Activism Discussion: Lamont Cranston: "Liberals Are Not Collectivists"

Lamont Cranston: "Liberals Are Not Collectivists"
Posts: 28

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Wilson Woods
2009-07-02 12:55:43 EST
Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in America
are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.

Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the individual
is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest of some larger
organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the "community", the
state, whatever. The very expression "individual rights" is seen by
contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for bigotry. "Liberals",
who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in individual rights at all.

"Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.

General Malaise
2009-07-02 12:59:28 EST
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in America
> are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>
> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the individual
> is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest of some larger
> organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the "community", the
> state, whatever. The very expression "individual rights" is seen by
> contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for bigotry. "Liberals",
> who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in individual rights at all.
>
> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
> about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.

Fascinating!

Oh Mikey, don't you have some dog-shit to share on this????

Lamont Cranston
2009-07-02 14:16:59 EST
Wilson Woodless wrote:
> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary
> "liberals" in
> America are collectivist, which is why they aren't
> liberals.

This poor felcher is as clueless about liberals as he is
about everything else.

Collectivists? ROTFLMAO!

Sieg Heil!


Wilson Woods
2009-07-02 14:43:36 EST
chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired


Lamont Cranston wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in
>> America are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>
> This smart guy, Mr. Wilson Woods, is
>
> Collectivists?

You are a Stalinist collectivist.

Mitchell Holman
2009-07-02 22:23:11 EST
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cImdnV9BAtcNe9HXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in America
> are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>
> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the individual
> is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest of some larger
> organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the "community", the
> state, whatever. The very expression "individual rights" is seen by
> contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for bigotry. "Liberals",
> who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in individual rights at all.
>
> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
> about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.
>




Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding
more flag burning laws, more abortion laws, more drug laws, more
obscenity laws, and more police surveillance to remind us that it
is liberals who are "collectivist" and want to "use government to
impose their values on us".





Wilson Woods
2009-07-02 22:29:43 EST
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:cImdnV9BAtcNe9HXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in America
>> are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>>
>> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the individual
>> is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest of some larger
>> organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the "community", the
>> state, whatever. The very expression "individual rights" is seen by
>> contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for bigotry. "Liberals",
>> who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in individual rights at all.
>>
>> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
>> about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding
> more flag burning laws,

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson,
upholding flag burning as protected speech.

You are such a dope...

Mitchell Holman
2009-07-02 23:11:00 EST
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a9OdnfVVgfuE8NDXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:cImdnV9BAtcNe9HXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in
>>> America are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>>>
>>> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the
>>> individual is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest
>>> of some larger organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the
>>> "community", the state, whatever. The very expression "individual
>>> rights" is seen by contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for
>>> bigotry. "Liberals", who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in
>>> individual rights at all.
>>>
>>> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
>>> about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding
>> more flag burning laws,
>
> Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson,
> upholding flag burning as protected speech.


You are such a liar.


Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)[1], was a decision by the
Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions
on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states.
--->Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority <---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson














Wilson Woods
2009-07-02 23:21:05 EST
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a9OdnfVVgfuE8NDXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:cImdnV9BAtcNe9HXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary "liberals" in
>>>> America are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.
>>>>
>>>> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To them, the
>>>> individual is always subordinate to the alleged collective interest
>>>> of some larger organization, be it a racial or ethnic identity, the
>>>> "community", the state, whatever. The very expression "individual
>>>> rights" is seen by contemporary "liberals" as a coded expression for
>>>> bigotry. "Liberals", who are in fact illiberal, do not believe in
>>>> individual rights at all.
>>>>
>>>> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They haven't been for
>>>> about a century. They are collectivist and anti-liberal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding
>>> more flag burning laws,
>> Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson,
>> upholding flag burning as protected speech.
>
>
> You are such a liar.
>
>
> Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)[1], was a decision by the
> Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions
> on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states.
> --->Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority <---
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

Sorry. Scalia was in the majority.

Illiberal "liberals" favorite illiberal "liberal" justice on the current
court, Stevens, voted with the minority to suppress free speech.

Dank 110100100
2009-07-03 02:54:00 EST
On Jul 2, 10:55 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Real liberals are not collectivists.  Contemporary "liberals" in America
> are collectivist, which is why they aren't liberals.

- - - - - -
The leftist is oriented toward large scale collectivism. He
emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of
society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude
toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone.

He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other
psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for
affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with
victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but
he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence.

He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like
"racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "capitalism," "imperialism,"
"neocolonialism," "genocide," "social change," "social justice,"
"social responsibility."

Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to
sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic
rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness.
Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost
certainly a leftist.

-- Industrial Society and Its Future
- - - - - -


Lamont Cranston
2009-07-03 11:19:28 EST
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a9OdnfVVgfuE8NDXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:cImdnV9BAtcNe9HXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> Real liberals are not collectivists. Contemporary
>>>> "liberals" in
>>>> America are collectivist, which is why they aren't
>>>> liberals.
>>>>
>>>> Contemporary "liberals" are 100% collectivist. To
>>>> them, the
>>>> individual is always subordinate to the alleged
>>>> collective interest
>>>> of some larger organization, be it a racial or ethnic
>>>> identity, the
>>>> "community", the state, whatever. The very expression
>>>> "individual
>>>> rights" is seen by contemporary "liberals" as a coded
>>>> expression
>>>> for bigotry. "Liberals", who are in fact illiberal, do
>>>> not
>>>> believe in individual rights at all.
>>>>
>>>> "Liberals" in North America are not liberal. They
>>>> haven't been for
>>>> about a century. They are collectivist and
>>>> anti-liberal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
>>> demanding
>>> more flag burning laws,
>>
>> Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in
>> Texas v.
>> Johnson, upholding flag burning as protected speech.
>
>
> You are such a liar.
>
>
> Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)[1], was a decision
> by the
> Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated
> prohibitions
> on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50
> states.
> --->Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice
> majority <---
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

What? No response from Wilson Woods, aka Ron Hamilton, aka
the Barking Asshole?

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron