Credit: Opinionnation Times
Filed under Daft Liberals
First we had the woman in New Orleans compare herself to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King because she "defied a court order to transfer authority for the cleanup of a hurricane-flooded court evidence room to an outside judge appointed by the state Supreme Court", now it's George "Looney" Clooney's turn. In his latest rant he first condemns Democrats who voted to go to war then he compares Liberals in general to Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement. Don't you just love how Liberals continue to martyr themselves? It's funny as hell, if you ask me. I'm surprised they haven't compared themselves to Christ yet.
Credit: Opinionnation Times
Filed under Daft Liberals
Credit: Opinionnation Times
Filed under Daft Liberals
Categories:
Artwork,
Democrats/Liberals
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
At least he's an equal opportunity basher..agenda may vary though...
Hard Left here Boss..right over the cliff of sanity.
I don't know about you Chris but the savior Jesus H. Clooney has really touched me spiritually.
I wish he was ugly too!
OMG that is the funniest thing I've ever seen. Now I have to stampede around your house, call for your death, and burn flags of all nations not involved in this photoshop.
You crazy Christians.
Well actually, given that conservativism is a move against change, Clooney's right.
It's liberalism - the pursuit of freedoms for all (I mean, geez! look up what liberalism means!) - that caused all those changes in US history.
You're attempting to play party politics to ideologies. Doesn't work. When the Republicans made those changes you glorify, they were following a liberal agenda.
Wikipedia:
Liberalism is an ideology, broad political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent.
And people like yourselves use "liberal" almost as if it's an insult.
That's right Za, keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Tell me Chris - what rights has conservatism ever accorded anyone?
To me "Liberal" IS a grand insult..and I mean it that way when I speak to Liberals as well.
Za, do you actually read this blog? Because several time I've done a post about the history of the GOP.
http://tinyurl.com/gy3kg
Yes Chris, I've read it. None of those actions were conservative. They were libertarian.
Conservative doctrine:
- wants traditional values
- wants less change
- believes human inequality to be inevitable
As I said - you're attempting to play party politics to ideologies. Ideologies do not change their definitions. Parties change their ideologies.
"I mean, geez! look up what liberalism means!"
No need to look it up. I was a liberal for 35 years and have known liberalism for 52.
The liberal that you refer to, is not the liberal of today. Most of those are Socialists trying to hide behind a "liberal facade".
I have an article on my site that I posted with permission of the author that will give you a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Knowing what little I do about you, I doubt you will accept it but it is what it is.
http://loboslinks.blogspot.com/2006/03/decomposition-of-liberal-mind-neo.html
Socialism is none of the things described in that article, sorry.
Socialism requires that the proletariat have control over the means of production - which means the removal of a representative democratic system in favour of a direct democratic system that excludes the bourgeoisie.
If you've bothered to look into modern liberal policy (which I will assume you have), all they've tried to do is stem the ever-increasing rich/poor divide (the US has the worst poverty rates of any developed nation - a staggering 12% [37 million] Americans live below the poverty line, and a considerable amount above that are still considered lower class), and react against the defunct economic rationalist policies (introduced by Reagan) that drive the government into a deficit (incidentally, only one president SINCE Reagan has pulled a surplus... take a guess who that was - I'll give you a hint, you attempted to impeach him).
Also the article is misleading. I'll take one quote:
Socialist doctrine states that what is earned by any one individual should be dispersed as needed to others who have less until economic parity is achieved. Now logic (that somehow still seems to escape the Left) and history tell us that this theory in practice acts as a disincentive to innovation and productivity and, in turn, stifles economic growth and the improvements in standards of living and individual freedoms that necessarily follow.
History also shows us that tax cuts to the upper 20% don't have enough benefits for the lower 80% to be a viable method of attempting to raise their incomes. It boosts the economy, but the economy is only a measure of how much those who HAVE are doing, not those who HAVE NOT.
So the later statement about "liberal votebuying" is actually framed in a way to make the reader accept that the democratic responsibility of any representative is not to their voters, but to the rich.
Remember - classical liberalism says that equal opportunity is paramount, while socialism says that equal outcome is paramount. The "left" as you so quaintly call them are attempting to go for equal opportunity, and not economic parity. Equal opportunity, however, is a near impossible feat economically speaking - since rich families have an advantage over poor families. So the article ingeniously attempts to gloss over this fact by equalising that attempt with the socialist attempt at equal outcome.
And the assertion that socialism is "almost by definition... unconstitutional" is patently false. The constitution allows all ideologies - it SPECIFICALLY allows all ideological practices. To state otherwise is to counteract everything the founding fathers spoke and wrote about.
Also note that many of the "key positions and constituencies" of the Democratic party and the Socialist party are utterly irrelevant to economic values? Interestingly enough, they're libertarian values - anti-descriminatory - not to mention environmental values, which I do not recall Marx ever once talking about.
The article even goes to accuse the Republican party of taking on "every plank on the Communist/Socialist party platform".
In other words, the article is propagandistic nonsense, specifically framed to make you avoid specific questions, avoid looking at major issues in American society, and frame all attempts to address those issues and questions as "evilly socialistic".
And there's much more in there that's worth disputing if I had the time or inclination, but I need to sleep soon.
Post a Comment