Political correctness was taken from the Marxist doctrine which invented it to curtail free speech . We are on about the 3rd generation of progressives indoctrination and it is clear that political correctness has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with trigger warnings and micro aggressions on anything that offends. Only progressives would make an issue of a football team that adopted the name Red Skins

One poster said, " well with free speech you get repercussions" ... but that's not what progressives do. No they go for the juggler and their aim is to destroy such as what is being attempted with Donald Trump. They defame and destroy even to taking away someone's living. They don't counter point, no they label and accuse and with the greatest of hyperbole. Trump spoke the truth but progressive " can't handle the truth" It mind boggling trying to make sense of what they say and do because it non-sensical.

As in this thread people should start speaking up because you are only going to get circular thought and responses from them and having a objective discussion well.................................

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Check out what Jeb Bush has to say about Trump, or Marco Rubio, or Mike Huckabee, or Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney. Hardly left wing groups.

Look I do not want to be a wise guy, but your posts are...well....

1. I do not care about other candidates comments on another candidate.

2. The groups I spoke of and I thought it was very clear (obviously not) were those that went after the businesses. The petitions with 100 of thousands of signatures were gotten by the Soros organization and Moveon, just to name two of them.

How did you compare candidates criticizing other candidates with the turmoil that these groups are bringing to bear with the mans business ? How do you make that comparison ?

If you want to discuss Trump, I would love you to start a thread and lets us have a discussion on immigration and dissect EXACTLY what he said. Someone in your camp mentioned his use of bankruptcy laws. Let us discuss EXACTLY what he did and mention all the others that do the same thing in business. Lets discuss what he said.

But comparing activist groups to candidate comments is a bit, no a LOT, silly.

Originally Posted by Guest

Political correctness was taken from the Marxist doctrine which invented it to curtail free speech . We are on about the 3rd generation of progressives indoctrination and it is clear that political correctness has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with trigger warnings and micro aggressions on anything that offends. Only progressives would make an issue of a football team that adopted the name Red Skins

One poster said, " well with free speech you get repercussions" ... but that's not what progressives do. No they go for the juggler and their aim is to destroy such as what is being attempted with Donald Trump. They defame and destroy even to taking away someone's living. They don't counter point, no they label and accuse and with the greatest of hyperbole. Trump spoke the truth but progressive " can't handle the truth" It mind boggling trying to make sense of what they say and do because it non-sensical.

As in this thread people should start speaking up because you are only going to get circular thought and responses from them and having a objective discussion well.................................

Personal Best Regards:

I agree...nothing I would love more to see than a discussion of what is REALLY happening with no holds barred and forgetting about the political correctness.

Political correctness used to be a good thing in a way. It is now a tool to prevent you from having any meaningful discussions.

I still maintain that the influence that the militant black activists have had on our government in the last years has set back race relations years and years. NO discussion could take place without the "racist" tag being placed to end any conversation. When, during Ferguson, it was found that the entire thing was based on lies, you were called a racist if you mentioned it. Now, be clear, nobody could even get to the past problems in Ferguson at least on this forum. Because if you said all of the stuff being said is a lie and it was, you were branded a racist and the conversation is over.

Trump is going through the same thing. He is saying and he does not care if you like it or not...his career is not politics. If you do not agree, just show him how he is wrong and nobody, nobody has done that to my knowledge. They misquote him to make it easy to call him a racist, but they have yet to prove him wrong although actual government stats show he is more right than wrong.

This movement of not allowing discussion has to change or we are going no where because more and more are getting sick and tired of being "blackmailed" into things

Originally Posted by Guest

Political correctness was taken from the Marxist doctrine which invented it to curtail free speech . We are on about the 3rd generation of progressives indoctrination and it is clear that political correctness has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with trigger warnings and micro aggressions on anything that offends. Only progressives would make an issue of a football team that adopted the name Red Skins

One poster said, " well with free speech you get repercussions" ... but that's not what progressives do. No they go for the juggler and their aim is to destroy such as what is being attempted with Donald Trump. They defame and destroy even to taking away someone's living. They don't counter point, no they label and accuse and with the greatest of hyperbole. Trump spoke the truth but progressive " can't handle the truth" It mind boggling trying to make sense of what they say and do because it non-sensical.

As in this thread people should start speaking up because you are only going to get circular thought and responses from them and having a objective discussion well.................................

Personal Best Regards:

I have to disagree with you. Progressives are social activists. We care about social issues and do what we have to do to stamp out intolerance when we see it. The bakers were hired to do a job which was legal. They discriminated, they had the right to free speech, and in this case, a court decided the penalty for them breaking the law was a big fine.

I do agree about names of football teams is a non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Guest

I have to disagree with you. Progressives are social activists. We care about social issues and do what we have to do to stamp out intolerance when we see it. The bakers were hired to do a job which was legal. They discriminated, they had the right to free speech, and in this case, a court decided the penalty for them breaking the law was a big fine.

I do agree about names of football teams is a non-sequitur.

Activism is action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond the norm.

Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, and many other important issues.

Activists are typically challengers to policies and practices, trying to achieve a social goal, not to obtain power themselves. Much activism operates behind the scenes.

This is what has changed over the last years. The activism is NOT behind the scenes. It is devoted to achieve power.

And it has become intertwined with politics which is where it should never ever be.

Our systems are a result of activism. If they were perfect systems there would never again be activism but we all know that is not going to happen.

NOBODY disputes activism but when it becomes part of the political process instead of being parallel to that process, you are looking at the normal political process becoming very radical and we see that happening today.

When the very core of our government has activists sitting at their right hand (see Sharpton as chief advisor to our President as one example) you are asking for big time problems and we have had them in that area and in my opinion taken so many steps backward.

Saul Alinsky wanted radical activists at the very seat of government. I, personally do not want that.

Understand, you are merging politics with activism and it should not or ever be that way.

that is expressed very well, and i agree.

Originally Posted by Guest

that is expressed very well, and i agree.

Thank you. I am not the originator of those thoughts but over the last years, I have been doing some serious reading on why our government has become so doggone dysfunctional.

I have been subject to ridicule and much more since 2008 when I referred to our President and his relationship with the teachings of Saul Alinsky. Actually, I can understand some people making fun, but the point is, the President of this country has a real impact on its direction and how it goes in that direction. Think back about Reagan.....FDR....any number both good and bad. They had an impact and that is why the oval office is important.

We are mired in activism from WITHIN in my opinion. We have a very smart President, who has only one background to come from as we all do. His was activism and that is what he knows well.

I am not a fan of Trump for the same reason. I think our next President should be a healer....a statesman....one devoid of the excess ego (they all have egos but some are bigger than others). However, as I have said, I think that what Trump is saying needs to be considered and discussed. He is just not that far off, no matter what the media says.

I will not consider Hillary Clinton for much the same reasons (by the way, speaking of Alinsky, Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky's teachings and of course that thesis has been sealed never to be seen) and actually corresponded with him. For that reason PLUS I do not see her as a healer in anyway. She is divisive by her very nature.

So my analysis for this upcoming election in 2016 is apparent and I am waiting for the Republican debate to make any decision.

By the way, the Democratic debate should be interesting in the sense that Hillary Clinton's only real foe is Bernie Sanders. He is not just left leaning..he is a true socialist. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskell out and out said he was a socialist and he truly is. Debate time should be interesting because there is a wing of the Democratic party that wants to move even closer to socialism, and Clinton does not want, at this point to go that far because I think she believes it will not translate to votes, thus those gathering to hear Sanders are the socialist fans and when they debate it should be interesting to see how Clinton handles it and of course just how aggressive Sanders is. I still see Sanders, based on this popularity as a 3rd candidate on the Socialist party ticket.

Ok...will shut up now and just watch baseball.

Activism is action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond the norm.

Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, and many other important issues. Yes, absolutely true.

Activists are typically challengers to policies and practices, trying to achieve a social goal, not to obtain power themselves. Much activism operates behind the scenes. [COLOR="red"][COLOR="red"] Do not forget the activism that got the USA out of Vietnam, where we never belonged to begin with.

This is what has changed over the last years. The activism is NOT behind the scenes. It is devoted to achieve power.

And it has become intertwined with politics which is where it should never ever be. Au Contrair. It belongs directly WITH politics.

Our systems are a result of activism. If they were perfect systems there would never again be activism but we all know that is not going to happen.

NOBODY disputes activism but when it becomes part of the political process instead of being parallel to that process, you are looking at the normal political process becoming very radical and we see that happening today.

When the very core of our government has activists sitting at their right hand (see Sharpton as chief advisor to our President as one example No, Sharpton IS NOT THE CHIEF ADVISOR to the President!!) you are asking for big time problems and we have had them in that area and in my opinion taken so many steps backward.

Saul Alinsky wanted radical activists at the very seat of government. I, personally do not want that.

Understand, you are merging politics with activism and it should not or ever be that way. Yes, it should!

Originally Posted by Guest

Activism is action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond the norm.

Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, and many other important issues. Yes, absolutely true.

Activists are typically challengers to policies and practices, trying to achieve a social goal, not to obtain power themselves. Much activism operates behind the scenes. [COLOR="red"][COLOR="red"] Do not forget the activism that got the USA out of Vietnam, where we never belonged to begin with.

This is what has changed over the last years. The activism is NOT behind the scenes. It is devoted to achieve power.


And it has become intertwined with politics which is where it should never ever be. Au Contrair. It belongs directly WITH politics.

Our systems are a result of activism. If they were perfect systems there would never again be activism but we all know that is not going to happen.

NOBODY disputes activism but when it becomes part of the political process instead of being parallel to that process, you are looking at the normal political process becoming very radical and we see that happening today.

When the very core of our government has activists sitting at their right hand (see Sharpton as chief advisor to our President as one example No, Sharpton IS NOT THE CHIEF ADVISOR to the President!!) you are asking for big time problems and we have had them in that area and in my opinion taken so many steps backward.

Saul Alinsky wanted radical activists at the very seat of government. I, personally do not want that.

Understand, you are merging politics with activism and it should not or ever be that way. Yes, it should!

Well, we surely differ don't we.

First and foremost Sharpton is, in fact, the President's main advisor on anything racial. I NEVER said or certainly never meant he advised the President on
anything else. Valerie Jarret would get very angry. She is number one and I find it interesting about her being born in Iran although not much to hang a conspiracy tag on that. But Sharpton is truly his number one guy on race issues and that is a poor choice.

You feel that activism should be seated at the center of our GOVERNMENT.

IF that were the case, allow me to ask....WHO would do the actual governing. An activist is interested only in their own individual social cause and not in the day to day boring routine of governing, negotiating, etc.

To me, that is the big problem we have now. Our President and there have been many stories on this. THAT is how I see it, but I do not profess to be omnipotent, just read a lot. His entire life has been activism, and that is not necessarily bad but for me having an activist type person in the center is very very non stable.


If you read much, and there are a few authors who do write about activism, it is best served running parallel with the governing bodies.

Will be interesting to hear others opinions since we obviously disagree. I hope they can separate their political party from any opinions but I would love to hear how a President can govern while also being an activist for social programs. That does not allow much time for foreign affairs, legislative matters and I might add those two alone are real weakness of this administration, again in my opinion.

You gave no reasons for your opinions and I would love to hear your reasons, I do not want an activist President, Republican or Democrat....I want someone who can govern, administer handle foreign relations and use the office for compromise.

PLEASE...would be interesting to hear your reasoning

Originally Posted by Guest

Look I do not want to be a wise guy, but your posts are...well....

1. I do not care about other candidates comments on another candidate.

2. The groups I spoke of and I thought it was very clear (obviously not) were those that went after the businesses. The petitions with 100 of thousands of signatures were gotten by the Soros organization and Moveon, just to name two of them.

How did you compare candidates criticizing other candidates with the turmoil that these groups are bringing to bear with the mans business ? How do you make that comparison ?

If you want to discuss Trump, I would love you to start a thread and lets us have a discussion on immigration and dissect EXACTLY what he said. Someone in your camp mentioned his use of bankruptcy laws. Let us discuss EXACTLY what he did and mention all the others that do the same thing in business. Lets discuss what he said.

But comparing activist groups to candidate comments is a bit, no a LOT, silly.

It is so predictable that when someone provides a counterpoint that causes you to veer off your narrow little path you become the Great Chastiser. Anyhow, I actually find the Donald entertaining and enjoy it when he just blurts things out. I can understand why you're such a big fan.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

It is so predictable that when someone provides a counterpoint that causes you to veer off your narrow little path you become the Great Chastiser. Anyhow, I actually find the Donald entertaining and enjoy it when he just blurts things out. I can understand why you're such a big fan.

Is it just me, or can everybody see the author of this post?

Originally Posted by Guest

Is it just me, or can everybody see the author of this post?

NotFromAroundHere, we're just an open book, but who cares?

Oddly enough I agree with most of Trump's speech as those who lambasted him took what he said out of context, but the gist of what he said was correct....

As for those who lambasted him...well D'oh! They have the same right of free speech...or did you miss that? I am proudly American and conservative...

Originally Posted by Guest

Activism is action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond the norm.

Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, and many other important issues.

Activists are typically challengers to policies and practices, trying to achieve a social goal, not to obtain power themselves. Much activism operates behind the scenes.

This is what has changed over the last years. The activism is NOT behind the scenes. It is devoted to achieve power.

And it has become intertwined with politics which is where it should never ever be.

Our systems are a result of activism. If they were perfect systems there would never again be activism but we all know that is not going to happen.

NOBODY disputes activism but when it becomes part of the political process instead of being parallel to that process, you are looking at the normal political process becoming very radical and we see that happening today.

When the very core of our government has activists sitting at their right hand (see Sharpton as chief advisor to our President as one example) you are asking for big time problems and we have had them in that area and in my opinion taken so many steps backward.

Saul Alinsky wanted radical activists at the very seat of government. I, personally do not want that.

Understand, you are merging politics with activism and it should not or ever be that way.

Dear Guest: You are correct. simply stated progressives political activism has become mob rule ( I use the term domestic terrorist) and the Salinsky educated Chicago style prevails today and its rampart also in our educational system where the so called intelligentsia believe their world is the way we all should live and Conservatives have no place in their world and they have brainwashed three generations of students. Well we see how that's turned out...Student what date does 1776 represent? I don't know but do you know we have this beautiful rainbow of colors in mankind? Yea I see it everyday that I walk down a street but......forget it

Its why Congress can get nothing done; albeit I think many Republicans are either stupid or jerks to play progressives games.

Trump ,Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio to some extent will not play that game and I am afraid the RNC won't support them. We need bold leaders who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to these mobsters, thugs. so Trump keep trumping them up.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

It is so predictable that when someone provides a counterpoint that causes you to veer off your narrow little path you become the Great Chastiser. Anyhow, I actually find the Donald entertaining and enjoy it when he just blurts things out. I can understand why you're such a big fan.

I was the one to whom you responded.

I posted relative to the activist organizations who circulated petitions and spent money to have the NBC's, and Macy's do something.

YOU, on the other hand came back with what candidates were saying and THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID NOR MEANT and I simply corrected you.

What you posted was NOT a counterpoint to those groups circulating petitions, it was comments by other candidates which is a totally different thing.

AND PLEASE cut and paste where I ever said I was a fan of Trump. I have been pretty consistent in saying he will not get the nomination but we should talk about the issues he raises and he is more right than wrong.

PLEASE, do not try to start trouble. I was the one to whom you responded and what you accuse me of is what you did and what I attempted to correct.

Your posts are pretty much all the same...please read before you respond.

Thanks