doublegunshop.com - home Forums What Liberalism REALLY Is

The single most dramatic "Religious Shift" occurred in 1932 with the election of FDR. Electing a statist religious sociopath willing to follow Marxist religious dogma and create government programs/dependency by extorting economic freedom (money via unconstitutional taxation) from free and equal citizens and then use it to buy votes. All that has happened since, and Obama is merely following the same sociopathic religious dogma, was predictable. The big difference is the willingness of the Obama cabal to actually attempt to destroy the Free Market system, while other Democrat Statists (like Republican Statists) tried to work within it in order to enrich themselves and their supporters in order to insure their own personal political power.

Wishful thinking is fun, Ken, and doing your country's thinking for it is hilarious. Your "all that has happened" since FDR doesn't relate to Liberalism--- or anything other than Hobbesian notions of greed.

You ignore that in a democratic society the function of political leadership in the old tradition of Bentham and Mills is to do what the people want, and the test of performance is at election time.

In that sense, what every president has done is smart policy. It is politic. It may not be good for the country. It's what we have, and all we've got. Please tell us how you would stop citizens from voting in their interests.

Hey, I've got a wishful thought. How about requiring valid ID's for proof of citizenship. I've heard it may work. Haven't 310k ocare enrollees just received their drop notices because they can't prove citizenship.

So cold and heartless by the administration when the stroke of a pen could've spread the compassion. Hmmm, it's infectious, perhaps signs of a do nothing pres., maybe fighting the national disarray with reverse psychology.

I dunno, maybe it's time for another wild west stunt to bring things back into focus. I wonder if things will still look the same if I sober up.

Comrade King,

Once again, you miss my point.

Preposterous, sociopathic pseudo-elitism is fun, is it not? Especially when you're able to "bleat along" with the rest of your sociopathic religious congregation.

"Liberalism" is really a reactionary and oppressive form of Religious Statism. In America's case it's still in a transition phase, and will only be complete once Totalitarianism is achieved. To accomplish this, the Constitution must be abolished or neutralized (currently happening) by simply ignoring it.

Political leadership in a free society is still (in America's case) supposed to be bound by the Constitution in order to protect individual freedom and equality. According to your dogma, majority rule overrides individual freedom, it's what the "people want". What a comically anti-intellectual rationalization for "Mob Rule".

People voting "in their own interests" is still supposed to be constrained by the Constitution, 51 people are not supposed to be able to vote to take the other 49 people's freedom/stuff away and reward it to themselves. All it requires it to have politicians sociopathic enough to ignore their fellow citizens freedom and equality and to vote in the interest of their own totalitarian political power.

Hobbes was just another advocate of "Enlightened Despotism". The same theme followed by Hegel, and eventually morphing into Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and all the other forms of Religious Statism. I suggest that if you desire a differing contemporary view from his time, you read John Locke.

Still waiting for your notion of better system than democracy.

If you somehow think America is a Democracy, you couldn't be more wrong. "Plato's Republic" was a democracy, pure mob rule. America is a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives and President. Government power is limited in theory, but obviously the statist religious sociopaths have found various ways to circumvent the Constitution. This is the best system, when adhered to.

Okay, okay, not just the ID thing, but how about a representative republic with respect for the rule of law. If you don't like a law, change it legally rather than by ideological spin or selective enforcement.

We had a better system that worked quite well for almost 200 years. It was our Constitutional Republic. Not perfect, but it was a whole lot better than the massive failures of the Great Society, and the ability to bribe an ignorant majority into voting en masse into slowly destroying their nation.



King, why can't you admit that you weren't "with" JFK when he made his run for the White House? You try to make it sound like you were an advisor, press secretary, or confidant to him. There must be some photo of you having lunch dates with Jackie Kennedy... why don't you show us one you bloviating resume inflating fool? You were just one of thousands of reporters who covered that event. You got no closer to him than thousands of other reporters who got to ask a question or take a photograph. You were nothing but a mid-level field reporter for the CBC when its' total market was smaller than most large U.S. cities. Not even close to a Peter Jennings or Morely Safer. I saw a video of your short interview with your good buddy Dr. Martin Luther King. He was dispassionate and his body language was quite distant and aloof to you. Hardly a discussion of Civil Rights between good pals. From that contact, it appears you invented a relationship similar to the one John Hinkley created in his sick mind with Jodie Foster. Why did you quit so early in your illustrious career if you were so great? Enquiring minds want to know. And no, West Virginia wasn't 97% Protestant at the time, but at least you covered your lie with a question mark. Who do you think you're fooling King?

You were "with" JFK like I was "with" Clinton or Romney or Paul Ryan. I attended their rallies... yelled at Clinton and held up a protest sign concerning his anti-gun attitudes...got to ask Ryan a question... but was no closer to them than thousands or even millions of other folks who followed the campaigns.

What a complete fraud you are. Why, I'll bet you think you were at Woodstock too... just because you happened to be in the Northern Hemisphere at the time.

Woodstock, I might believe, because you sound like someone who spent the entire time in the LSD overdose tent.

Maybe King was "organizing" Chicago. He spent his time convincing dead people to vote for JFK...

I have friends who are Protestant and were told in their churches not to vote for Kennedy because of his religion as he'd bring the pope here to help him run the United States.
Conversly as a practicing Catholic at the time we were told by the priests that we had to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic.
Kenedy's religion was a major issue in 1960 and it may in fact been the primary issue of that election. It also was one of the first documented instances of major voter fraud and it's widely believed today that Mayor Daley of Chicago swung the vote there to Kennedy and therfore stole the election.


Exerpt from the Roosevelt Papers:

By early spring, the issue of Kennedy's religion had entered the electoral discussion, splitting the Wisconsin vote along religious lines and resulting in a steady erosion of support in West Virginia. Four weeks before West Virginia primary day, the tide had turned against JFK and he found himself trailing Humphrey by 20 points. When the campaign asked the county chairs why the voters had switched allegiance, they replied, "No one know you were a Catholic" when the poll was taken. Kennedy responded by moving his key campaign aides to West Virginia, calling on close friends to volunteer their time, and training county campaign chairs in 39 of the state's 59 counties to staff phone banks, host receptions, and go door to door to distribute literature. He changed his schedule to campaign throughout the state and brought Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. there to endorse his candidacy. On April 25th he decided to attack the anti-Catholic bias head-on, telling audiences across the state, "I refuse to believe that I was denied the right to be President the day that I was baptized." Finally, on May 8th, two days before the election, in a broadcast paid for by the campaign, FDR, Jr. asked JFK how his Catholicism would effect his presidency. Kennedy replied that taking the oath of office required swearing on the Bible that the president would defend separation of church and state and that any candidate that violated this oath not only violated the Constitution but "sinned against God."

I added the bolding.
Jim