PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that’s going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people’s livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they’re also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you’re very wealthy, you’re going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut – which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for – Ronald Reagan’s tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
Because “liberals” aren’t.
They are Marxists and Fascists that have labeled themselves as “liberals”.
Oh libs have their own cannon: Das Kapital, Rules for Radicals, Anything by Keynes, etc. etc.
“Over the last half-century, they have been vital to the conservative movement’s success–and to liberalism’s demise.”
Demise? THAT issue is still in doubt. We are in an ideological Stalingrad right now. There are many things I am willing to call the left, but finished is not one of them just yet.
“Over the last half-century, they have been vital to the conservative movement’s success–and to liberalism’s demise.”
Demise? THAT issue is still in doubt. We are in an ideological Stalingrad right now. There are many things I am willing to call the left, but finished is not one of them just yet.
The Left has Marx and Engels and Alinsky, but they are too chicken to cite these as their guiding lights. Then you have the current crop of knuckle-draggers at our universities who are too intellectually vapid to compete with Rand or Hayek.
It should be embarrassing to have Michael Moore, Spike Lee and Barak Obama heading one’s grandiose movement to save the world from capitalism.
“WHY IS THERE NO LIBERAL AYN RAND: ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW “
*******************************
But wasn’t it named inside the cover of Alinsky’s book ?????
The reason why there cannot be a Rand or a Von Mies at the center of the fascist philosophy is that the core tenet of this philosophy is a lie. They believe (or act as if they believe) that human beings can be molded into anything and made to believe anything. Some perhaps can but the bulk of humanity is resistant, on some level, to such social engineering. One’s own children will always take precedent, in one’s mind, over the good of the collective. That is no doubt true for everyone or at least almost everyone.
Good people and bad have this in common; they have an inherent self-interest which no amount of leftist fascist social engineering can erase. The left tells itself the lie that humans are malleable and can be made to believe anything. This is a lie and no serious intellectualizing based on this lie will stand the test of time. Reading Marx 150 years after he wrote is just intellectually embarrassing.
The reason right wing literature survives is because it's based on natures laws. Leftist can't declare war on natures laws and win. They may win a few small battles, but they always lose the war in the end.
Even the morons that vote for them would stop if they knew the truth about the Marxists they elect and their plans for them.
Liberal canon: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.
The operative word being “Do”. If you know what I mean.
There are no influential liberal thinkers because liberal 'ideas' have been discredited by the reality of history. They don't work. There are no ideas on the left worth debating.
The left has hunger, greed and grievance. And some old warmed-up Marxism - with enough totalitarian bells and whistles to feed hunger, greed and grievance... In short, in spite of all the academics, in spite of control of almost every college and newspaper in the cournty, liberals are intellectually bankrupt. Sorry Ed Driscoll ...
There are no influential liberal thinkers because liberal 'ideas' have been discredited by the reality of history. They don't work. There are no ideas on the left worth debating.
The left has hunger, greed and grievance. And old warmed-up Marxism - with enough totalitarian bells and whistles to feed hunger, greed and grievance... In short, in spite of all the academics, in spite of control of almost every college and newspaper in the country, liberals are intellectually bankrupt. Sorry Ed Driscoll ...
bkmk
It’s not that Lefties don’t have their own canon. It’s that they cannot afford to admit to outsiders what canon they really follow, because that would be too revealing of their inner totalitarianism.
Liberalism is not really a political philosophy, it is a political strategy. The ones at the top, the Pelosi’s, Keneedy’s, Obama, Clinton’s etc have one singular core value and EVERYTHING else is optional. This core value is that they want to be in charge.
Liberals have a whole series of guidebooks:
Liberals do not enjoy looking at the roots of their political beliefs.
And they do have a canon. It’s little. And red.
I forget who it was, but I heard a prominent liberal say recently that liberals DON’T READ. He was talking about why CURRENT liberal books don’t sell, and the fact that there is not a canon of CLASSICS that liberals read.
Which is not surprising, since liberalism is merely organized stupidity and bigotry.
