1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Obama's Bloody Yemen Disaster

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 3:37 PM
They know their ideology is unpopular. Honesty would undermine and destroy any chance of gaining and holding onto power. Marxism gave rise to the Commune movement in Paris, the violent anarchists, and socialist groups who called for redistribution of wealth, etc. all based on Marx's philosophy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." So the movement quickly became unpopular by the late 19th century. They started calling themselves progressives, until the violent strikes and inflation in 1919 and the recession that followed forced them out of power in the U.S. By FDR's time the left started calling themselves liberals. This iteration had a longer shelf life because most of the industrialized world laid in ruins after WWII and the high rate of savings supported long term growth. By the 1980s Reagan's strength in foreign and domestic policy greatly diminished their reputation. Now they've gone back to calling themselves progressives. Old wine, new bottle. The new bottle could be a metaphor for the deception that they rely on to advance their agenda. My question is how they keep deceiving so many people? Presumably its because the left has taken firm control of the means of information flow: education, media, entertainment.
In response to:

Obama's Bloody Yemen Disaster

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 11:49 AM
Assad is a proxy for Iranian influence, as are Hezbollah, and the Shias in Iraq. Now the new group who just desposed the quasi-pro-American government in Yemen is also backed by Iran. Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni terrorists. The only good guys in the region, outside of Israel, are the Christians in Lebanon, the minority Hashemites in Jordan and the educated classes in Egypt with el-Sissi now in charge. We need to support the "moderates" or one holocaust after another will surely follow, including more attacks in the west. Perhaps the liberals and moderates needed to experience a Chamberlain in order to understand we need another Churchill.
In response to:

Obama's Bloody Yemen Disaster

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 11:03 AM
Agreed
In response to:

Obama's Bloody Yemen Disaster

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 10:56 AM
I can't tell if Obama is another Chamberlain or the Manchurian Candidate. D'Souza thought he most resembles an African strongman preaching anti-colonialism and socialism. He was a red-diaper baby (parents were Marxists), his formative years living in Muslim Indonesia, followed by Communist mentors (Obama, in his own words: "I sought out Marxist professors"), his connection to radicals Bill Ayres and Reverend Wright explain most of his actions. Someone immersed and marinated in Marxist dogma will see radical, revolutionary movements as fighting the good fight. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood over pro-American Mubarak, and the Iranian Mullahs over the pro-Western "green revolution." He blocked US oil companies from developing offshore of Brazil but aided Brazil in developing the same oil and gas fields. I don't think he actually supports alQaeda, but he supports the more sophisticated radicals, much like the divide in Marxism - some sided with Mao, others Stalin or Trotsky, or the socialists in western Europe who supported a more gradual approach. Regardless, the end result is a radical restructuring of foreign and domestic policy which is anti-American.
There's nothing "liberal" about the hard left. They are Marxists who see Islamo-fascists as comrades-in-arms - third world victims of Western imperialism. The fact that they give tacit approval the the rape and murder of women, and homosexuals, and intellectuals, shows their cowardice. Its not until one of their own are slain, say the cartoonists in Paris, that they find the courage to march down the street in solidarity. Non-violent protest only works with people who share similar values. I believe the left has shown its weakness under assault. They don't have the stomach for a real fight.
In response to:

Will the West Defend Itself?

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 11:46 AM
The left (Marxists/Progressives) developed multiculturalism for two reasons: to shame the West into more appeasement and isolationist posture in foreign policy. This would have allowed the Soviets to gain an advantage in the Cold War. They also used it to shame the west into denouncing their founding fathers and founding ideas, particularly Enlightenment ideas of liberty and individual rights. Multiculturalism rests on the concept of moral relativism - that all cultures are morally equal - which leads directly to moral confusion - the inability to tell good from evil. This in turn produces appeasement, atrophy of society's institutions, and eventually the decline of classical liberal civilization. The use of shame is important because it takes the good idea of tolerance and latches on to it the evil idea that we should suspend judgment on all things ethical and political, except their own ideas, which is at the heart of the grand deception. They want people to not see them as the evil that they clearly are. I'm reminded of the line from The Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever played was getting people to believe he doesn't exist."
He did. Socrates taught other philosophers, his best student being Plato. Plato in turn taught Aristotle, whose most famous pupil was Alexander (the Great) of Macedonia, who spread Hellenistic culture from Persia to North Africa. While Socrates taught the world to question one's assumptions, Plato created the systematic study of Philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics), and Aristotle invented logical reasoning. Aristotle's tactic is using logical reasoning to reveal any flaws in one's argument by testing it in different scenarios. Be careful, the use of logic can not only destroy your opponent's arguments, but your own religious convictions may not fare well (logic and faith don't play well together!)...also, avoid using such tactics with your spouse or other family members...It could get ugly.
In classrooms, the students should learn to question each other so the Socratic Method starts with a teacher-directed question, then students will direct the questioning toward each other. If the students are sufficiently prepared it makes for an excellent means of practicing higher levels thinking skills...something that appears in short supply among the "low information" voters who are presumably deficient in higher skills.
In response to:

The Conservative Catharsis

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 3:59 PM
Well said - the domination of media, entertainment and education have hamstrung a conservative revival. Likewise crony capitalism buys off too many politicians who started their careers looking worthy. I suggest engaging in an info-insurgency using social media; a non-violent in-your-face direct action campaign against everyone who supports the progressive/socialist agenda. Find out everything we can about politicians and their campaign advisers, congressional staffers, news anchors and reporters, college professors, corporate lobbyists, fundraisers, etc. and use every words they've said, every picture they've posted, any piece of dirt we can find and use it to embarrass, intimidate, destroy their reputation to make them pay a price for what they've done to conservatives. Simultaneously, we need to organize in the schools and universities. Simple slogans equating big government to popular books and movies like Hunger Games, Insurgent and my favorite, Atlas Shrugged, will get more attention among the young than long-winded explanations about the economic consequences of statist policies. We've lost the welfare recipients, but the young must be won back!
In response to:

The Conservative Catharsis

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 3:28 PM
This seems like a very snide remark. It may be that "incapable to bring about change...as it was originally intended." means conservatives are voting for politicians who say conservative things but once in power vote to continue government expansion. Thus, the problem isn't with the citizenry but with the politicians. Perhaps you like the steady replacement of capitalism with socialism. If you find yourself among the privileged elite, would you take pity on us and allow us to plant our own gardens? Or if you found yourself among the huddled masses, would you thank the elite for guaranteeing you an equal share of a crumbling pie, as long as everyone chants the approved slogans? There won't be any liberty, of course, that wouldn't be socially just, nor as much equality as was promised, but there'd be plenty of brotherhood waiting in line for stale bread and thin soup.
1 - 10 Next