Social Redeemers of the left

[Patriot]

Excerpts from Interview of David Horowitz:

"Glazov: How much personal abuse have you suffered for your efforts? Why does the Left always attack the opponent as a human being, rather than simply just debate the opponent without dehumanizing and demonizing him?

David Horowitz: Because the Left is based on a fantasy of redemption -- which requires that its opponents are damned. It is also a reactionary force that has learned nothing from its crimes, and therefore cannot handle a debate on the issues or over the facts. Therefore it really has only one weapon, which is slander, defamation, which it will resort to at the least provocation. ....

David Horowitz: ....The extravagant goal of redeeming humanity justifies uncompromising means. Social redeemers regard themselves as an "army of the saints," and their opponents as belonging to the party of Satan. They do not view their conservative opponents as supporters of alternative means for improving the lot of women, minorities and the poor, but as enemies of women, minorities and the poor.

Progressive agendas cannot be opposed, therefore, on grounds that are principled or practical or compassionate. Opponents of "progressives" are defined as "reactionaries" -- advocates of racism and sexism, practitioners of "McCarthyism," and other incarnations of social evil. To be demonized by progressives, then, is not a personal matter, but is an ineluctable consequence of opposing their agendas. These agendas are of necessity uncompromising. Since theirs is always a battle between good and evil they have to be constantly on guard against contamination by the reality they are seeking to overcome. Consequently they are always on the hunt for the impure among them, for witches and others who have danced with the devil."

[Diane Amberg]

Replace left with right an you've got it. If ya don't believe me, read how you talk to your sworn enemies on here.You can't ever debate issues without attacking the writer. You just love it when one fights back so you can feel somehow justified, as if other folks can't see through it.   

[redcliffsw]

Diane, you've aligned yourself with the left - the socialists, yet think
yourself as some kind of moderate.  Socialist yes, moderate no.

[Patriot]

Diane, you've aligned yourself with the left - the socialists, yet think
yourself as some kind of moderate.  Socialist yes, moderate no.

Sad, but seems to be true.

[Diane Amberg]

Sorry, you're wrong, but who cares anyway. It seems so important to you that you hang some sort of label on me and it doesn't matter if it's correct or not.That must be some sort of radical conservative Kansas oddity. Why do ya do that anyway?  We don't have the need to do that around here.
  It's not like you could boycott my store, like one of you so rudely threatened to do and would tell others to do the same.That to me shows  very weak character. I'm sure not perfect either, but I don't do that to people. Nor do I suggest that they must have something to hide if they aren't open to a fault.That is just SO rude!
If someone needs help or their house is on fire, I'm not going to quiz them to find out their politics, what church they go to or don't or other personal information before they get what help I can provide. My mnister would sure be disappointed in me if I was like that. Good grief.

[Patriot]

That must be some sort of radical conservative Kansas oddity.

Excerpts from Interview of David Horowitz:

David Horowitz: ....Progressive agendas cannot be opposed, therefore, on grounds that are principled or practical or compassionate. Opponents of "progressives" are defined as "reactionaries" -- advocates of racism and sexism, practitioners of "McCarthyism," and other incarnations of social evil."

Thanks for making both our case and that of Mr. Horowitz.

[jarhead]

What's a mnister

[Diane Amberg]

  He's very unselfish and open minded.There is no "I" in him. 

[Diane Amberg]

Pat, you aren't in court .You have no "case", just differences of opinion.

[Patriot]

Pat, you aren't in court .You have no "case", just differences of opinion.

Your definition of 'court' in this situation might be too narrow.