Liberal Forum

Taking into account right after 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union, hasn't politics been split along party lines? Perhaps it's always been the case for the past 60 years in my estimation when Vietnam polarized America. So why do pundits always say "civil war" and an arch divide? Is it really that bad right now? Or is it just a continuation of the partisan split that shattered after post World War II unity?

Monderegal » 01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm

Taking into account right after 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union, hasn't politics been split along party lines? Perhaps it's always been the case for the past 60 years in my estimation when Vietnam polarized America. So why do pundits always say "civil war" and an arch divide? Is it really that bad right now? Or is it just a continuation of the partisan split that shattered after post World War II unity?

Isn't rule of law terminology of party of the first part vs party of the seconded part, compared to parties C-Z or 0-9 defending theories and theologies until extinction arrives.

Monderegal » 01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm

Taking into account right after 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union, hasn't politics been split along party lines? Perhaps it's always been the case for the past 60 years in my estimation when Vietnam polarized America. So why do pundits always say "civil war" and an arch divide? Is it really that bad right now? Or is it just a continuation of the partisan split that shattered after post World War II unity?

Yes, it's always been split. I think the difference is that there are more people on the extreme ends than before. The progressives hijacked liberalism to something that is now unrecognizable. I miss the true liberals. We didn't agree on everything, but they usually were in their right mind and rational. The far left (progressives) are not liberals. On the other side, there are extreme right wingers that try to hijack conservatism. These are the racist scum that make conservatives look bad. Most cons are not racist. However, these extremists cast a big shadow over them. 

Monderegal » 01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2023, 8:53 pm

Taking into account right after 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union, hasn't politics been split along party lines? Perhaps it's always been the case for the past 60 years in my estimation when Vietnam polarized America. So why do pundits always say "civil war" and an arch divide? Is it really that bad right now? Or is it just a continuation of the partisan split that shattered after post World War II unity?

what parties? 'democrats' in Georgia were actually conservative until around the year 2000, and their figurehead was a guy who liked adolph hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Talmadge

In 1936, according to a United Press (UP) article printed in the Atlanta Constitution on August 21, 1936, titled "Gene Selects Hitler as Favorite 'Author'", Talmadge reportedly told a Los Angeles newspaper that while he didn't have time to read many books, he read Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf ("My Struggle") seven times. The Nazi publication Die Bewegung reprinted the interview with Talmadge and praised him, stating that "Governor Eugene Talmadge, of Georgia, is obviously a very intelligent man."[34]
 

Trumprules » 01 Mar 2023, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2023, 9:46 pm

Yes been a 50/50 nation for a long time.

almost feels manufactured, doesnt it?

 

Vegas » 01 Mar 2023, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2023, 9:08 pm

Yes, it's always been split. I think the difference is that there are more people on the extreme ends than before. The progressives hijacked liberalism to something that is now unrecognizable. I miss the true liberals. We didn't agree on everything, but they usually were in their right mind and rational. The far left (progressives) are not liberals. On the other side, there are extreme right wingers that try to hijack conservatism. These are the racist scum that make conservatives look bad. Most cons are not racist. However, these extremists cast a big shadow over them. 

Progressive supply the demand for reasonable doubt. All the social narratives demanding human rights are what people do to never accept how living is done self evidently here moralizing, legalizing, ethical cleasning of anyone that doesn't comply to reasonable doubt done by those defedning their collective realities leaving progressives in charge of justifying humanity everywhere all the time.

Inside out navigating what everyone thinking outside their own skin defining how evolving should work outside in.

Guess where original insider taking comes from? Academia, arts, economics, politics, religions, social narratives by New World order spelled out how each arriving great great grandchild will perform as previous 4 generation gaps have, or else shunned by family, exiled by community, executed defying country or God.

Incomplete understanding leaves reasonable doubt misleading people trained to never accept their own time adapting to the moment here.

Guess how many realities ever taught life is self evidently here? 1 for 16 months between 1st ratified Constitution Sept 1789 until Jan 1791 to its first 10 amendments.

One session of Congress before waltzing back into New World Order humanity invents reality or bust come hell or high water.

Series parallel kinetic mutually evolving results exist spontaneously present parallel to adapting to space now.

try to keep covering that up with semantics. This is what Intellectual Armageddon was designed to do, I know becauxe I developed it and released it in cyberspace, since Black Friday 2006.