Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

LEFTISM is like a Religion: Faith-based. Not Logical.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

What qualifies him to speak with any authority about left wing politics?

Here is a typical prominent right wing war hawk nutjob talking about racism:

 

 

Is there any Truth in anything the witch says?

Does anyone in America, or on the planet want to listen to her anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, drbubb said:

 

Is there any Truth in anything the witch says?

Does anyone in America, or on the planet want to listen to her anymore?

Agreed, so far applies to pretty much every single right wing talking point. Right wing or Alt-Right, no disagreement from me that it is all bullshit.

But this is a thread about the left wing isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INTER-SECTIONALITY: is it a "new racism", or a new Religion?

"True racism is mostly coming from ... Inter-sectional & 'woke' People"

Deconstructing Anti Semitism, Feminism, and Intersectionality (Chloe Valdary Interview)

==

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PATREON works too hard ... to enforce the Leftist religion

"you have no place on our platforms" (you have to love our religion)

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in Silicon Valley

Will Patreon Ban This Film? With Sargon of Akkad

Comment:

Friar Newborg
HANG ON: what do you mean, "it is not that their values are wrong, there's nothing wrong with INCLUSIVITY." ??
Thing is, "inclusivity" is a big lie. The way it is applied is not anything like what the word means, and that is why I know it is just another Lying-lefty word.
By focusing on very narrow criterion like Race, sexual preference, etc., those who say they desire a more inclusive environment, EXCLUDE those who think differently. And you say there is "nothing wrong" with this? I think we need to say the reverse. Pushing for this type of an environment is morally wrong, and the whole thinking pattern that gives rise to this behavior is intellectually dishonest. Let's get back to calling hypocrites what they are: Hypocrites!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"LEFTISM Is more of a CULT than a Religion"

"... If you make these things for core values, you get into trouble"

'Through A Web, Darkly', interview clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9DD_gyD9OY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond LEFTIST Religion...

"we need to learn how to integrate the shadow"

(Maybe by tapping in to the wisdom of the Right brain)

Certainty and flow, Iain McGilchrist (part 1 of 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1ngqwH5us

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old RBG's Cult is part of the problem - they need to ponder the damage she has done

Why We Should Worry about the Cult of RBG

The new Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic will galvanize her fans. They should consider whether that makes them part of the problem.

The new Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic “On the Basis of Sex” begins grandly, with an all-male chorus singing “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard,” the university’s storied—and flagrantly sexist—fight song. The men sing in that peculiarly reverential tone used for a collegiate alma mater, their creamy tenors caressing every syllable. On the screen, an ocean of besuited young men—and one young woman—flows solemnly toward the Greek Revival temple of learning known as Harvard Law School.

It’s 1956, and Ginsburg is one of only nine women in the class, facing the slings and arrows of sexist men of all ages. The opening scene will be deeply satisfying, especially for viewers who have joined the burgeoning cult of RBG, because they know what those students obviously didn’t: That Ginsburg will end up sitting on the Supreme Court, long after most of the guys who beat her out for law firm jobs have retired to the golf course. More than that, the elderly Ginsburg will become a cultural icon of still-uncharted dimensions.

Like the highly successful “RBG” documentary released earlier this year, “On the Basis of Sex” satisfies a yearning for a liberal heroine in a time of disappointment and cynicism. As a work of cinema, it paints a vivid picture of an era, now passing from memory, when women were completely, rigorously excluded from power. It also offers an intelligent rendering of the struggles to achieve legal equality for women (still ongoing, though you wouldn’t necessarily know it from the story).

As a cultural artifact in the deification of RBG, however, you might say that it—like some of the court decisions it calls into question—sets a dubious precedent.

In the broader sweep of American history, this is an inopportune moment to present a current Supreme Court justice as a political hero. Last month, after President Donald Trump dismissed a ruling against his migrant policy as the action of an “Obama judge,” Chief Justice John Roberts took the unusual step of responding directly, declaring in a statement that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Trump shot back on Twitter: “Sorry, Chief Justice Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.”

By the standard of civic disagreements in the Trump era, this was a high-minded exchange, and a revealing one. No doubt many liberals found themselves essentially agreeing with Trump: Republicans have politicized the judicial nomination process, so everyone must look for chances to elevate “our kind” of judges. There’s an element of regret built into that view: In an ideal world, more like the one of four decades ago, judges would be regarded less in terms of who appointed them than how well they live up to their oaths to provide independent justice, without fear or favor.

. . . Anyone who was discomfited by the notion of ideologically supercharged young conservatives praising Scalia for creating a new individual right to bear arms should probably think twice before donning their RBG T-shirts at the next abortion-rights march—or bursting into applause at her next triumphant cinematic moment. These efforts to show popular support and approval for a heroic liberal judge might feel energizing for progressives, but they also remove any sense of stigma or impropriety from conservatives' far more effective efforts to provide a support network for "their kind" of justices—a movement so aggressive it handed Trump a list of approved high-court nominees before he was even elected president.

“On the Basis of Sex” isn’t about today’s Supreme Court. It focuses on the earlier chapters in Ginsburg’s career, before she ascended to the bench; it celebrates her breakthroughs as an ACLU litigator of cases challenging sexism in the 1970s. But this strand of admiration, like others in the RBG movement, draws its strength from Ginsburg’s continued presence on the Supreme Court. Without Ginsburg on the court now, in this moment, it’s impossible to imagine there’d be such a traveling circus of Ginsburg-mania.

> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/25/on-the-basis-of-sex-review-rbg-223557

The lack of self awareness on the Left is truly breath-taking, At first, I thought this article might help to hold a mirror up to the Left.  But as I read on, I saw it was a distorted "fun house" mirror, that reveals little of honesty, while distorting everything.  RBG has helped to bring us Feminism 3.0 and the scapegoating of males, and an affirmative action ethos that is the opposite of fairness.  A return to a fully constitutional supreme court is a necessary remedy,  Thank God, there is no satanic witch in the whitehouse nominating judges who will push the madness to an even greater extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOMEN are shaking & overcoming the Leftist Programming

To the Left’s dismay, women aren’t a political monolith

A new Rasmussen Reports poll focused on gender politics asked respondents two questions: first, how important is a political candidate’s gender in determining how you vote, and second, would you vote for or against a candidate solely because of their gender?

Here are the findings: 76 percent of likely U.S. voters say a candidate’s gender is not important to their vote, including 51 percent who say it’s not at all important. Just 12 percent of likely U.S. voters consider a political candidate’s gender very important in determining how they vote.

Only 4 percent of all voters say they would vote for or against a candidate solely because of their gender. Ninety-two percent say gender would not be the sole factor in determining their vote.

. . . This means that, to the Left’s dismay, women are not automatically programmed to support a female candidate solely because she is female. Why? Because women are not a monolithic group. They want to see elected the best and most qualified candidates who promise to advance their preferred policies, regardless of sex.

But some refuse to accept that women are not a political monolith, and they believe that the women who don’t identify with leftist politics must have something wrong with them.

It was former first lady Michelle Obama who said that women who voted for President Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election voted against their "own voice.” Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even went as far to say that there’s a “special place in hell for women who don't help each other,” naturally meaning those who don’t vote for Clinton.

Speaking of those who think women can be solely defined by gender, the third annual Women's March is scheduled to take place on Jan. 19, 2019. The first march was held in Washington, D.C., following the 2016 presidential election in January 2017, in protest of Trump’s inauguration.

The organizers claim to represent all women, but the truth is that the Women’s March agenda is shaped mainly around what it's against, and that's Trump. The movement’s organizers have always purposefully sought to exclude not just the 4 in 10 female voters who supported Trump over Clinton in 2016, but any woman who disagrees with any part of their extensive leftist political agenda.

If the movement really represented “all women,” then it would recognize and respect that women hold a wide variety of political views and opinions. Yet, from the beginning, the Women’s March has relied on identity politics. It’s all about promoting a liberal agenda.

This upcoming Women’s March, participants have every right to assemble and express their points of view, but that doesn’t mean that they really care about being a voice for all women. Not only do they ignore the fact that not all women think alike, they seek to tear down those who dare to disagree with their left-wing priorities.

> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/to-the-lefts-dismay-women-arent-a-political-monolith

694940094001_5984603596001_5984599756001

/ 2 /

48 mins ago - The Women’s March event slated for January 19th, has been canceled because of concerns of being ‘overwhelmingly white.’. Organizers of a Women’s March rally slated for Northern California next month have canceled the event, saying they were concerned that participants ...

The rally, which had been planned for Jan. 19, would have commemorated the third anniversary of the original Women’s March, which was held Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump took office.

The group said it is exploring shifting the rally to March to celebrate International Women’s Day.

The Women’s March movement has been marred by complaints from some black and Latina women, who've raised concerns that their input is often disregarded or overlooked, the New York Times reported.

The cancellation of the march in California follows a previous one in Chicago.

 
(Or was it because it was NOT LEFTIST enough?  ... 'cuz many of the "diverse" leaders resigned over corruption issues)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, drbubb said:

Only 4 percent of all voters say they would vote for or against a candidate solely because of their gender.

Ohhhhhhhh my...

"Only"!!!

Surely thats 4% too many by anyones book?

Put that another way

1 in 25 americans will vote for a candidate who campaigns for legalising rape, burning all children under 5, and anything else you can think of; as long as the other candidates are a different gender.

Good grief that place is worse than even I thought. That girl trying to put petrol in the Tesla seems to above average IQ for граждане США......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEFTWING REVERSAL

Fascist Book is sooo last year

l1P2J5V.jpg

After Massive Backlash, Facebook Apologizes After Banning Reverend Franklin Graham for ‘Hate Speech’ of Wanting to Keep Men Out of Girls’ Bathrooms

Facebook apologized to evangelist Franklin Graham on Dec. 29 after removing one of his posts and banning him from posting for 24 hours.

Someone on Facebook’s content review team — a group of about 15,000 members — decided to remove a 2016 post for “dehumanizing language” that discriminates against people on the basis of “sexual orientation, race, and other factors,” the Charlotte Observer reported.

After review, however, a Facebook spokesperson said the decision to remove Graham’s post and ban his account were both mistakes.

Graham posted on Facebook on Dec. 28 after the ban was lifted.

“[Facebook’s] making the rules and changing the rules. Truth is truth. God made the rules and His Word is truth,” Graham wrote. “Actually, Facebook is censoring free speech. The free exchange of ideas is part of our country’s DNA.”

The 2016 post, which has been restored, is about North Carolina’s House Bill 2, the transgender bathroom bill.

Xz6Vx7A.jpg

(Boss aint Boss anymore... Just old & tired, and using confused upside-down thinking)

“Bruce Springsteen, a long-time gay rights activist, has cancelled his North Carolina concert,” Graham wrote on April 9, 2016. “He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards.’ Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands. Back to common sense.”

House Bill 2 reversed an ordinance in Charlotte that allowed transgender “women” (biological males) to use female bathrooms, and vice versa.

Graham praised the passage of House Bill 2, saying it “protects the safety and privacy of women and children and preserves the human rights of millions.”

/ 2 /

Rev. Franklin Graham: Facebook’s Ban on My Account Was a ‘Personal Attack’: ‘Why are They Going Back to 2016?’

Graham’s comments come one day after a Facebook representative confirmed that the evangelist had been banned from the social networking site for 24 hours because of a 2016 post on North Carolina’s House Bill 2.

The post in question referred to rocker Bruce Springsteen’s comments calling House Bill 2— also known as the bathroom bill— a step “backwards instead of forwards.”

“He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards,’” Graham’s post from 2016, which referred to Springsteen, reads. “Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands.”

Graham, whose Facebook page has been restored, called the social media giant’s censorship efforts a “problem.”

“The problem with Facebook, if you disagree with their position on sexual orientation then you could be classified as hate speech, or that you’re a racist. This is a problem,” Graham said.

The evangelist also hoped Facebook “would look to the Bible” to learn from “God’s word.”

“The Bible is truth, and I would hope [Facebook] would look to the Bible and get some instruction from God’s word.”

( Facebook has little use for the Bible, since they prefer their own Leftwing religion, SugarBorg Socialism)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REALITY IS OPTIONAL?  for Lefties... Leftist Leaders choose their own version of the Facts

They Lie to you. They lie to themselves... Pushing PC Delusions

Democrat Leader Pelosi to Homeland Security Head Kirstjen Nielsen During Border-Security Meeting: ‘I Reject Your Facts’

“I reject your facts,” Pelosi told Nielsen

“These aren’t my facts," Nielsen shot back. "These are the facts.”

Following the episode, Nielsen went to social media to criticize Pelosi and the Democrats for not wanting to hear about the issue of illegal immigration.

“I am disappointed that Dems did not want to hear from @DHSgov about the security & humanitarian crisis we are facing at the border,” Nielsen wrote. “They didn’t want to hear about criminal aliens, drug smugglers, smuggled & abused children or violent caravans trying to breach the border wall.”

“The crisis is not going away-it is getting worse. The status quo in funding & authorities for #DHS is irresponsible & makes our country less secure,” she continued. “Kicking the can down the road is not the answer. I look forward to engaging w Members who want to.”

(No wonder Dem run cities are falling apart - Reality is never faced.)

===

(They can choose a different race, if that might benefit them... financially):

Rachel-Dolezal-smiles-ap-640x480.jpg

Judge Sets Trial Date for Rachel Dolezal Welfare Fraud Case

Dolezal, who switched her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2016, is accused of collecting nearly $9,000 in welfare money from the state between August 2015 and November 2017.

Investigators said Dolezal falsified income reports for several years to qualify for government assistance and claimed she only received a few hundred dollars per month from friends.

But when state investigators looked into her finances, they found she deposited more than $80,000 while she had been receiving public assistance.

The state investigator learned that Dolezal— who had published a book called In Full Color— received income from book sales, speaking gigs, and sales of her arts and crafts.

> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/05/judge-sets-trial-date-rachel-dolezal-welfare-fraud-case/

/ 3 /

Marxist ‘Intersectionality’ Narrative Fails, Causing Feminazi March to Implode, Falsely Claims ‘Not All Women Have Female Reproductive Parts’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, drbubb said:

for Lefties... Leftist Leaders choose their own version of the Facts

Every time you use "left wing" or "lefty" for someone that advocates 80%+ tax on workers and 1% tax on rich layabouts, someones pet rabbit gets caught in a lawnmower.

pretty much spot on otherwise, exactly how the right wing malfunctions. the keyword that should of given it away was probably "feminazi".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" 80%+ tax on workers and 1% tax on rich layabouts..."

Who are those paying 1%?  How about those at 0%?  The UNDESERVING Not-so POOR?

They call themselves "victims", but they use the State to commit theft from the hardworking

===

= People who don't even work, because they get enough STATE BENEFITS that they do not need to?

I think THOSE may be the most common "layabouts"

They don't have the headaches of PAYING Tax, or Filing Tax Returns - it is a nightmare in the US, I can tell you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, drbubb said:

The UNDESERVING Not-so POOR?

Only if you are uneducated enough believe right wing government numberwang.

Take a "standard" $25,000 gross salary in the US or UK

And track how much makes it into the hands of the people who actually made or delivered a product or service.

After income tax, employers tax, corporation tax, VAT, fuel and customs duties, charges for "free" public goods paid already for by previous tax payers like water, electricity, roads and other transport, various local taxes etc etc.

You'll find they get to "spend" no more than about $10,000 of the $50,000 worth of goods they have to produce for the company to be profitable, about $30,000 of the remaining $40,000 goes to people who literally made, built or delivered nothing, and likely don't even live in the same country. and finally there is about $10,000 left over for public services, the ~30% tax the government will quote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are inconsistent it seems to me.

Maybe, You are saying that government takes too much from low paid workers, to pass on money to those who do not work.

If you say that, then why not say it clearly?

Else your argument seems confusing and maybe self-contradictory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drbubb said:

You are inconsistent it seems to me.

Maybe, You are saying that government takes too much from low paid workers, to pass on money to those who do not work.

If you say that, then why not say it clearly?

Else your argument seems confusing and maybe self-contradictory

i make a clear distinction between income from work - that which comes from doing things by the hour - and income from capital - that which comes from "owning and controling" things.

all "workers" are low paid.

government takes too much from workers to give to owners of capital (what is really meant by a left wing "inequality" and the "rich poor divide), we all have the same number of hours in the day. "true wealth" is how many of them belong to you.

left is the total opposite spectrum than a right wing "good" society of most of the able population working 24 hours a day 7 days a week for their employer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I make a clear distinction between income from work - that which comes from doing things by the hour -

and income from capital - that which comes from "owning and controling" things."

How about Income from hours & hours of serious investment research?

It is worthy work, which should be treated with respect.  It is not mere gambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, drbubb said:

"I make a clear distinction between income from work - that which comes from doing things by the hour -

and income from capital - that which comes from "owning and controling" things."

How about Income from hhours & hours of serious investment research?

It is worthy work, which should be treated with respect.  It is not mere gambling

How about it? 

should an individual be rewarded or punished for pulling out more than $60,000 a year from the money available to invest for personal use?

because right wing rewards more for investing less and consuming more. Which is why the west is bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western GOVERNMENTS are bankrupt.  Not all the people

The governments will not be able to keep their exaggerated promises.

There is massive waste in "politically correct" causes, that needs to be cut.

Going butst, would put the government on a diet, and many Leftist that rely on handouts would suffer.

This seems both inevitable and necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drbubb said:

Not all the people

By and large its both. The outcome of three decades of negative savings rate with a dose of enronenomics.

from

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

The least of their problems.

Just another step down the road.

The real problems will begin when all the social programs close, thats when the mass rioting generally starts.

I dont actually know much about the '91 dissolution of the former ussr, and cant find the date they closed its federal courts. but that would help with a guide to the timing for the creation of the former united states.

Dimitry did a nice write up back in 2006

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collapse-gap-ussr-was-better-prepared-collapse-us/

In case you didn't get round to looking at the slides

MScan13.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×