• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Marxist left's ongoing attempts to undermine & destroy the nuclear family

Praxas said:
So what is your focus on liberals? Conservatives are the same way. We have some some conservatives that are no better than ISIS on their religious views that being gay should be illegal and some conservatives even feel punishable by jail or death. Why do you focus on outliers and then try to pin the entire liberal ideology on that?
Click to expand...

He has no reason, he's diddling himself.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I didn't say I wasn't interested in addressing the many different kinds of liberals, I am saying that any attempt at pretending that a person could be a "classical liberal" (i.e., like the Koch Brothers) AND a Democrat at the same time is absurd. A "liberal Democrat" would most likely be in the mold of an FDR, or a diBlasio, or an Elizabeth Warren (Warren on the milder end of the scale) or a Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the other end of the scale.
Likewise, the opposite would be a Blue Dog like a Joe Manchin.
There is no "Venn Diagram" that intersects classical liberals and Democrats.
It's like attempting to fit solid rubber forklift tires or wooden wagon wheels to an 11,000 horsepower NHRA Top Fuel nitromethane powered dragster, or putting lace on a bowling ball, and with that I believe I have exhausted a fair amount of colorful metaphors sufficient to reinforce my point.

So called "classical liberalism" (known today as Right Wing Libertarianism) sits entirely outside the Democratic Party ideology.

top-fuel-dragster-1200x800.jpg
Click to expand...

Yea the Democratic Party is going farther left, meaning centrists or moderate liberals don't follow the party anymore.
 
ElChupacabra said:
One can argue on the merits of any societal change; not all change is good. As an individual and a parent, I see the value of a nuclear family; however, I also understand that it's not going to be possible for everyone. So I'd rather be supportive of those who don't have nuclear families than shaming them; I find no useful purpose in that behavior.
Click to expand...

BRAVO...:applaud

And I believe that liberals of all stripes have these conversations (like the BOLD IN RED) every single day, and come to the same conclusions, namely that not ALL change is desirable or good.
As a liberal however, I too recognize that a nuclear family is maybe (A) a past event for some people - - they HAD a nuclear family and someone died, or there was a divorce, or some other catalyzing event, or (B) there might have an attempt at forming a nuclear family which failed, and the single parent must now go it alone whether they wish to or not.
And I too see no constructive good in shaming these people.

I also see nothing constructive or good in attacking gay couples who raise children, especially since the data proves that the overwhelming majority of children raised by gay couples turn out healthy and well adjusted.

Even more studies indicate that children raised by same sex couples fare about the same as children raised in traditional families...with one exception:

It should be noted that research has indicated that same-sex parent families experience stigma and discrimination, and when they do it can impact on child health and well-being.

In other words - - SURPRISE: When right wing fundamentalists and other conservative groups ATTACK these families, the children suffer.

I don't know anyone who runs around PROMOTING same sex family and child rearing as a hobby.
I do however know that counselors who serve the gay community are supposed to be supportive of any gay couples who wish to choose such a path, but that doesn't mean that there is a "gay campaign" to "gay up the entire world and destroy the traditional family".

What it looks like from here is, conservatives are engaged in an attempt to say that gay couples rearing children is really a fifth column attack on THEIR CONSERVATIVE family units...as if somehow a gay couple somewhere is sitting down and planning how they can destroy the neighbor family down the street.

WHICH MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever.
 
enderpotato00 said:
Yea the Democratic Party is going farther left, meaning centrists or moderate liberals don't follow the party anymore.
Click to expand...

True, it IS experiencing pushback from the more liberal groups in the party.
We already HAD several terms with centrists and moderate neoliberals, and the result was that the Democratic Party got pushed further RIGHT over the last thirty years. Consider this a course correction. It happens.

Of course, to a right wing true believer, that leads to an automatic assumption that "the Marxists are taking over the Democratic Party".
You're free to draw that conclusion if you wish. Seeing as how you yourself trend in the opposite direction, there is absolutely no chance of you ever considering a vote for any Democrats, even if they trended more to the Right, and therefore your assessment is of value only to other hard Right true believers.

In other words: should Democrats be concerned what a hardcore right wing Trump supporting Republican thinks?
Nope.

All that said, your post had nothing to do with my response to Dark Wizard whatsoever.
The Democratic Party of the 20th and 21st centuries NEVER encompassed "classical liberals"...ever...ever, at any time whatsoever.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
True, it IS experiencing pushback from the more liberal groups in the party.
We already HAD several terms with centrists and moderate neoliberals, and the result was that the Democratic Party got pushed further RIGHT over the last thirty years. Consider this a course correction. It happens.

Of course, to a right wing true believer, that leads to an automatic assumption that "the Marxists are taking over the Democratic Party".
You're free to draw that conclusion if you wish. Seeing as how you yourself trend in the opposite direction, there is absolutely no chance of you ever considering a vote for any Democrats, even if they trended more to the Right, and therefore your assessment is of value only to other hard Right true believers.

In other words: should Democrats be concerned what a hardcore right wing Trump supporting Republican thinks?
Nope.

All that said, your post had nothing to do with my response to Dark Wizard whatsoever.
The Democratic Party of the 20th and 21st centuries NEVER encompassed "classical liberals"...ever...ever, at any time whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I don't like the Republican Party either b/c it doesn't represent my moderate conservative views. So its not just bashing democrats. Thats just my opinion.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm not trying to pin the ideology on that. That's why I'm calling it out in such a way, mentioning "classical liberals". The marxists and the intersectional radical that we see are neither representative of liberals, nor are they truly liberals in the first place. Therefore, it's important to the thread, that we stick only with marxists, which is actually very hard to do among both the left and the right, because I think even the left will choose to identify itself with such radical forces if it means it can piss off conservatives. I really don't want the thread to devolve into "well, your side has socialists" "but your side has nazis!"
Click to expand...

It is amusing listening to a conservative from Tyler, Texas attempt to define the Democratic Party.
By the way, I know Tyler, Texas almost as well as my own former neighborhood of Mansfield, Texas.
I had a buddy from Tyler who you might know of, and he frequently attempted the same thing, but in his case he finally had a meltdown one day and began accusing me of being secretly Communist, and that's when the friendship came to an end, which was a sad day for me, because aside from his personal political paranoia, he was a very nice fellow.

Merry Christmas Lynn, hope your keyboard is always in tune...

(A Christmas video I did for Lynn, who was at the time attempting to get back together with his wife)



It is not important in this thread that we stick only with marxists, because they're not a large influence on Democratic Party politics and more often than not, they are actually a chaos element which works against Democratic Party politics.
The prime example of this is the element that decided to go with Jill Stein, the Putin loving idiot that still believes that microwave ovens emit nuclear radiation, and her bonafide actual Marxist Vice Presidential running mate Ajamu Baraka.

Have you heard anything about Ajamu Baraka or Jill Stein in the media lately? Has anybody?
NO, and the reason is, NO ONE in the Democratic Party pays attention to this fringe element, a fringe element that you are attempting to paint as somehow a mainstream influence on liberals.

You should recognize that your attempt is doomed to failure, and it belongs in one of those "James972" threads instead.

tenor.gif
 
enderpotato00 said:
I don't like the Republican Party either b/c it doesn't represent my moderate conservative views. So its not just bashing democrats. Thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Jordan Peterson advises that you lose the "just"....do not cut yourself down like that, there are more than enough other people who have taken up the job, they dont need any help.
 
enderpotato00 said:
I don't like the Republican Party either b/c it doesn't represent my moderate conservative views. So its not just bashing democrats. Thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. We should ignore all the posts you make in support of Trump, then.
Yeah, right.

The very worst kind of political person is the one who isn't willing to own their views.
I own mine, I am a liberal, a proud liberal. I belong to the Democratic Party, and when my party is wrong, I attempt to make it right.

But yeah sure, you go ahead and pretend you aren't a Trump Republican. :lamo
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yeah sure. We should ignore all the posts you make in support of Trump, then.
Yeah, right.

The very worst kind of political person is the one who isn't willing to own their views.
I own mine, I am a liberal, a proud liberal. I belong to the Democratic Party, and when my party is wrong, I attempt to make it right.

But yeah sure, you go ahead and pretend you aren't a Trump Republican. :lamo
Click to expand...

Dude. I'm registered as an independent. Not all conservatives are republicans.
 
enderpotato00 said:
Dude. I'm registered as an independent. Not all conservatives are republicans.
Click to expand...

No matter how you are registered, the stuff you say is pure Trump. Always has been.
And it's okay, go ahead, have at it, but OWN it fer chrissakes.
Stop pretending that you're some Bob Corker/Jeff Flake/John McCain maverick who goes up against Trump.

I don't see it anywhere in your entire body of posts.
If I did, there would be no payoff in me lying about it because if there was, you and I could find some common ground.

Sorry, I can't find common ground with Trump, he's bat-****.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
BRAVO...:applaud

And I believe that liberals of all stripes have these conversations (like the BOLD IN RED) every single day, and come to the same conclusions, namely that not ALL change is desirable or good.
As a liberal however, I too recognize that a nuclear family is maybe (A) a past event for some people - - they HAD a nuclear family and someone died, or there was a divorce, or some other catalyzing event, or (B) there might have an attempt at forming a nuclear family which failed, and the single parent must now go it alone whether they wish to or not.
And I too see no constructive good in shaming these people.

I also see nothing constructive or good in attacking gay couples who raise children, especially since the data proves that the overwhelming majority of children raised by gay couples turn out healthy and well adjusted.

Even more studies indicate that children raised by same sex couples fare about the same as children raised in traditional families...with one exception:

It should be noted that research has indicated that same-sex parent families experience stigma and discrimination, and when they do it can impact on child health and well-being.

In other words - - SURPRISE: When right wing fundamentalists and other conservative groups ATTACK these families, the children suffer.

I don't know anyone who runs around PROMOTING same sex family and child rearing as a hobby.
I do however know that counselors who serve the gay community are supposed to be supportive of any gay couples who wish to choose such a path, but that doesn't mean that there is a "gay campaign" to "gay up the entire world and destroy the traditional family".

What it looks like from here is, conservatives are engaged in an attempt to say that gay couples rearing children is really a fifth column attack on THEIR CONSERVATIVE family units...as if somehow a gay couple somewhere is sitting down and planning how they can destroy the neighbor family down the street.

WHICH MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day human society is a dynamic experiment whose social mores have changed over the millennia and will continue to change. There are some values that endure because there are inherent truths to them (the golden rule etc.) and others that were borne from particular environmental or societal circumstances; those are the ones which often change the most. I'm of the mind that we examine and assess the merits of those changes instead of reacting to them based on an old paradigm. If you take the institution of marriage for example; it's changed from an exchange between families to improve their station, to one based on emotional fulfillment. Time will tell if the latter is really the best way to go about it, since it tends to create unrealistic ideals of what marriage actually is.

I think the most important aspect of a child's environment is stability, and less on who provides that stability. To advocate for some members of our community to enjoy that same privilege doesn't mean that one is promoting this for everyone. For some the mere choice represents an attack on traditional values, and that's where I strongly disagree. There have been plenty of traditions that were not good ones, so again, being able to judge something on its merit is a better way to go than simply reacting negatively to change.

As I get older I find myself bucking some of the new ideas the younger generation have, but I always take a step back and contextualize it versus just reacting to my preferences. What I really do admire about the younger generations is their openness to new ideas about relationships, race etc. I think we're on a better course with people who are more open. I do my best to not become rigid mentally as the years go by; I put a concerted effort to assess first and opine afterward so when I talk to my daughter (who just became a teenage last week) I don't sound like a cranky reactionary father. I want to be able to guide her, and to do so there has to be that comfort of not being judged immediately.
 
ElChupacabra said:
James972 started that dumpster fire thread on a topic similar to this one. The odd thing is the socio-economic factors that have been large contributors to the breakdown of the nuclear family aren't addressed. I also don't think there's a liberal agenda to erode the concept of a family either; the difference is liberals generally adapt to changes better than conservatives since the latter tend to want to keep value systems in spite of change. One can argue on the merits of any societal change; not all change is good. As an individual and a parent, I see the value of a nuclear family; however, I also understand that it's not going to be possible for everyone. So I'd rather be supportive of those who don't have nuclear families than shaming them; I find no useful purpose in that behavior.
Click to expand...

There is no circumstance involving children where a nuclear family is worse then single parenthood.

Also pointing out that a single parenthood situation is worse then two married parents is not “shaming” and nor is it good to support a lifestyle choice that is detrimental to society with taxpayer dollars.

A married couple nuclear family living a moral life has zero to do with socio-economics. In fact point me to an economic situation that is made better by one parent needing to work and leave the child in day care or receiving public assistance and living in a housing project.
 
ElChupacabra said:
As I get older I find myself bucking some of the new ideas the younger generation have, but I always take a step back and contextualize it versus just reacting to my preferences. What I really do admire about the younger generations is their openness to new ideas about relationships, race etc. I think we're on a better course with people who are more open. I do my best to not become rigid mentally as the years go by; I put a concerted effort to assess first and opine afterward so when I talk to my daughter (who just became a teenage last week) I don't sound like a cranky reactionary father. I want to be able to guide her, and to do so there has to be that comfort of not being judged immediately.
Click to expand...

You'll probably do just fine with your daughter. By the way, our own daughter just hit twenty-five and is a hardworking hair stylist/cosmetologist.
She too has some weird quirks to her values for relationships but I suspect she has a healthy overall outlook, it's just that she likes to set standards which might be tough to follow. Yes, she's hetero. The ideal "type" of guy she likes is unrealistic however.
But you never know, she might surprise us and snag her ideal guy, and then discover that her favorite "type" isn't all they're cracked up to be.

She's a big girl, about five eleven and a bit on the chunky side but she adores slim short and slightly androgynous Korean guys, like the kind you see in Korean K-Pop boy bands. Hence the reason my wife and I doubt she's going to score such a guy, but like I said, you never know!
Naturally all the guys she HAS dated in the past bear no resemblance to a K-Pop idol.
She's such a sweetheart that any guy would be lucky to get her, so it's just a question of time.

I am firmly convinced that marriage as an emotionally fulfilling arrangement is superior but I've been surprised by two couples I knew personally.
One was a buddy who "mail ordered" a wife to be from a Filipino group thirty five years ago. I had to eat a lot of crow because when we first heard about this, me and my friends ragged on him big time but we were wrong. The girl he got together with was a total angel, she adored him and she was a wonderful wife and mother. He just passed away this year, and she was the best thing that ever happened to him.

Another couple really was a total "arranged marriage" I kid you not. He's Indian, and his parents and the bride's parents arranged the whole thing.
He was lonely and decided "Why not?" and took the plunge. It's now twenty years later and they are still like two love birds.
He said that it took a couple of months for them to get used to each other but all of a sudden, he says, it was like the dam broke and they were head over heels in love and never looked back.

So yeah, maybe these older setups MIGHT work. But I still believe more in marrying someone you fall in love with.
I'm no shining example, mind you...my first wife was a girl I fell IN LUST with more than anything else.
She went after ME, she was more the initiator and aggressor, but the moment I realized she was pursuing me, I was floored and "the little head" took precedence over the big head, because she was stunning, and I was young, lonely and horny.

The first few years were pure bliss but she had a lot of baggage from her previous marriage and it all came out once we tied the knot.
Oh well, at least I have fond memories of the first few years of us living as hippies more or less.

I've done much better with the lady I am married to now, also a stunner but she has a much better head on her shoulders and I was in love with her, really in love, not just in lust.

I vote for marriage "based on emotional fulfillment" but I recognize that there may be outlier cases where other arrangements might just work if you're careful, patient and very lucky.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There is no circumstance involving children where a nuclear family is worse then single parenthood.
Click to expand...

Oh you, you have to have led a very sheltered life, my friend.

Show of hands please...

How many of you out there have experienced or know of families where the children suffered immensely because the family "stayed together"?

In fact, follow me over to this NEW THREAD if you'd like...
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You'll probably do just fine with your daughter. By the way, our own daughter just hit twenty-five and is a hardworking hair stylist/cosmetologist.
She too has some weird quirks to her values for relationships but I suspect she has a healthy overall outlook, it's just that she likes to set standards which might be tough to follow. Yes, she's hetero. The ideal "type" of guy she likes is unrealistic however.
But you never know, she might surprise us and snag her ideal guy, and then discover that her favorite "type" isn't all they're cracked up to be.

She's a big girl, about five eleven and a bit on the chunky side but she adores slim short and slightly androgynous Korean guys, like the kind you see in Korean K-Pop boy bands. Hence the reason my wife and I doubt she's going to score such a guy, but like I said, you never know!
Naturally all the guys she HAS dated in the past bear no resemblance to a K-Pop idol.
She's such a sweetheart that any guy would be lucky to get her, so it's just a question of time.

I am firmly convinced that marriage as an emotionally fulfilling arrangement is superior but I've been surprised by two couples I knew personally.
One was a buddy who "mail ordered" a wife to be from a Filipino group thirty five years ago. I had to eat a lot of crow because when we first heard about this, me and my friends ragged on him big time but we were wrong. The girl he got together with was a total angel, she adored him and she was a wonderful wife and mother. He just passed away this year, and she was the best thing that ever happened to him.

Another couple really was a total "arranged marriage" I kid you not. He's Indian, and his parents and the bride's parents arranged the whole thing.
He was lonely and decided "Why not?" and took the plunge. It's now twenty years later and they are still like two love birds.
He said that it took a couple of months for them to get used to each other but all of a sudden, he says, it was like the dam broke and they were head over heels in love and never looked back.

So yeah, maybe these older setups MIGHT work. But I still believe more in marrying someone you fall in love with.
I'm no shining example, mind you...my first wife was a girl I fell IN LUST with more than anything else.
She went after ME, she was more the initiator and aggressor, but the moment I realized she was pursuing me, I was floored and "the little head" took precedence over the big head, because she was stunning, and I was young, lonely and horny.

The first few years were pure bliss but she had a lot of baggage from her previous marriage and it all came out once we tied the knot.
Oh well, at least I have fond memories of the first few years of us living as hippies more or less.

I've done much better with the lady I am married to now, also a stunner but she has a much better head on her shoulders and I was in love with her, really in love, not just in lust.

I vote for marriage "based on emotional fulfillment" but I recognize that there may be outlier cases where other arrangements might just work if you're careful, patient and very lucky.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are no guarantees in either model. I think a lot of depends on one's desire to stick it out and commit to making it work; providing the foundation is strong. I know quite a few Indian couples and they were all arranged marriages; the common sentiment is you work hard together and love grows out of that mutual effort and the friendship required to maintain it.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Yeah, there are no guarantees in either model. I think a lot of depends on one's desire to stick it out and commit to making it work; providing the foundation is strong. I know quite a few Indian couples and they were all arranged marriages; the common sentiment is you work hard together and love grows out of that mutual effort and the friendship required to maintain it.
Click to expand...

He said that the wedding was an extravaganza that lasted several days and that they fought terribly through it all except for a couple of hours where they both made an extra effort to try and hold it together. Then when they moved in together they were like cats and dogs, arguing about everything.
And then one day he'd had a horrible day at work, the car broke down, and he got robbed while looking for help with the car, and he got home thoroughly beaten down by it all. He tried to put on a brave face but suddenly his new wife upon hearing what had happened began to rub his shoulders and telling him it would all turn out better soon enough.

BLAMMO, I'll spare you the details but as I said, it was a breakthrough...and I gather it must have been a pleasant one if my guess is correct.
All I know is, next time I saw him, he was walking on a cloud and talking about his wonderful wife.

"Huh??? I thought you weren't having good feelings about wheth...."

"Oh no, she is the best woman in the world" etc etc etc, you get the point. It was very funny, and he was a changed man, and sure enough, next time I saw them together it was endearing to watch them. Something obviously clicked.
I think I'll give them a call, haven't talked to them in a while...he's out East.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh you, you have to have led a very sheltered life, my friend.

Show of hands please...

How many of you out there have experienced or know of families where the children suffered immensely because the family "stayed together"?
Click to expand...

:2wave:

My parents were an example. At some point they just stopped getting along, and I think a lot of that stemmed from the resentment my father had coming to this country. He was a successful accountant and owned his own business in Ecuador, all of which he left behind because my mother wanted better opportunities for the family she wanted. Once I was a teenager and was more aware of the deteriorating dynamic, there was a part of me that felt sad for the both of them because I knew they were only together because it made sense financially. I still respect their effort though, because staying together gave them that financial flexibility to send my sister a better opportunity in a bad neighborhood. Other friends I had were in similar situations but not as lucky in terms of how their parents managed their situation.
 
ElChupacabra said:
:2wave:

My parents were an example. At some point they just stopped getting along, and I think a lot of that stemmed from the resentment my father had coming to this country. He was a successful accountant and owned his own business in Ecuador, all of which he left behind because my mother wanted better opportunities for the family she wanted. Once I was a teenager and was more aware of the deteriorating dynamic, there was a part of me that felt sad for the both of them because I knew they were only together because it made sense financially. I still respect their effort though, because staying together gave them that financial flexibility to send my sister a better opportunity in a bad neighborhood. Other friends I had were in similar situations but not as lucky in terms of how their parents managed their situation.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind that I carried the above over to the other thread I made. :2wave:
 
ModerationNow! said:
I'm including a video that starts out with over 6 mins of documented facts which prove that kids of a single parent household are statistically FAR more likely to have many more troubles and struggles in life, as will be the case with the mother herself! Although there are many issues where I fall left of center(environment, gay marriage, early term abortion, marijuana legalization etc), there are MANY other issues that absolutely preclude me from ever joining the progressive movement as an ideological supporter. One of them, is their radical, at-all-costs political/ideological strategy for eventually forcing their ideology and dogma onto society. Its the unequivocally evil and insidious strategies of cultural Marxism that have led to the absolute destruction of the 2 parent, nuclear family in the black community! In the 60s, single mothers were a rarity in the black AND white communities(20% single mothers in black community). But the so called "great society" programs instituted the 60s, have caused the single parent household in the black community to become the majority(now in the 70% range overall, with inner city black community over 80% single mothers)! That's happened in less than 50 years! To be clear, I support 2 parent same-sex families, but I hope that both parents are caring and responsible, regardless of the sexual orientation(2 good male or female parents are better than just 1).

The democrats' "great society" encourages and rewards YOUNG, POOR black girls to start having kids in their late teens, without a father, in exchange for free housing, free food, free money etc. All the while, they are constantly told they can't get ahead otherwise, due to "omnipresent, systemic racism". They will live in the inner city black communities, surrounded by terrible influences, including gangs, hard drugs, high rates of violence and murder, crime etc. But now it's become a self perpetuating cycle. But that cycle always begins with a poor, single parent, living in a housing project, with NO father, while always hearing that there's no hope of improving their situation!

The left and democrats have also come a long way towards destroying the nuclear family in the Latino community as well. ALL the stats show that the same policies used on blacks, are pushing increasingly higher percentages of Latino girls to start having kids, alone, before being being married, and long before being financially or mentally prepared for it.

So why are the left STILL trying to discourage 2 parent households, by pushing the insidiously false narrative that women are "better off raising kids WITHOUT a father around"? Simple... The stats all show that single mothers are more likely to vote democrat! They are more likely to vote for the very people who encouraged them to put themselves and their kids into the worst possible situation for everyone! Also, Marxists made it clear long ago, that in order to create a socialist monopoly state, the basic systems that strengthen society, must be systematically undermined and destroyed. Then, once everyone is failing in life, the socialists step in, take over, and
and become the 'new societal savior'.

Watch the details in the first half of this video. It should make people see the leftist movement for the negative force that it truly is:
Click to expand...


Fyi nuclear family is a rather new post ww2 thing, the traditional family is multi generational and also the original safety net. Parents grand parents aunts uncles cousins etc would live under a single roof, granprarents would take care of children while the parents worked, as they got too old their children and grandchildren would take care of them, they would pool recources as a family so that a loss of a job or someone injured unable to work did not bring the family down.

Up until ww2 this was the standard configuration of the american family, and families worldwide, today central and south america, as well as eastern europe and asia still widely use the traditional family.During the industrial revolution it was even common kids were not raised by one or both parents due to disease or death at the workplace, yet with the traditional family they had numerous family members to fall on.



fyi when lenin and karl marx were alive there was no such thing as a nuclear family.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It is amusing listening to a conservative from Tyler, Texas attempt to define the Democratic Party.
By the way, I know Tyler, Texas almost as well as my own former neighborhood of Mansfield, Texas.
I had a buddy from Tyler who you might know of, and he frequently attempted the same thing, but in his case he finally had a meltdown one day and began accusing me of being secretly Communist, and that's when the friendship came to an end, which was a sad day for me, because aside from his personal political paranoia, he was a very nice fellow.

Merry Christmas Lynn, hope your keyboard is always in tune...

(A Christmas video I did for Lynn, who was at the time attempting to get back together with his wife)



It is not important in this thread that we stick only with marxists, because they're not a large influence on Democratic Party politics and more often than not, they are actually a chaos element which works against Democratic Party politics.
The prime example of this is the element that decided to go with Jill Stein, the Putin loving idiot that still believes that microwave ovens emit nuclear radiation, and her bonafide actual Marxist Vice Presidential running mate Ajamu Baraka.

Have you heard anything about Ajamu Baraka or Jill Stein in the media lately? Has anybody?
NO, and the reason is, NO ONE in the Democratic Party pays attention to this fringe element, a fringe element that you are attempting to paint as somehow a mainstream influence on liberals.

You should recognize that your attempt is doomed to failure, and it belongs in one of those "James972" threads instead.

tenor.gif
Click to expand...


I said that the democrat party(actually, I said liberals, i never once mentioned the democrat party but, I'll try not to call it out as a freudian slip ;) ) is NOT represented by the far-left Marxists and the like, that the thread names. Are you telling me that I'm wrong? And that the democrat party ARE run by marxists and far-left groups? Ok, i'll take you as an authority then, I didn't know. My apologies!

DarkWizard12 said:
The marxists and the intersectional radical that we see are neither representative of liberals, nor are they truly liberals in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I said that the democrat party(actually, I said liberals, i never once mentioned the democrat party but, I'll try not to call it out as a freudian slip ;) ) is NOT represented by the far-left Marxists and the like, that the thread names. Are you telling me that I'm wrong? And that the democrat party ARE run by marxists and far-left groups? Ok, i'll take you as an authority then, I didn't know. My apologies!
Click to expand...

That is an impressive pirouette after a slew of posts in which you attempted to connect "classical liberals" (RW Libertarians) to Democrats.
Well, you and my old buddy Lynn would have a very interesting conversation. He thinks we're all Commies, you think some of us might be Koch supporters.
Wow, way to go, Tyler dude.

But whatever, we're just mostly working stiffs who try to keep a relatively open mind, and yes it is true that we are embarrassed by the hysteria marketed by the more radical fringe groups that claim some leftist affiliation.
Perhaps this old website might be of help.

DIRECTORY OF U.S. POLITICAL PARTIES

LIBERTARIAN PARTY
The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they Ed Clark for President / David Koch for VP 1980 (Libertarian) argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes."

I could probably be accused of being unfair in my assertion that classical liberals are mostly right wing libertarians, because left wing libertarians certainly exist, however their numbers are so miniscule in the Libertarian Party that they are invisible, thus many left wing libertarians tend to remain independent instead. A very few will grudgingly support some Democratic candidates however this past POTUS election in 2016 showed that some of them gravitated to candidates like Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom