America Before the Entitlement State

[Intense]

That is bull. It is pure propaganda. When Bush and the Republicans were in power there was not a PEEP from the right. They embraced and vehemently defended government. There was NOTHING about 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed' from the right when the Patriot Act was passed. There was NOTHING from the right when Arizona passed a draconian intrusion of 'Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed'

We see how tightly the right embraces despot governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, Rick Snyder and Chris Christie.

You're full of shit. The ONLY less the right wants is less Democrats.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Conservatism was born long before the Year 2000. You are either disingenuous or a Moron. We were attacked, and found very vulnerable. We as a Country, responded. In times of threat, just like the Civil War, WWI, WWII, we act in Self Interest to secure and Protect, our own. Where there is legitimate cause and concern, we are justified in our own Defense, at least for as long as there is real threat.

There is Always concern for Unalienable Rights, Liberty, Rule Of Law, in a Free Society, Only a Total Idiot would presume otherwise.

We as a Nation , Arizona, as a State are in Crisis, because of the Inaction of the Federal Government, It's obstruction, and it's failure to act in our Interest, in relation to Immigration, and Border Control. Your attack on Arizona, for acting in Self Preservation, in it's own Self Interest, where the Federal Government has not only failed miserably, but obstructed Justice, is a mockery of the concept of the Establishment of and administration of Justice.

Only a Political Hack, would defend an injustice that goes on for Decades, and fight against all effective steps to bring resolution. Go on defending corruption and incompetence, protecting the way thing are. The Bullshit, is related to our failure to rectify wrongs, making one excuse after another, as to why the Fed will not act, and why the States are prohibited from acting. Thanks again for supporting that.

You are chanting again. WTF has happened to you?

AMAZING! You are defending a neo-nazi authoritarian who authored the draconian profiling, OVER-invasive and HEAVY-handed government law!

BTW...We, the People RECALLED Russell Pearce. You right wing turds LOVE authoritarians...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

You are projecting again, Idiot.

I'm not a Statist Progressive like You or the Nazi Party. You are lost in the Mall again, huh. How about you find one of those nice men in the uniforms with the shiny badges, tell them that you are lost again, and that you need to use the potty, before you have another accident like last time on the escalator.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4XgKGUGKJo]Democrats on an Escalator - YouTube[/ame]
Democrats on an Escalator

 

[Uncensored2008]

Be kind to your slaves.

If Republicans actually studied history instead of rewriting it, they might have a different perspective.

Dude, your fellow leftist is arguing that Marxism is conservative.

You don't have a lot of credibility here.

I'm just sayin...

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, MAO WAS a progressive. And his tomb is a major attraction in Beijing. I have been and I have seen. He is seen as a hero to many because he brought China out of feudalism. Of course, that was AFTER WE refused to help them and they had nowhere to turn but to the Soviets. If WE had been the mother of modern China, we wouldn't be fighting anyone on that side of the globe today!

As bad as I hate to say it Communism was a step forward for China. Communism will eventually fall there because they have a work ethic and they have learned to love money as much as or more than we do.

Communism was never "a step forward" for anyone. Communism in China destroyed much of a great culture, resulted in the senseless deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and brought tyranny and Orwelian oppression to many millions more. Communism wipes out a work ethic. Opportunity revives it.

Oh, and the USSR was not the "mother of modern China." The CCP and the USSR hated each other. China and Russia are still no great friends to this day.

You have never been to China. Those of us who have been and seen know far more than those of you who have only read books about it.

I can see you are still so embarrassed by this stupid assumption of yours that you are not accepting replies to your whiny little PMs. I don't blame you for feeling humiliated.

 

[Bfgrn]

Be kind to your slaves.

If Republicans actually studied history instead of rewriting it, they might have a different perspective.

Dude, your fellow leftist is arguing that Marxism is conservative.

You don't have a lot of credibility here.

I'm just sayin...

No, I am saying that conservatives can take any political philosophy and turn it into some form of an aristocracy...in Russia it was communism.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." Those socialist policies were never implemented.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Yes, modern American conservatism is synonymous with Classical liberalism and, boiled down to its simplest components, is exactly what you say. It supposes a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to live their lives as they choose. The socialist/Marxist/statists among us don't like that definition, however, and refuse to accept it.

But then most of them who refuse to accept it are clueless re what freedom actually is and/or how real prosperity, opportunity, personal responsibility, and accountability is the recipe for freedom and/or how the government THEY worship is anathema to almost all of that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, it is.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Yes, modern American conservatism is synonymous with Classical liberalism and, boiled down to its simplest components, is exactly what you say. It supposes a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to live their lives as they choose. The socialist/Marxist/statists among us don't like that definition, however, and refuse to accept it.

But then most of them who refuse to accept it are clueless re what freedom actually is and/or how real prosperity, opportunity, personal responsibility, and accountability is the recipe for freedom and/or how the government THEY worship is anathema to almost all of that.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Yea, freedom to build an aristocracy, where the big steamroll the little guy. I would be able to find an ounce of respect for today's conservatives, it they weren't so totally blind to the powers besides government that we must guard against. Maybe if today's conservatives and 'tea partiers' actually understood what the original tea party was about, it might help. It was as much a rebellion against the biggest transnational corporation in the world. The colonists rejected the interests of the 'individual' over the community. The colonists rejected cheaper tea to protect of the local merchants.

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:

"Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Yes, modern American conservatism is synonymous with Classical liberalism and, boiled down to its simplest components, is exactly what you say. It supposes a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to live their lives as they choose. The socialist/Marxist/statists among us don't like that definition, however, and refuse to accept it.

But then most of them who refuse to accept it are clueless re what freedom actually is and/or how real prosperity, opportunity, personal responsibility, and accountability is the recipe for freedom and/or how the government THEY worship is anathema to almost all of that.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you’re going to quote somebody, at least have the decency to not pull one phrase out of the whole context and hold it up as something that it was not.

Do you even know what work the phrase came from? I have previously argued with Buchanan's concept that Classical Liberalism assumes the natural equality of humankind. It doesn’t. It does assume the concept of equal opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities one is privileged to have and to utilize those to achieve what one has ability to achieve. It does not assume equal ability or that everybody will start from the same advantage point. What would be the point in sacrificing to give my children every possible advantage if they would not have a leg up on those whose parents were not willing to do that?

At any rate the whole series of points Buchanan made in his writing were these:

1. Classical liberals are open to consensual change; conservatives more
generally support the stability of the social order.

2. Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives
assume a natural hierarchy.

3. Classical liberals assume that individual responsibility is a necessary
corollary of individual freedom; conservatives are more inclined to
paternalism.

4. For classical liberals, value is subjective; conservatives are more
likely to assume that there is an objective order of values.

I personally think it would be fascinating to debate each point, however. They do make one think. I agree with his definitions for Classical Liberals in #1 and #3. I philosophically disagree with his definitions in #2 and #4 and it is pretty unusual for me to disagree with a Fellow at the Cato Institute. In each case, however, he is using the term 'conservative' in a way mostly consistent with modern American social liberalism.

 

[Intense]

Conservatism is Rooted in Individual Liberty, Unalienable Rights, Government by the consent of the Governed, and living within your means.

Yes, modern American conservatism is synonymous with Classical liberalism and, boiled down to its simplest components, is exactly what you say. It supposes a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to live their lives as they choose. The socialist/Marxist/statists among us don't like that definition, however, and refuse to accept it.

But then most of them who refuse to accept it are clueless re what freedom actually is and/or how real prosperity, opportunity, personal responsibility, and accountability is the recipe for freedom and/or how the government THEY worship is anathema to almost all of that.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Yea, freedom to build an aristocracy, where the big steamroll the little guy. I would be able to find an ounce of respect for today's conservatives, it they weren't so totally blind to the powers besides government that we must guard against. Maybe if today's conservatives and 'tea partiers' actually understood what the original tea party was about, it might help. It was as much a rebellion against the biggest transnational corporation in the world. The colonists rejected the interests of the 'individual' over the community. The colonists rejected cheaper tea to protect of the local merchants.

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:

"Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."

You are not speaking for me. Principle first. The end does not justify the means. You cross the line in your dealings with one person or many persons, the fact remains that you crossed the line. Bottom line, Progressiveness Split. Those that remain Classic Liberals , defending Individual Liberty, get a Pass. The Rest, totalitarian Fucks that they are, will be held to account, for every injustice, along with every other Brand of Totalitarian Puke. You have a nice day now.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, modern American conservatism is synonymous with Classical liberalism and, boiled down to its simplest components, is exactly what you say. It supposes a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to live their lives as they choose. The socialist/Marxist/statists among us don't like that definition, however, and refuse to accept it.

But then most of them who refuse to accept it are clueless re what freedom actually is and/or how real prosperity, opportunity, personal responsibility, and accountability is the recipe for freedom and/or how the government THEY worship is anathema to almost all of that.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you’re going to quote somebody, at least have the decency to not pull one phrase out of the whole context and hold it up as something that it was not.

Do you even know what work the phrase came from? I have previously argued with Buchanan's concept that Classical Liberalism assumes the natural equality of humankind. It doesn’t. It does assume the concept of equal opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities one is privileged to have and to utilize those to achieve what one has ability to achieve. It does not assume equal ability or that everybody will start from the same advantage point. What would be the point in sacrificing to give my children every possible advantage if they would not have a leg up on those whose parents were not willing to do that?

At any rate the whole series of points Buchanan made in his writing were these:

1. Classical liberals are open to consensual change; conservatives more
generally support the stability of the social order.

2. Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives
assume a natural hierarchy.

3. Classical liberals assume that individual responsibility is a necessary
corollary of individual freedom; conservatives are more inclined to
paternalism.

4. For classical liberals, value is subjective; conservatives are more
likely to assume that there is an objective order of values.

I personally think it would be fascinating to debate each point, however. They do make one think. I agree with his definitions for Classical Liberals in #1 and #3. I philosophically disagree with his definitions in #2 and #4 and it is pretty unusual for me to disagree with a Fellow at the Cato Institute. In each case, however, he is using the term 'conservative' in a way mostly consistent with modern American social liberalism.

The quote is not 'out of context', it is a stand alone concept by YOUR context.

The fact that you don't agree with it is revealing. I see it and hear it every day on this board. It is absolutely FACT. There is nothing liberal about today's conservatives.

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

 

[Intense]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you’re going to quote somebody, at least have the decency to not pull one phrase out of the whole context and hold it up as something that it was not.

Do you even know what work the phrase came from? I have previously argued with Buchanan's concept that Classical Liberalism assumes the natural equality of humankind. It doesn’t. It does assume the concept of equal opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities one is privileged to have and to utilize those to achieve what one has ability to achieve. It does not assume equal ability or that everybody will start from the same advantage point. What would be the point in sacrificing to give my children every possible advantage if they would not have a leg up on those whose parents were not willing to do that?

At any rate the whole series of points Buchanan made in his writing were these:

1. Classical liberals are open to consensual change; conservatives more
generally support the stability of the social order.

2. Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives
assume a natural hierarchy.

3. Classical liberals assume that individual responsibility is a necessary
corollary of individual freedom; conservatives are more inclined to
paternalism.

4. For classical liberals, value is subjective; conservatives are more
likely to assume that there is an objective order of values.

I personally think it would be fascinating to debate each point, however. They do make one think. I agree with his definitions for Classical Liberals in #1 and #3. I philosophically disagree with his definitions in #2 and #4 and it is pretty unusual for me to disagree with a Fellow at the Cato Institute. In each case, however, he is using the term 'conservative' in a way mostly consistent with modern American social liberalism.

The quote is not 'out of context', it is a stand alone concept by YOUR context.

The fact that you don't agree with it is revealing. I see it and hear it every day on this board. It is absolutely FACT. There is nothing liberal about today's conservatives.

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

Your Premise is false. From there, it's just a matter of remembering to flush when you are done. Remember to wash your hands.

 

[Foxfyre]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you’re going to quote somebody, at least have the decency to not pull one phrase out of the whole context and hold it up as something that it was not.

Do you even know what work the phrase came from? I have previously argued with Buchanan's concept that Classical Liberalism assumes the natural equality of humankind. It doesn’t. It does assume the concept of equal opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities one is privileged to have and to utilize those to achieve what one has ability to achieve. It does not assume equal ability or that everybody will start from the same advantage point. What would be the point in sacrificing to give my children every possible advantage if they would not have a leg up on those whose parents were not willing to do that?

At any rate the whole series of points Buchanan made in his writing were these:

1. Classical liberals are open to consensual change; conservatives more
generally support the stability of the social order.

2. Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives
assume a natural hierarchy.

3. Classical liberals assume that individual responsibility is a necessary
corollary of individual freedom; conservatives are more inclined to
paternalism.

4. For classical liberals, value is subjective; conservatives are more
likely to assume that there is an objective order of values.

I personally think it would be fascinating to debate each point, however. They do make one think. I agree with his definitions for Classical Liberals in #1 and #3. I philosophically disagree with his definitions in #2 and #4 and it is pretty unusual for me to disagree with a Fellow at the Cato Institute. In each case, however, he is using the term 'conservative' in a way mostly consistent with modern American social liberalism.

The quote is not 'out of context', it is a stand alone concept by YOUR context.

The fact that you don't agree with it is revealing. I see it and hear it every day on this board. It is absolutely FACT. There is nothing liberal about today's conservatives.

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

Classical liberalism allows people to be who and what they are. Your brand of liberalism requires everybody to be what you think they should be. That is the difference between real liberty and the artificial government-forced and orchestrated 'freedom' that you seem to endorse.

The quote was out of context because had you put it into its full context, you could not have embraced many of the concepts that Buchanan puts out there. If you are going to hold one of the four principles out as illustration, it is only honorable to allow all four of them to be considered. You see I have read Buchanan's book. I am pretty damn sure you haven't or you wouldn't have quoted him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

Correct.

Indeed, social conservatism is Social Darwinism – in their advocacy of eliminating social programs, entitlement programs such as Medicare, as well as the war on public education, and the public sector in general:

Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he’d recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul’s response: “That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.” The Republican crowd cheered.

In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the twentieth century did America reject Social Darwinism. We created the large middle class that became the core of our economy and democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods – public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health – that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival.

Robert Reich (The Rebirth of Social Darwinism)

“Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century.”

And conservatives continue to use it for the same justification now in the 21st Century.

 

[Intense]

If you’re going to quote somebody, at least have the decency to not pull one phrase out of the whole context and hold it up as something that it was not.

Do you even know what work the phrase came from? I have previously argued with Buchanan's concept that Classical Liberalism assumes the natural equality of humankind. It doesn’t. It does assume the concept of equal opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities one is privileged to have and to utilize those to achieve what one has ability to achieve. It does not assume equal ability or that everybody will start from the same advantage point. What would be the point in sacrificing to give my children every possible advantage if they would not have a leg up on those whose parents were not willing to do that?

At any rate the whole series of points Buchanan made in his writing were these:

1. Classical liberals are open to consensual change; conservatives more
generally support the stability of the social order.

2. Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives
assume a natural hierarchy.

3. Classical liberals assume that individual responsibility is a necessary
corollary of individual freedom; conservatives are more inclined to
paternalism.

4. For classical liberals, value is subjective; conservatives are more
likely to assume that there is an objective order of values.

I personally think it would be fascinating to debate each point, however. They do make one think. I agree with his definitions for Classical Liberals in #1 and #3. I philosophically disagree with his definitions in #2 and #4 and it is pretty unusual for me to disagree with a Fellow at the Cato Institute. In each case, however, he is using the term 'conservative' in a way mostly consistent with modern American social liberalism.

The quote is not 'out of context', it is a stand alone concept by YOUR context.

The fact that you don't agree with it is revealing. I see it and hear it every day on this board. It is absolutely FACT. There is nothing liberal about today's conservatives.

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

Classical liberalism allows people to be who and what they are. Your brand of liberalism requires everybody to be what you think they should be. That is the difference between real liberty and the artificial government-forced and orchestrated 'freedom' that you seem to endorse.

The quote was out of context because had you put it into its full context, you could not have embraced many of the concepts that Buchanan puts out there. If you are going to hold one of the four principles out as illustration, it is only honorable to allow all four of them to be considered. You see I have read Buchanan's book. I am pretty damn sure you haven't or you wouldn't have quoted him.

I distinguish between Liberal, Progressive, and Statist Progressive.

 

[Foxfyre]

The quote is not 'out of context', it is a stand alone concept by YOUR context.

The fact that you don't agree with it is revealing. I see it and hear it every day on this board. It is absolutely FACT. There is nothing liberal about today's conservatives.

Today's conservatives are extreme social conservatives, bordering on social Darwinists.

Classical liberalism allows people to be who and what they are. Your brand of liberalism requires everybody to be what you think they should be. That is the difference between real liberty and the artificial government-forced and orchestrated 'freedom' that you seem to endorse.

The quote was out of context because had you put it into its full context, you could not have embraced many of the concepts that Buchanan puts out there. If you are going to hold one of the four principles out as illustration, it is only honorable to allow all four of them to be considered. You see I have read Buchanan's book. I am pretty damn sure you haven't or you wouldn't have quoted him.

I distinguish between Liberal, Progressive, and Statist Progressive.

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberalism allows people to be who and what they are. Your brand of liberalism requires everybody to be what you think they should be. That is the difference between real liberty and the artificial government-forced and orchestrated 'freedom' that you seem to endorse.

The quote was out of context because had you put it into its full context, you could not have embraced many of the concepts that Buchanan puts out there. If you are going to hold one of the four principles out as illustration, it is only honorable to allow all four of them to be considered. You see I have read Buchanan's book. I am pretty damn sure you haven't or you wouldn't have quoted him.

I distinguish between Liberal, Progressive, and Statist Progressive.

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

 

[Foxfyre]

I distinguish between Liberal, Progressive, and Statist Progressive.

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

Yes WE the people are who helps you when the government helps you. What you receive comes out of our pockets. It is that which you seem to not wish to acknowledge.

Otherwise, you remain clueless and seem to be unable to make any argument without using somebody else's words or insulting somebody. Would you say that you are typical of the American progressive/statist/liberal/leftist?

 

[Bfgrn]

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

Yes WE the people are who helps you when the government helps you. What you receive comes out of our pockets. It is that which you seem to not wish to acknowledge.

Otherwise, you remain clueless and seem to be unable to make any argument without using somebody else's words or insulting somebody. Would you say that you are typical of the American progressive/statist/liberal/leftist?

WOW...YOU are the government and I am NOT?

 

[Intense]

I distinguish between Liberal, Progressive, and Statist Progressive.

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

What are you going to do next? Hold your breath until you turn blue, because you can't get your way, control over our lives. Good one.

 

[Intense]

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

Yes WE the people are who helps you when the government helps you. What you receive comes out of our pockets. It is that which you seem to not wish to acknowledge.

Otherwise, you remain clueless and seem to be unable to make any argument without using somebody else's words or insulting somebody. Would you say that you are typical of the American progressive/statist/liberal/leftist?

Government Paychecks commonly have that effect on People.

 

[Bfgrn]

There are some variations within conservatism too, but ultimately anybody who looks to a strong central government for solutions to societal problems is most likely a modern American liberal by whatever name he or she calls himself/herself. And, on an altruisitic level, he or she supports government entitlements as humane, compassionate, moral. On a political level he or she can support government entitlements as a means of winning the favor and support of and thereby controlling the people. Thus the government becomes as authoritarian as the old European conservatism of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. The vision of a nation without an authoritarian government--no papal rule, no monarchy, no dictatorship, no totalitarian government--was the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution.

Classical liberals aka modern American conservatives want the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

What a pile of manure. You right wing regressives are NOT liberals. You don't have a liberal bone in your bodies. You can keep chanting it, but it will never be true. Not only are you dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, you are blind to the FACT, it is YOU folks who are the statists and authoritarians. You folks LOVE when government invades, bombs, kills, tortures, arrests, incarcerates and executes...you LOVE it and defend it!

It is ONLY when government helps We, the People WHO ARE THE GOVERNMENT, the you right wing turds cry foul.

There is NO mistake in Buchanan's quote...DEAL WITH IT!

What are you going to do next? Hold your breath until you turn blue, because you can't get your way, control over our lives. Good one.

Are you really THAT blind? Conservatives want control over a woman's uterus, the ability to test our bodily fluids and bust down our doors.