Reeducating The Yutes: Part 2

~Snooper~

Please reference Part 1.

The comments which have inspired this series can be located here for the thread referenced in Part 1.

The second and third comments in the post originally written here is what we will deal with in this post. To be clear, please take note that the comments do not address the lies of Obama and his migration from the far-left Marxist ideology to the alleged and feigned centrist ideologies now being put forth by The One Messiah. The Czarbie apologists have begun there realization...Obama lied just like we said he was doing. The one placing the comments has also ignored the birth certificate issue, the democrat fear-mongering quagmire; self induced, the Democrat Party history of slavery, bigotry, the formation of the KKK, voter and campaign fraud and their unconstitutional principles and practices while claiming others have shredded the document. However, that is to be expected because one cannot debate the Leftinistra on Principles and Policies and Issues...they lose every time. They would "Rather" talk about their fantasies and their lies as if they are Truth. With that said, let us begin.

Comment #2 by Liberal A: (notice the unoriginal cut and paste technique...they have no originality to speak of)

Here is a section from Encarta about a great liberal thinker who influenced our founding fathers:

IV
John Locke
Print this section

An influential early liberal was the English philosopher John Locke. In his political writings, which deeply influenced the framers of the United States Constitution, he argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people ’s spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution.

Much of Locke ’s philosophy is reflected in the writings of the Anglo-American political philosopher and writer Thomas Paine, who argued that the authority of one generation should not be considered binding on its successors, that the state is perhaps necessary but still an evil, and that a belief in divine order was all the religion that need be demanded of free people. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions.

In France, Locke ’s philosophy was taken over by the leaders of the French Enlightenment, notably by the author and philosopher Voltaire. He insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. For Voltaire as for the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, the state is a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility and a strong church, the two forces they considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.

http://encarta.msn.com/ encyclope...Liberalism.html

They make it hard to read sometimes with the cut and paste deals due to the odd-ball symbols. This is usually the sign that they have brought another's verbiage to the Debate Table because they have none of their own that mean anything. Their own verbiage that they write themselves is normally rife with ad homs and emotional drivel and has absolutely no basis in fact except for the usual moniker of "google it". Such shallow and child-like idiocy makes me chuckle and can inspire posts such as this.

Comment #3 by Liberal A:

do you see where liberals influenced the founders of this country and our constitution?????? You are completely ignorant. you like to use stupid labels like all you right wing non-thinkers. Liberalism Marxism. how about fascism and GW Bush. You people have just about destroyed our whole country and still you are spewing your ignorant chatter without any decent policies or concrete suggestions in sight. you are a disgrace to any intelligent society. Go get yourself an education. You hold degrees? Really hard to believe unless it is one of those right wing religious schools that make up their own "facts".

Fact: a photograph of Obama's birth certificate is online here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...bama- birth.html

if you are a history major, you should respect modern day historians,

here's an article about some of their thinking.there are other even worse polls of their opinions. maybe most historians are liberals because they have studied history and they see what policies and ideas are for the common good and which are not and which are actually destructive

http://www.rollingstone.com/ news...dent_in_history

I am just curious. you appear to be one of the 26% who think Bush has done a hell of a job.. just tell me why you think it is a good thing that he gutted all of our regulatory agencies- including those that protect our food and our environment, not to mention those that used to regulate financial institutions and the trading of commodities. Please tell me how that is a good thing.

then tell me why it is right that this disgraceful human being politicized our whole JUstice department. Is that what freedom and democracy are all about. yes our country is referred to as a democracy. JUst like Bush the idiot says he is spreading democracy all around the world-via war and torture. did you see how those world leaders refused to shake his hand??? I guess degrees are easy to come by these days. Bush has a degree from Yale and the whole world knows he is a know nothing who admitted to having read only one book that wasn't about Baseball or wasn't the Bible-his first debate..

oh well, you will keep spewing your nonsense, I am sure..

Barbara

There is quite a gathering of words forming sentences and all but they don't amount to much of anything substantial but we will try and make some sense of it anyway.

John Locke: yes, he influenced just about everyone he met and those he never met via his writings. I am one of them. However, his "liberalism" is not the same as Americanized Liberalism which amounts modern socialism, Marxism and Communism and in recent years "Progressivism". Equating today's Liberalism with John Locke is not only laughable but absolutely ridiculous. However, referencing the List of 45, one will find that this particular tactic was discussed before this particular "liberal" was born. Behold:

29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".

31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture": Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.

All of the above are obviously diametrically opposed to the writings of John Locke which I have studied for decades so when a "liberal" brings up John Locke, you can see why I find that particularly funny and how it reveals their utter ignorance. So, John Locke is not the same as today's liberal at all. Let's move on to the third comment.

Aside from the over use of the ? key, the first sentence can be discounted and summarily dismissed as being totally irrelevant. Historically speaking, the liberal of yore is certainly not the liberal of today and the next part is yet another ad hom showing and revealing the inability to check their emotions due to one's uneducated stupidity trying to sound as if they are educated. I only write such posts to teach others how this is done.

It speaks of the fascism of Bush. I find that comical. Where is the substantiation? Where are the examples? Where is the proof? If they try to bring up FISA, does that make Obama a fascist as well seeing that he voted FOR it right after he said he wasn't going to? Naturally, there are no connections to President Bush and fascism but then again, the liberals have claimed that President Bush was also Hitler and there again, no proof has ever been presented other than emotional ignorance and stupidity which exposes the lack of historical education.

The remaining portions of the first paragraph in the third comment is nothing more than more childish ad homs which amount to more childish and emotionally unhinged stupidity. Simply amazing and this fool wants to debate? Debate what? How emotionally weak it is? No thanks. That requires no debate as it is "Rather" obvious even to the oblivious.

Next, the emotional child presents proof that the COLB (certificate of live birth) of Obama was shown to be fact but failed to recognize how forensic specialists proved the COLB was false and forged and the ones guilty of the forgery admitted to it. It also fails to make the connection that a COLB is not a birth certificate. Case closed.

Next, the uneducated "liberal" cites the Rolling Stone as an authoritative source as a historical source for the "common good" yet exposing that IT has no idea what the Constitution says about the "common good". Incredible. So, how does one debate a fool? The answer is that one does not because one cannot and this particular fool is a fool's fool.

The last two entries in the liberal's comment proves the fool's fool assertion. Apparently, IT believes in opinion polls as gospel which reveals a mental disparity between that which is real and that which is not. IT thinks I am a Bush supporter. I am not and never have been. I voted for him twice because I was certainly not voting for the Global Warming Myth Fraud Gore nor was I going to vote for the War Criminal, self-admitted, John F'n Kerry. Period. The ONLY thing I supported President Bush on was the Global War On Terror because he was rioght on that one and I fought in that war BEFORE he was President and BEFORE he was Governor of Texas. So, its following assertions are null and void and have no bearing, at least as far as I am concerned.

Yet, those assertions IT makes have no factual basis because IT presents no examples whatsoever which is the usual tactic utilized by such an emotionally unbalanced Americanized liberal. IT whines about the Justice System and I can only surmise that IT means the firing of the attorneys which is a President's right to do so and the only idiots that politicized it were the liberals...that discount that President Clinton did worse. Checkmate.

IT whines about Bush spreading democracy by war and torture with no basis in fact and discounts that thew United States has been at war with terrorism since 1974...they declared it via a plethora of Fatwahs and we ignored them until 91101 which was the Final Straw. The fool is a fool's fool. Alas, I digress.

Comments 4, 5 and 6 of the liberal will be addressed in Part 3 of Reeducating the Yutes series. IN comment #6 IT claims that "the whole world thinks we are a democracy" so I guess we need to amend our Constitution accordingly now.

Saints be with us.