web analytics

ahhh the truth hurts…..

By Patrick Van Roy On September 13th, 2019

The best part….. she’s a candidate for President….

43 Responses to “ahhh the truth hurts…..”

  1. I hope that Tulsi Gabbard gets the nomination. She’s progressive, pro-choice, anti-war, anti-gun and anti-open borders. The last of those is the most important, because Trump will wipe the floor with all of the other candidates, including Warren, on the immigration issue. That’s despite the fact that he’s a lying racist schmuck:

    “Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) derided her fellow Democratic presidential candidates during a recent interview for embracing permissive immigration policies, accusing them of support for “open borders.”

    Asked if she believes “open borders” is a fair descriptor of the positions embraced by her Democratic primary opponents, Gabbard told YouTube host Dave Rubin that it was an accurate label and dismissed the oft-repeated Democratic rejoinder that conservatives use the phrase to tar their political adversaries.

    “I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country,” she said. “And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say ‘well, open borders that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for’ — if you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re advocating for, it is essentially open borders.”

    https://news.yahoo.com/tulsi-gabbard-rest-democratic-primary-160841317.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMqKm7KGvsjhqWTOxZ26yR-30CRnKeksSU82vMuakGj_F_pgeCxhn0kUlNcEFNB1mude5RGLokwtdnpZ_UvvrRu_pf-ugM67aoZJ_EvRtsDxo2EM_mnfURZOiMThuj-MirssvPRQrWvozj6jOir5YApIxjygrRnS2CLVlZ7J6tj7

  2. Good comment

    It is absolutely true that the other Democrat candidates are open borders, even if most don’t have the balls to admit it

  3. Fancy getting to that age before finding out that the right is nicer and more decent than the left.

  4. the right is nicer and more decent than the left

    LOL

    Trump
    Bolsonaro
    Duerte
    Orban
    Salvini

    ete etc etc

  5. Trump is much kinder than Joe Biden

    Everyone knows that

  6. Europeans don’t even know what the right is…..

  7. Stalin
    Mao
    Hitler
    Pol Pot
    Mugabe
    Castro
    McDonnell

  8. Hitler was a natavist populist. Belongs far more in Peter’s list than your’s Pete.

  9. Europeans don’t even know what the right is…..

    Tell that to the Hungarians. How Trump must envy his pal Orban:

    “Mr. Orban’s allies control the Constitutional Court, while loyalists control which prosecutions make it to court in the first place. They have rarely, if ever, pursued corruption allegations against Mr. Orban and his ministers — and even if they did, few would hear about it. By applying financial pressure on the owners of independent media outlets, Mr. Orban has gradually persuaded them to sell to his friends, or toe a softer line.

    State media, meanwhile, is entirely loyal to Mr. Orban. After state television channels failed to broadcast more than a few fleeting clips of recent anti-Orban demonstrations, a group of opposition lawmakers visited their headquarters last week to request some airtime. They were refused, and later ejected by force.

    And though Mr. Orban commands a formidable majority, it is partly the result of this echo chamber in the media, which has muted alternative voices, and the redrawing of electoral boundaries and the restructuring of the electoral system to favor his party.

    Mr. Orban and his allies proudly acknowledge that their system of government has diverged from a model of liberal democracy. But they insist that it is still democratic — as long as one widens one’s definition of what democracy is. For Mr. Orban, democracy depends primarily on the occurrence of elections, rather than on the separation of powers or the vibrancy of public discourse…”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/europe/hungary-democracy-orban.html

  10. “Europeans don’t even know what the right is…..”

    Considering that you consider anything to the left of Ronald Reagan as Marxist brings up the old adage that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  11. Pete Moore, on September 13th, 2019 at 8:09 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Stalin
    Mao
    Hitler
    Pol Pot
    Mugabe
    Castro
    McDonnell

    not one of those is on the right.

    and anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is a Marxist…..

  12. You guys think NAZI’s and Fascists are the Right….. sorry wrongo they are the Left.

  13. Pete Moore

    It’s interesting that all except one on your list are long dead, whereas all on my list except the recently sacked Salvini are currently in power and dishing it out big time. And of course feathering their nests.

  14. Hitler was a great pal of the rich industrialists

  15. Nazis are on the political right. Hitler’s coalition partners were the DNVP, the German National People’s Party. It was founded by remnants of the DKP, the German Conservative Party, and the FKP, the Free Conservative Party. He was a natavist populist (like your dear glorious leader). His coalition was conservative. He is firmly on the political right.

  16. Hitler’s party was the Socialists

  17. The National Socialist German Workers Party

  18. And East Germany and North Korea are democratic. Says right so in the name

  19. Orban is a right-wing corroptocrat nationalist. And a hypocrite who constantly bitches about the EU while sucking mightily on its tit for funds which mostly get recycled to his crony-capitalist pals and his own crony-capitalist companies.

    As such, I’m sure he is number one on Johnson’s list to be asked to veto any UK extension request next month, just in case Macron chickens out. Thereby ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on 31 October without a deal.

  20. beyond your grasp…..

    https://politicaldresser.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/rulerslaw1.JPG

  21. beyond your grasp…..

    The link doesn’t work.

  22. see cant even click a link……

  23. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YDd3UisB6Pc/S70W2ebDG2I/AAAAAAAADjo/GYAP4eXkq3Q/s1600/peoples_law.jpg

  24. Rulers Law-People’s Law-No Law

    Government Control whether it is in the power of one person, a committee, a Congress, or a Parliament….. are all denizens of the Left the more power in the hands of the People is the center and no Law Anarchy is the Right……

  25. Yip everything is left if you change the meaning of the word left. In reality the left/right split, while imperfect, is about those who support progress (positively or negatively) and those who support tradition (positively or negatively).

    The original left/right split was in the French Revolution. The National Assembly of the French Revolution divided into two camps. Those who supported the church, the king, tradition etc… sat on the right hand side of the President (the presiding officer). Those who supported secularism, wanted to limit the powers of the king etc… sat on the left hand side of the President. And that is how left and right began.

    The Nazis stated political doctrine is actually hard to categorise (as they emphasised elements of both right and left wing thinking in their programme). However their actions in government are firmly on the right. Their coalition partners were firmly on the right. And in fact those Nazis who would have been more comfortable on the left were purged early into the Hitler government (during the Night of the Long Knives).

    Anarchy is neither left or right. There are in fact communist anarchists, and on the other end of the spectrum entirely, anarcho-capitalists.

  26. Seamus I haven’t changed anything the chart I put up is over 250yrs old ….. Left Right and center have not been viewed as you see it until the age of 20th century propaganda

  27. “Seamus I haven’t changed anything the chart I put up is over 250yrs old ….. Left Right and center have not been viewed as you see it until the age of 20th century propaganda”

    Have you any evidence of that? That it is 250 years old? Because it seems to have only popped up in the last few years, generally on right wing American sites.

    Left and right as I see it, and the whole world outside of the right in America, dates to the French Revolution and was remarked on as that during the French Revolution.

  28. it’s popped up because of the renewed attention given to the book the “5000 year leap” which was rediscovered about ten years ago by glenn beck and that is how it got reintroduced to the mainstream.

    The chart however and everything in the book is directly from the founding fathers notes, journals, writings, arguments etc

    No the scale I cite above is the balance as it was viewed by Franklin, Jefferson, Madison etc

    Rulers Law…..Peoples Law…..No Law

    Rulers, dictators, complete government control and all it’s various names and guises any system where the power resides with the few over the many is on the left.

    No Law, Anarchy, the fewer and fewer laws and regulations till there are none is the Right.

    Peoples Law, Power rest in the hands of the People, Balance, regulation and Laws for Safety, not to restrict or control.

    This is what the founders discussed as they constructed our system as best as they could to work on that scale Seamus

  29. Glenn Beck is a complete lunatic, In the same neighborhood as Alex Jones

    It is amazing that the likes of him had a prominent show on Fox news for a time

    I would not use him as a direct or indirect source for anything

  30. Show me where, in any document used by America’s founding fathers, that that particular chart appears.

  31. Beck is a loon I totally agree. He is NOT the reference point. The 5000 year leap is textbook to teach history it was put together by W. Cleon Skousen to teach with originally.

    this is Skousen

    https://web.archive.org/web/20100425082805/http://www.skousen2000.com/biography.htm

  32. Skousen was a well known conspiracy theorist with a penchant for just making shit up. Apparently the Rockefeller family and Wall Street had conspired to elect Jimmy Carter president as part of a conspiracy to create one single world government.

  33. Yes he was a quirky guy, he was also very accomplished.

    Dr. Skousen served the FBI for 16 years (1935-1951), and worked closely with J. Edgar Hoover. In 1951 he was asked to join the faculty of Brigham Young University. Here he headed up the Student Alumni organization. In 1956 he was asked to serve as Chief of Police of Salt Lake City. During his 4 year service, he also wrote his national best seller, “The Naked Communist.” He also was the editor of the nations leading police magazine, “Law And Order.” In 1960 he left the police force and began speaking tours around the country on the political crisis during that time period. He also ran for the governors office in Utah, but narrowly missed the primaries.

    In 1967, Dr. Skousen returned to BYU as a professor in the Religion Department. He taught classes on The Book of Mormon, The Old Testament, and early LDS Church History. He continued that assignment until his retirement in 1978.

    In 1972 Dr. Skousen organized a non-profit educational foundation, named “The Freemen Institute.” Later changed to “The National Center for Constitutional Studies” (NCCS), Dr. Skousen and his staff became the nation’s leading organization in teaching seminars on the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution. His book, “The Making of America” has been used nation-wide to educate students on the original intent of the Founders.

  34. Skousen opposed all federal regulatory agencies and argued against the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.[24] He also wanted to repeal the minimum wage, eliminate unions, nullify anti-discrimination laws, sell off public lands and national parks, end the direct election of senators, eliminate the income tax and the estate tax, remove the walls separating church and state, and end the Federal Reserve System.[24]

    Skousen “once called Jamestown’s original settlers communists, wrote end-of-days prophecy and suggested Russians stole Sputnik from the United States.”[25] In 1987, Skousen was criticized for suggestion in one of his books that “American slave children were freer than white non-slaves.”[25] Beginning with his first book, Skousen viewed the U.S. Constitution as a divinely inspired document that was under siege.[26]

    Skousen spoke against communism[27] throughout his career. He agreed with John Birch Society co-founder Robert W. Welch Jr.’s contention that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent. He did not believe the U.S. should establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, claiming that the U.S. State Department was engaging in treason with respect to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s visit to “his old friend Mao Tse-tung.” [28]

    From his Wikipedia entry

    He was a piece of work

  35. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/18/confounding-fathers

    Sean Wilentz is the Professor of the American Revolutionary Era in the Department of History at Princeton University.

    Skousen was undeterred. In 1981, he produced “The 5,000 Year Leap,” a treatise that assembles selective quotations and groundless assertions to claim that the U.S. Constitution is rooted not in the Enlightenment but in the Bible, and that the framers believed in minimal central government. Either proposition would have astounded James Madison, often described as the guiding spirit behind the Constitution, who rejected state-established religions and, like Alexander Hamilton, proposed a central government so strong that it could veto state laws. “The 5,000 Year Leap” is not a fervid book. Instead, it is calmly, ingratiatingly misleading. Skousen quotes various eighteenth-century patriots on the evils of what Samuel Adams, in 1768, called “the Utopian schemes of leveling,” which Skousen equates with redistribution of wealth. But he does not mention the Founders’ endorsement of taxing the rich to support the general welfare. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote approvingly in 1811 of having federal taxes (then limited to tariffs) fall solely on the wealthy, which meant that “the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

  36. Have you read the 5000 year leap Seamus ?

    Because it seams to me that you’re arguing talking points rather than reality… I’ve read it, it’s a textbook on the founding and well worth the read. There is nothing radical in the book.

    A lot of people don’t like the people who have used the book as a prop like Beck. They’ve never taken the time to read it. Everything in it is footnoted.

  37. I haven’t read it, not least because it doesn’t seem to be a political science book but a religious text book, one grounded in Mormonism rather than political science.

    “There is nothing radical in the book.”

    It doesn’t matter if it is radical or not if it is wrong. And experts, such as Professor Wilentz, have heavily critiqued it. For a book to be truly informative it either needs to bee read in conjunction with its critique or be so informed as to not be subject to no real scholarly critique.

    The The Five Thousand Year Leap seems to be a nonsense book that falls down at the slightest criticism, and one that heavily contradicts what is known about the framers of the US Constitution. In fact, in my opinion, any text that presents the framers of the US Constitution as being of a single mind on anything doesn’t know what they are talking about.

  38. so you base your view of the book on what it says in wiki……

    Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, a self-described humanist, disputes the book’s claims on taxes, the redistribution of wealth, the separation of church and state, and the “In God We Trust” motto.[1] Wilentz describes The 5,000 Year Leap as “a treatise that assembles selective quotations and groundless assertions to claim that the US Constitution is rooted not in the Enlightenment but in the Bible and that the framers believed in minimal central government.”[1] Wilentz claims that those assertions are not true:

    Either proposition would have astounded James Madison, often described as the guiding spirit behind the Constitution, who rejected state-established religions and, like Alexander Hamilton, proposed a central government so strong that it could veto state laws.[1]

    Wilentz acknowledges that the Founding Fathers rejected what Samuel Adams denounced as “utopian schemes of leveling,” but he notes that some of the Founding Fathers were quite pragmatic when it came to policy specifics.

    Now I don’t know Wilentz…. But his use of Maddison as his description of why it is nonsense using an example of Maddisons work that is totally taken out of context and part of a debate I find troubling to the professors credibility….

  39. Again there were complications with viewing the framers of the constitution in too simple a light, not least over their complete disagreement over a whole host of issues. There is evidence that Madison supported a stronger central government but that felt that the compromises hashed out in the constitution meant that wasn’t possible. Thus there was stuff that he advocated for as Madison the framer that he argued against as Madison the President.

  40. lmao…. ya gotta look up the loon your citing…. born and raised in a greenwich village bookstore in the 60/70s attending Columbia, then Oxford, then Yale teaches at Stanford….

    Wilentz’ historical scholarship has focused on the importance of class and race in the early national period, especially in New York City. Wilentz has also co-authored books on nineteenth-century religion and working-class life. His highly detailed The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (W.W. Norton, 2005) won the Bancroft Prize. His goal was to revive the reputation of Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian democracy, which was under attack from the left because of Jackson’s support for slavery and pursuit of escaped slaves, and especially his harshness toward Indians, including his forced removals of Indian populations from land confiscated by European-ancestry populations. Wilentz returned to the pro-Jackson themes of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who in 1946 had hailed the pro-labor policies of Northern, urban Jacksonians. He has more recently turned his scholarship to modern U.S. history, notably in The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008, published in May 2008.[citation needed]

    Columbia professor Eric Foner, a long-time friend, says Wilentz “has written some of the very best examples of the avant-garde of the 70s and the avant-garde more recently. Back then we were trying to recover a lost past or neglected past. More recently historians have been trying to integrate that vision into a larger vision of American history as a whole.” Wilentz has prominently engaged in current political debate. He is reportedly a long-time family friend of the Clintons.[10] He has appeared in public venues as a staunch defender of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton: he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. He told the House members that if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton’s offenses were impeachable, “…history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.” His testimony cheered Democratic partisans but was criticized by The New York Times, which lamented his “gratuitously patronizing presentation” in an editorial.[11]

    In 2006, he wrote an article denouncing the George W. Bush presidency that was titled “The Worst President in History?”[12] which appeared in Rolling Stone magazine. The article received a response from National Review, attacking Wilentz’s analysis as “blinkered” and calling him “the modern Arthur Schlesinger Jr.”[13]

    Wilentz followed up during the 2008 general election with another article in Rolling Stone describing how the failures of the Bush administration had caused a “political meltdown” of the Republican Party, with potentially enormous long-term effects.[14] In the wake of the October, 2013 federal government shutdown, he authored another article in Rolling Stone on what he called a “crisis” within the Republican Party, claiming the party was gradually descending into extremism.[15]

    In 2008 Wilentz was an outspoken supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for the presidency.[16] He wrote an essay in the New Republic analyzing Senator Barack Obama’s campaign, charging Obama with creating “manipulative illusion[s]” and “distortions,” and having “purposefully polluted the [primary electoral] contest” with “the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988.”[17] During the Democratic National Convention, Wilentz charged in Newsweek that “liberal intellectuals have largely abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis” of Obama. “Hardly any prominent liberal thinkers” have questioned his “rationalizations” about his relationship to his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., or “his patently evasive accounts” of his “ties” to the “unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.” For Wilentz, Obama is untested, cloudy, problematic, and liberal intellectuals have given him a free ride.[18] Wilentz was criticized by bloggers and others for his criticism of Obama.[19]

    In January 2014, Wilentz took issue with those involved in the 2013 NSA leaks, in particular Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange. In Wilentz’ view, “the value of some of their revelations does not mean that they deserve the prestige and influence that has been accorded to them. The leakers and their supporters would never hand the state modern surveillance powers, even if they came wrapped in all sorts of rules and regulations that would constrain their abuse. They are right to worry, but wrong — even paranoid — to distrust democratic governments in this way. Surveillance and secrecy will never be attractive features of a democratic government, but they are not inimical to it, either. This the leakers will never understand.”[20]

    given who this git is his opinion is worthless

  41. He is a respected professor at one of the United States top universities. Rather than a random crazy who made up conspiracy theories.

  42. he’s a lefty kook who has never held a job outside academia being critical of the political views of a guy who was one of the nations top FBI agents and a Chief of Police.

    His criticism of the book is based on it’s politics not it’s facts.

  43. “he’s a lefty kook who has never held a job outside academia being critical of the political views of a guy who was one of the nations top FBI agents and a Chief of Police.”

    Not of the views. Skousen is entitled to his views. However he presented his book not as a book of views but as a book of fact (you yourself have described it as a textbook). So the “facts” that Skousen uses are nonsense. They have been shown to be nonsense. And you don’t like it so you are trying to attack the person who did it.

    Strangely enough the Professor of the American Revolutionary Era in the Department of History at Princeton University, despite not having a job outside academia, is likely going to know more about the American Revolutionary Era than a conspiracy theorist who happened to also be a cop. Being a police officer for four years doesn’t make anyone an expert on the American Revolutionary Era. Being a Professor of the American Revolutionary Era at Princeton kind of does.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.