Re: OT - Coulter

"Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "NJH"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> >The original liberal thinkers (i.e., 18th century or so) really were
> >liberal. They were not leftist. Today they are sometimes called
"classical
> >liberals" to distinguish them from the motley gaggle of
Marxist-Leninists,
> >Stalin admirers, tax-and-spend socialists, cradle-to-grave welfare
> >enthusiasts, etc. who are leftists to the core but decline to identify
> >themselves as such because leftism is held in contempt by most Americans
> >with functioning brains. They are not liberal in the original sense of
that
> >term; on the contrary they are highly illiberal. What is liberal for
example
> >about wanting to take away people's constitutional right to own arms?
That's
> >about as "liberal" as Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.
> >
> >Not wanting to call themselves what they are, leftists appropriated the
word
> >"liberal." I believe it is still worthwhile making the distinction
(though
> >most don't bother nowadays), therefore leftist-"liberal."
> >
>
> Therefore what a crock of shit!  No one admirers Stalin, Hitler or Pol
Pot, I
> know I don't.

Of course not. Once the heroes of leftist-"liberals" become thoroughly
exposed and discredited, such that even the "liberals" cannot openly admire
them anymore, they are grudgingly removed from their pedestals. The fact is
that most "liberals" ADORED Stalin over the decades that he was grinding the
Soviet citizenry under his heel, executing his own officers in purges,
murdering millions of Ukrainians by starvation because they resisted
collectivization, and shipping millions of his own people off to slave labor
in the gulags.

Now "liberals" don't adore him anymore. It's no longer politically correct
to do so. They adore Castro instead.

Neil