The progressive left has never been a fan of the whole “Freedom of Speech” thing. Oh, they sing it’s praises as long as they are the ones doing the talking, but as soon as anybody else tries to express an opinion they disagree with, it’s all “hate speech”, or not “politically correct”, or the current favorite, “racist.” It’s even worse on what should be bastions of free expression, college campuses. There they have “Speech Codes”, and “Free Speech Zones.” Neither of which seem to apply to anyone who is spouting the far left’s extremist agenda.
I caught a bit of the NPR Sunday Quiz/Talk show today. One of the hosts was mocking one of the Republican presidential candidates’ comment about having a “rotating First Lady” if elected. The candidate in question is unmarried.
The so-called “Liberal”, probably a “Progressive”, democrat hosting the show immediately asked if the rotation would be like a rotisserie chicken or a slab of beef on a rotating pedestal, so “slices of First Lady” could be carved off as needed.
It is not surprising that the leftist’s first inclination was to equate a woman to a piece of meat. As I have pointed out before, if you want to know what the extremist left is doing, just look to what they are accusing their enemies of. Case in point, the alleged “War on Women” they accuse anybody to the right of Chairman Mao of conducting.
In addition to this “progressive” democrat doing what fascists do, dehumanize their foes, you can add the following to the extreme far left’s “War on Women.”
Conservative women who dare to speak at college campuses need to hire bodyguards to protect themselves from the “tolerant and open minded” leftists on campus.
The coordinated attack, lead by Hillary Rodham Clinton, on every women who dared to speak up after being sexually assaulted (including rape), by her husband Bill Clinton.
A South Carolina democrat referred to Gov. Haley a “whore.”
Feel free to add to the list. There are plenty more examples.
This video is very instructive on just how the left “argues.”
After the progressive leftist Joe Klein babbles on about a “national sugar rush”, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin points out that his theory has been disproved by actual research on the subject. Firearm related violence has gone down over the past 40 years and, the federal ten year ban on certain semi-automatic rifles inflicted on law abiding US citizens had no effect on violent crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles (crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles didn’t go down during the ban and they didn’t go up after it ended).
How did the members of the “reality based” progressive left react to actual facts from carefully researched data?
They denied reality and repeated their talking points. Which is fairly consistent behavior pattern for “progressive” leftists. Reality is less important than their political agenda.
Keep in mind they are discussing the Colorado theater shooting. It came out later that the murderer was a progressive leftist. A staunch supporter of the so-called “occupy” movement and a volunteer campaign working for Barack Hussein Obama. It’s a fairly safe bet that he is politically aligned with Joe Klein.
Ya, I know, not much a surprise. Reality really isn’t one of their strong points, so they don’t respond to the same stimuli as sane people.
One common trait amount so called “progressives” is that nothing is ever their fault. For example, I saw a moonbat on Facebook arguing that it was the Republicans who were trying to kill the US Post Service. The USPS is in dire financial straits because the majority of their employees are members of a public service union and they are supposed to operate as a P&L. Those two are mutually exclusive! Here is a news flash, it wasn’t the Republicans, or even moderate democrats who inflicted public service unions on the American tax payer. Hell, even FDR, the uber-progressive, said they were a bad idea. Will any leftist admit that the USPS is royally screwed because their policies have inflicted ruin? Of course not! They can never admit fault! So it must be the fault of the “evil Republicans” for not wanting to flush more tax payer dollars down the toilet created by leftist “progressive” policies.
Yet another example of the “tolerant and opened minded liberal” going hyper-partisan at Warp Speed. The only thing going for the Republicans in these attack is that there isn’t a clear Republican leader they can go all Alinsky on. Nobody to destroy personally in order to get their base of low information voters all lathered up in a series of two minute hates. They need their Emmanuel Goldstein. They have tried their racist attacks on Rubio and Cruz because they fear popular conservatives with a minority background. So they want to punish them for straying off the plantation. So far, the left’s pathetic attempts have resulted in a major fund raiser for Rubio.
“…progressives are basically old cross-dressing boomer socialist decked out in your party dress, masquerading as ‘the people’, and hold out the same old, dead, withered 100 year old hands of Marx and Engels.
Britain, France, Germany have all renounced it, and it’s no surprise that that the three biggest bankrupt U.S. states are blue – California, Illinois, and New York.
Sorry, but progressives and multiculturalism are out-dated, incompetent, and well… kinda gross.
After two years of total control by democrat-progressives, we can all see how they match up to reality, n’cest-ce pas?
A President promising efficient government triples the deficit, and blows 3 Trillion with zero result except for 10.3 percent unemployment.
“…status is not the American Conservative position. Rather, conservatives believe that change for change’s sake is folly. What kind of change? At what cost? For the liberals and progressives, everything was expendable, from tradition to individualism to “outdated” conceptions of freedom. These were all tired dogmas to be burned on the alters of the new age.”
Dr. Pournelle points out a sad fact about this book and the majority of those who study political science:
Goldberg’s book is an anomaly: serious students of political science shouldn’t find anything here they didn’t already know. Alas, I had to say “shouldn’t”, because a very great number of people who consider themselves serious students of political science will be shocked and astonished to discover that Fascism, Progressivism, and modern American Liberalism have many intellectual roots in common. Roosevelt’s New Deal incorporated many elements of Italian Fascism, and in fact before the mid-30’s many Western statesmen had admiring things to say about Fascism and about Il Duce Mussolini who made the trains run on time and brought prosperity — or its illusion — to Italy. Goldberg documents all this as well as the Jacobin roots of both Fascism and Progressivism. The notion that human life can be improved by central planning and tinkering with the legal and economic system is the common thread to them all.