrats honestly stated that their goal is universal Government mismanaged healthcare even 1/4 of the American people would support it other than brain dead partisan dunces like you?
The only thing you are a scholar of is uttering unadulterated bullshit Commander Dimwit; apparently you learned NOTING from your Marxist studies other than how to mask it as Democratic.
Irony abounds.
Maineman...
End it. The board is not for sick sexual fantasies about anything. This board is for politics. No more escalating, no more of it. Him calling you comrade is political if insulting. Suggesting descriptive sex with animals young or old, not political and it ends.
End it. The board is not for sick sexual fantasies about anything. This board is for politics. No more escalating, no more of it. Him calling you comrade is political if insulting. Suggesting descriptive sex with animals young or old, not political and it ends.
maineman
Banned
why do I care what they think NOW? Adoption of universal health care is only a matter of when, not if.... America will come around and join the rest of the world in health care.... I am not all that worried about hurrying the process any faster than it will naturally progress.
Based on the laughable stupidity that erupts from your keyboard, why yes Commander, you're a dunce. West Point Valedictorians can't possibly be as stupid as you are.
I don’t think I can make my point more clear than this; but I am sure you will ask another stupid question for further clarity because even when confronted with the obvious, you will still feel compelled to remove any and all doubt how dense you really are.
Next to Anti-Thinker and evinceDunce; you and Jarod are two of dumbest posters to be found on any political forum. The sad and ironic part is that you both think you’re intelligent and have misplaced high self-opinions of yourselves. But that is par for unintelligent, dimwitted arrogant leftists.