Here is something I don’t understand: liberals are often revealed as vile, vulgar hatemongers–not all of them, of course, but far too many–yet they never seem to pay a penalty at the polls. Why is that?

Margaret Thatcher’s death has been the latest occasion for the Left to show its true stripes. All across the U.K., there have been demonstrations–vulgar at best, and violent at worst.
------
This evening in Trafalgar Square, liberals have turned out for a long-planned celebration of Thatcher’s death:

“We’ve been waiting a long time for this,” Richard Watson, a 45-year-old from eastern England wearing a party hat, said. “It’s an opportunity of a lifetime.”
------
Here in the U.S., the last similar display from the Left was the Occupy Wall Street movement, but liberal violence and general hatefulness have a long and consistent history. Recall, to take cite just one of many examples, the liberals who attacked buses containing delegates and dropped cement blocks on cars from a highway overpass during the 2008 Republican convention in St. Paul. It is notable that violent leftists are never denounced by Democratic Party politicians.
------
And it is not hard to understand why liberals tend to be so angry; nearly every communication that emanates from the Democratic Party is a hateful, over-the-top smear against Republicans.

So to repeat: I don’t get it. Why aren’t more voters repelled by the constant parade of vulgarity, hate and violence that characterizes modern liberalism?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...by-the-left.php

I'd like to ask the same question.

It's nothing new - think back 2000 years to the courtyard of Pilate. The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians) got the rabble (equivalent to today's low-info voters) to yell "Barabbas" to Pilate's question of whom to release.

The same crowd answered "Jesus" to Pilate's question of whom to crucify.

By the way, I'm amazed at what I learn on this board. For instance:

The GOP exists in England?

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #3

---

It's nothing new - think back 2000 years to the courtyard of Pilate. The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians) got the rabble (equivalent to today's low-info voters) to yell "Barabbas" to Pilate's question of whom to release.

The same crowd answered "Jesus" to Pilate's question of whom to crucify.

By the way, I'm amazed at what I learn on this board. For instance:

The GOP exists in England?

---

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #3

---

It's nothing new - think back 2000 years to the courtyard of Pilate. The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians) got the rabble (equivalent to today's low-info voters) to yell "Barabbas" to Pilate's question of whom to release.

The same crowd answered "Jesus" to Pilate's question of whom to crucify.

By the way, I'm amazed at what I learn on this board. For instance:

The GOP exists in England?

---

Well, in defense of Cedric, (you won't hear me say that often) the article is also about the leftist liberals in the United States.

Guess they're all the same. Liberals are becoming a more violent & vengeful people.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #3

---

The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians)

---

Your use of the thought, "corrupt leaders...equivalent to most of today's politicians" provides an insight into why the Right is not winning and will not win until people on the Right changes tactics.

Your (hopefully) unwitting implication is that politicians of both major parties are equally corrupt.

I'm sure the Left (Democrat party) appreciates all the help it can get in sullying the Right (GOP).

But we can't win that way.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #3

---

The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians)

---

Your use of the thought, "corrupt leaders...equivalent to most of today's politicians" provides an insight into why the Right is not winning and will not win until people on the Right changes tactics.

Your (hopefully) unwitting implication is that politicians of both major parties are equally corrupt.

I'm sure the Left (Democrat party) appreciates all the help it can get in sullying the Right (GOP).

But we can't win that way.

---

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Cedric. And I do mean that sincerely.

While we perhaps agree that the democrat party is completely depraved, we don't agree on the lack thereof in the GOP. Oh, I'll agree that to a degree it MAY be somewhat less corrupt than the democrat, but it's not by much. And, in the end (the way I see it, not you), it doesn't matter. It's like being given the choice - Cancer or Tuberculosis - that one wishes to die of. And while one disease may be slightly preferable to the other, they both result in the same thing - death.

So while we'll probably end up mostly "talking past" each other, I do hold out some hope that you may see some merit in some things I say. As I see merit in some things YOU say.

So let's discuss the word "corruption." As I pointed out with my Scriptural example (Pilate, the religious/political leaders, Barabbas and Jesus), it is certainly nothing new. Fast forward a few centuries, and we see that the Founders were learned men, and well aware of mankind's corruption. That's why they designed a system of "checks and balances" to avoid too much power being in the hands of one single branch (or one single man). They figured that one corrupt entity would provide a check on the power of another corrupt entity, and they would cancel each other out.

The fact it hasn't quite worked out that way takes nothing away from their brilliance. It just shows that corrupt man will ALWAYS find a way to circumvent whatever laws or system is put in place - IF his heart is focused on doing evil (which is another definition of corruption).

So I attempted to answer Olivia's original question - why aren't more people repelled by the Left? - by pointing out that things like showing extreme disrespect for a great leader like Lady Thatcher is nothing new. And, to close the loop on this train of thought, mankind is NOT going to change until the Lord returns (and I'll resist going more Biblical on this political topic)

To sum it up - let's take a quick look at one of the "stalwarts" of the GOP. Now, you'll agree with that much, right? John McCain is a stalwart of the GOP? Good.

Several years ago, John McCain came up with a plan to address the corruption (as he saw it) of too much money being spent on political campaigns, and the corruption that money brought into the political system. He called it "McCain/Feingold" - Feingold being a liberal democrat Senator (from Wisconsin, I think.) BTW, dontcha just love "bi-partisanship"?

There was one major problem with "McCain/Feingold" - it violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution. (I know, I know, SCOTUS declared it Constitutional. No one ever said that corruption was limited to one branch of government alone. See: John Roberts)

So, unlike you, it matters not to me whether someone - who takes an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution but ends up violating it - has an R after their name rather than a D. No, it matters not.

The damage they do is STILL the same.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #3

---

The corrupt leaders of that day (equivalent to most of today's politicians)

---

Your use of the thought, "corrupt leaders...equivalent to most of today's politicians" provides an insight into why the Right is not winning and will not win until people on the Right changes tactics.

Your (hopefully) unwitting implication is that politicians of both major parties are equally corrupt.

I'm sure the Left (Democrat party) appreciates all the help it can get in sullying the Right (GOP).

But we can't win that way.

---

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Cedric. And I do mean that sincerely.

While we perhaps agree that the democrat party is completely depraved, we don't agree on the lack thereof in the GOP. Oh, I'll agree that to a degree it MAY be somewhat less corrupt than the democrat, but it's not by much. And, in the end (the way I see it, not you), it doesn't matter. It's like being given the choice - Cancer or Tuberculosis - that one wishes to die of. And while one disease may be slightly preferable to the other, they both result in the same thing - death.

So while we'll probably end up mostly "talking past" each other, I do hold out some hope that you may see some merit in some things I say. As I see merit in some things YOU say.

So let's discuss the word "corruption." As I pointed out with my Scriptural example (Pilate, the religious/political leaders, Barabbas and Jesus), it is certainly nothing new. Fast forward a few centuries, and we see that the Founders were learned men, and well aware of mankind's corruption. That's why they designed a system of "checks and balances" to avoid too much power being in the hands of one single branch (or one single man). They figured that one corrupt entity would provide a check on the power of another corrupt entity, and they would cancel each other out.

The fact it hasn't quite worked out that way takes nothing away from their brilliance. It just shows that corrupt man will ALWAYS find a way to circumvent whatever laws or system is put in place - IF his heart is focused on doing evil (which is another definition of corruption).

So I attempted to answer Olivia's original question - why aren't more people repelled by the Left? - by pointing out that things like showing extreme disrespect for a great leader like Lady Thatcher is nothing new. And, to close the loop on this train of thought, mankind is NOT going to change until the Lord returns (and I'll resist going more Biblical on this political topic)

To sum it up - let's take a quick look at one of the "stalwarts" of the GOP. Now, you'll agree with that much, right? John McCain is a stalwart of the GOP? Good.

Several years ago, John McCain came up with a plan to address the corruption (as he saw it) of too much money being spent on political campaigns, and the corruption that money brought into the political system. He called it "McCain/Feingold" - Feingold being a liberal democrat Senator (from Wisconsin, I think.) BTW, dontcha just love "bi-partisanship"?

There was one major problem with "McCain/Feingold" - it violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution. (I know, I know, SCOTUS declared it Constitutional. No one ever said that corruption was limited to one branch of government alone. See: John Roberts)

So, unlike you, it matters not to me whether someone - who takes an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution but ends up violating it - has an R after their name rather than a D. No, it matters not.

The damage they do is STILL the same.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #11

---

Rufus,

"Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Cedric. And I do mean that sincerely."

Thanks for not igniting the Wrath Of Cedric by name-calling or blatantly misrepresenting what I've written.

"While we perhaps agree that the democrat party is completely depraved, we don't agree on the lack thereof in the GOP."

I think you've over-interpreted my position here. I do not believe the GOP is corruption-free, I believe it is much less corrupt than the utterly contemptable Democrat party. Further, as previously sated, I believe it is well worth the effort to attempt a conservative takeover of the GOP before resorting to "more drastic" measures.

"To sum it up - let's take a quick look at one of the "stalwarts" of the GOP. Now, you'll agree with that much, right? John McCain is a stalwart of the GOP? Good."

I don't know wheter or not John Mccain is any longer a "stalwart" of the GOP, but he certainly isn't even in the picture of the future GOP I envision and hope for.

"So, unlike you, it matters not to me whether someone - who takes an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution but ends up violating it - has an R after their name rather than a D."

Ya misfired on that one, Rufus, and it simply can't be supported by anything I've written*.

* We've got a bunch of wackos runnin' around here making reckless and dishonest accusations which usually begin with, "So, in other word what you're saying is...." Then, when I refuse to answer their "when did you stop beating your wife" questions, their fellow wackos wait about 15 seconds and then assume that the unanswered, illegitimate question may, thereafter, be counted as a "fact".

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #12

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #11

---

Rufus,

"Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Cedric. And I do mean that sincerely."

Thanks for not igniting the Wrath Of Cedric by name-calling or blatantly misrepresenting what I've written.

"While we perhaps agree that the democrat party is completely depraved, we don't agree on the lack thereof in the GOP."

I think you've over-interpreted my position here. I do not believe the GOP is corruption-free, I believe it is much less corrupt than the utterly contemptable Democrat party. Further, as previously sated, I believe it is well worth the effort to attempt a conservative takeover of the GOP before resorting to "more drastic" measures.

"To sum it up - let's take a quick look at one of the "stalwarts" of the GOP. Now, you'll agree with that much, right? John McCain is a stalwart of the GOP? Good."

I don't know wheter or not John Mccain is any longer a "stalwart" of the GOP, but he certainly isn't even in the picture of the future GOP I envision and hope for.

"So, unlike you, it matters not to me whether someone - who takes an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution but ends up violating it - has an R after their name rather than a D."

Ya misfired on that one, Rufus, and it simply can't be supported by anything I've written*.

* We've got a bunch of wackos runnin' around here making reckless and dishonest accusations which usually begin with, "So, in other word what you're saying is...." Then, when I refuse to answer their "when did you stop beating your wife" questions, their fellow wackos wait about 15 seconds and then assume that the unanswered, illegitimate question may, thereafter, be counted as a "fact".

---

Thumbs Down!

Boy you are incapable posting as if you were a semi-civilized human without a persecution complex and interested in honest exchange of information and ideas twice in a row.

---