Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

It seems I revealed a truth here. Your reaction (including your neg rep) shows that I am RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

You right wingers are the modern day Pharisee who put mammon before human, fish and foul. You are the lowest life form on earth.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

You definitely got the "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars" part right. The problem lies with giving to Caesar what is clearly not Caesar's. There are things that Caesar needs to learn to keep his hands off of. There are things Even Caesar has no authority over. AAs shocking as this may appear to you, it is very true. Remember that the First Message of the Gospel is Salvation, Not the blind conformity to the will of the State. Charity also, was practiced both before Empires existed, and outside of their knowledge and Jurisdiction. Why? Because Charity is in Our Nature, Each with his own measure, some 10 fold, some 30 fold, some 100 fold.

 

[Intense]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

 

[regent]

There are some difficulties with defining liberalism and conservatism because of the different types of each, there are perhaps 15 named types of liberalism, each with a little different definition. There is the means to achieve liberalism that is often used to define liberalism. For example small government-big government is often used and that is not a definition, but a means to achieve. Another problem is using individual's beliefs or quotes for the definition, my brother is a liberal and he believes so and so, or Jefferson said. Still another difficulty is people defining liberalism or conservatism to make the the ideology they dislike look bad. A board favorite. Then too, beliefs often clash, for example, the freedom of speech versus the freedom of religion. Finally, most of us, (not Limbaugh etc), are not totally liberal or totally conservative, but somewhat dependent on the issue.
But as I maintain there are core beliefs, perhaps liberal core beliefs are best expressed by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. But why did Jefferson change Mr. Liberal, John Locke's property quote?

 

[Intense]

There are some difficulties with defining liberalism and conservatism because of the different types of each, there are perhaps 15 named types of liberalism, each with a little different definition. There is the means to achieve liberalism that is often used to define liberalism. For example small government-big government is often used and that is not a definition, but a means to achieve. Another problem is using individual's beliefs or quotes for the definition, my brother is a liberal and he believes so and so, or Jefferson said. Still another difficulty is people defining liberalism or conservatism to make the the ideology they dislike look bad. A board favorite. Then too, beliefs often clash, for example, the freedom of speech versus the freedom of religion. Finally, most of us, (not Limbaugh etc), are not totally liberal or totally conservative, but somewhat dependent on the issue.
But as I maintain there are core beliefs, perhaps liberal core beliefs are best expressed by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. But why did Jefferson change Mr. Liberal, John Locke's property quote?

Simplify. Easier to stick to the core. We establish Governments, in part, to Establish and Maintain Justice. What is Justice may vary, by our individual Perspective, that is true, and that is the core of where the arguments lie. Many of our Greatest Teachers were rooted in Locke, who was Rooted in Scripture, which is a common foundation, Paralleled by teachings even outside of it, like in Buddhism and Hinduism. There are properties and measures in Human Nature that Transcend even Cultural and Religious Boundaries in relation to Right and Wrong.

I really admire this perspective from Thoreau.

[14] I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better a patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

[15] However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

[16] I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects, content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87.(6) "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was a part of the original compact — let it stand."(7) Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect — what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in America to-day with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man — from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will."

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

Looking beyond the argument against Slavery, we are looking at the Concept of a more perfect Union, not through abandoning the respect of Individual Liberty, and Right, but championing it. The State seems too concerned with, Brands, Labels, Control, receiving Credit, by default standing in the way, obstructing. Invention, Discovery, Vision, start with the Individual. Someone must first conceive, before it is developed and shared. Beating us into conformity, does not serve Justice, it never did. Government is so big on imitating Divine Power and will, yet, maybe even by design, misses the point right out of the gate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism is based on some core beliefs, the beliefs are constant. The things that change, however, are the means to achieve those beliefs. Jefferson, for example, was against big government based on his concept and experiences with the governments of history. With the entrance of liberals into the ruling class, liberals began slowly changing their concept of evil-governments. In fact, governments, liberals discovered, could help liberals achieve their core beliefs of liberalism.
Another problem is the choices to be made, for example is it better for a people to be free of the fear of sickness or the fear of government dictating a course of action.

One can only corrupt principle so much, before losing one's bearings. Human Nature has not changed, it may go through cycles, based on the lies we feed each other. There is nothing new under the Sun. Oppression leads to more oppression, regardless of the label. Each has the Right to See through our own eyes.Liberalism as you paint it, is not immune to corruption.

It is also important to know that language evolves over time and while words have meaning, they can have different meaning from era to era.

Principle cannot be corrupted at all without becoming something different that it is.

The principle of liberty and self-governance was a specific concept that could be very clearly defined by the Founders. To attempt to read the language and definition of the modern day liberal into that so corrupts their principle that it is no longer identifiable.

 

[Intense]

Liberalism is based on some core beliefs, the beliefs are constant. The things that change, however, are the means to achieve those beliefs. Jefferson, for example, was against big government based on his concept and experiences with the governments of history. With the entrance of liberals into the ruling class, liberals began slowly changing their concept of evil-governments. In fact, governments, liberals discovered, could help liberals achieve their core beliefs of liberalism.
Another problem is the choices to be made, for example is it better for a people to be free of the fear of sickness or the fear of government dictating a course of action.

One can only corrupt principle so much, before losing one's bearings. Human Nature has not changed, it may go through cycles, based on the lies we feed each other. There is nothing new under the Sun. Oppression leads to more oppression, regardless of the label. Each has the Right to See through our own eyes.Liberalism as you paint it, is not immune to corruption.

It is also important to know that language evolves over time and while words have meaning, they can have different meaning from era to era.

Principle cannot be corrupted at all without becoming something different that it is.

The principle of liberty and self-governance was a specific concept that could be very clearly defined by the Founders. To attempt to read the language and definition of the modern day liberal into that so corrupts their principle that it is no longer identifiable.

Yep. Straying from Principle is the focus, Agreed. We have so much more than that here, too. To stray, to separate, to attack, to deny, like it never existed, like it was never the norm.

 

[Oddball]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

No, he's intelligent enough to look at the facts and twist the words of people who in fact disagree with his totalitarian proclivities.

He is an evil fucking liar.

 

[Intense]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

No, he's intelligent enough to look at the facts and twist the words of people who in fact disagree with his totalitarian proclivities.

He is an evil fucking liar.

Which breed though? State Employee? Fed Employee? Why are they bred to hate us so?

 

[Oddball]

It runs in the blood of all paternalistic blood-sucking tyrants, since the dawn of man.

This aspect of human nature was discussed this at length in The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.

 

[Intense]

It runs in the blood of all paternalistic blood-sucking tyrants, since the dawn of man.

This aspect of human nature was discussed this at length in The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.

Nice Link.

The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

 

[Bfgrn]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

Hey Einstein, your instincts are way off. What you are trying to paint me as only reflects YOUR paranoia and lack of perspective.

I have never worked for the government. I have been very successful selling construction equipment (bulldozers, excavators, wheel loaders etc.) in the private sector. As a matter of fact, my best income years occurred when I worked 100% commission.

You right wing regressives don't know shit about business, the private sector or success. Your only solution is to CUT, CUT, and more CUTS and never, ever invest.

I don't know a liberal who is not aware of the dangers of too much government. And I don't know a right wing regressive who is even slightly aware of the dangers of too much corporate power and malfeasance.

The latter is the biggest danger we face today. Read up on the recent financial disaster. It was caused BY the private sector. Read up on our failing corporate health care. It is being run by Wall Street investors who have created REAL death panels where profits come before patients.

Educate yourself on Medicare. We, the People who are the beneficiaries of that program are not the ones milking the taxpayers, it is doctors, hospitals and the private sector who are guilty of defrauding the government.

Educate yourself on add on programs to Medicare like Medicare Part D. It hooks corporate milking machines to the taxpayer's tit.

Educate yourself on the military industrial complex. The BIGGEST cases of defrauding the government are private sector corporations who steal billions of dollars every year from We, the People.

You really need to educate yourself and find out the TRUTH. Dogma and paranoia just don't cut it with me. It makes you right wing regressives look so stupid.


"And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[tjvh]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

Hey Einstein, your instincts are way off. What you are trying to paint me as only reflects YOUR paranoia and lack of perspective.

I have never worked for the government. I have been very successful selling construction equipment (bulldozers, excavators, wheel loaders etc.) in the private sector. As a matter of fact, my best income years occurred when I worked 100% commission.

You right wing regressives don't know shit about business, the private sector or success. Your only solution is to CUT, CUT, and more CUTS and never, ever invest.

I don't know a liberal who is not aware of the dangers of too much government. And I don't know a right wing regressive who is even slightly aware of the dangers of too much corporate power and malfeasance.

The latter is the biggest danger we face today. Read up on the recent financial disaster. It was caused BY the private sector. Read up on our failing corporate health care. It is being run by Wall Street investors who have created REAL death panels where profits come before patients.

Educate yourself on Medicare. We, the People who are the beneficiaries of that program are not the ones milking the taxpayers, it is doctors, hospitals and the private sector who are guilty of defrauding the government.

Educate yourself on add on programs to Medicare like Medicare Part D. It hooks corporate milking machines to the taxpayer's tit.

Educate yourself on the military industrial complex. The BIGGEST cases of defrauding the government are private sector corporations who steal billions of dollars every year from We, the People.

You really need to educate yourself and find out the TRUTH. Dogma and paranoia just don't cut it with me. It makes you right wing regressives look so stupid.

Wow... I don't even know where to begin. I will try from the top. Key word -"when" you worked for commission "were" the best years financially, implying you are possibly sucking from the government now perhaps? Invest in what? More failed enviro-friendly nonsensical energy projects sucking Billions from the Taxpayers? The entire Liberal ideology is centered around big Government handout programs, whether that translates to a block of cheese, a free phone, or a Taxpayer subsidized Art Museum. The real danger is Government assuming a role of the grand overseer of PRIVATE businesses. All Government manipulation of private sector Businesses does is hinder prosperity. As much as the Liberal mindset fails to grasp the FACT that the one thing they despise the most is the very same thing which built this nation to it's greatness... Capitalism. The financial crises was by no means limited to the private sector, Fannie and Freddie were major players in the allowance of home ownership to people who simply did not have the financial means to follow through, among many other reasons. As far as Medicare being a godsend... Educate yourself on the near daily fraud the program promotes, which continuously bilks the Taxpayer. We are to believe the same Government which regulates Medicare is remotely capable of overseeing something on the scale of Obamacare with better results? That's laughable!!! Sure our healthcare has it's problems, but it's no accident Canadian's routinely seek medical care in the U.S. over waiting forever for a doctor to address their "immediate" health needs in their own Country with "free" health care already in place. I assure you Canadians pay dearly for the health system they are enslaved to. And now to the Military. Sure there is abuse by contractors in providing for our Military, just as there is abuse in nearly EVERY facet of our nation where money is changing hands. One thing is for sure, the people we entrust to take ideas from the drawing board to systems for our Soldiers in the field have done the best in the world at keeping those who serve safe, and our enemies at bay. You say over, and over "educate yourself" while you dump on people who do not eagerly embrace your progressive way of thinking. To that I say, take your own advice and start "thinking for yourself"... The "education" will find it's own way ... Eventually. You don't learn a damn thing sipping the Kool-Aid.

 

[Intense]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

Hey Einstein, your instincts are way off. What you are trying to paint me as only reflects YOUR paranoia and lack of perspective.

I have never worked for the government. I have been very successful selling construction equipment (bulldozers, excavators, wheel loaders etc.) in the private sector. As a matter of fact, my best income years occurred when I worked 100% commission.

You right wing regressives don't know shit about business, the private sector or success. Your only solution is to CUT, CUT, and more CUTS and never, ever invest.

I don't know a liberal who is not aware of the dangers of too much government. And I don't know a right wing regressive who is even slightly aware of the dangers of too much corporate power and malfeasance.

The latter is the biggest danger we face today. Read up on the recent financial disaster. It was caused BY the private sector. Read up on our failing corporate health care. It is being run by Wall Street investors who have created REAL death panels where profits come before patients.

Educate yourself on Medicare. We, the People who are the beneficiaries of that program are not the ones milking the taxpayers, it is doctors, hospitals and the private sector who are guilty of defrauding the government.

Educate yourself on add on programs to Medicare like Medicare Part D. It hooks corporate milking machines to the taxpayer's tit.

Educate yourself on the military industrial complex. The BIGGEST cases of defrauding the government are private sector corporations who steal billions of dollars every year from We, the People.

You really need to educate yourself and find out the TRUTH. Dogma and paranoia just don't cut it with me. It makes you right wing regressives look so stupid.


"And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

You may want to choose between death by hanging, and death by firing squad, but I'm not limited to those options. Try focusing on what serves Justice, rather than who gets the reins. There are many enemies to living a Just Life, on Your Own terms. Bad Government and Bad Business are just a small part of it. Both Squash Individual Choice and Liberty. Why support either? Support what you believe in and I will support what I believe in. When you are offended by what I believe in, because you have no control over it, that speaks volumes about you Comrade. Oppression is oppression, under any label. Totalitarianism does take many forms, yet they all lead to the same end. Without the Government propping it up, bad business falls on it's own lack of merit. You support Bad Government supporting Bad Business, secretly, and that's okay with you, when your Party is in charge anyway. It's not okay with me when Anyone does it. To be distinct, that is one of the big differences between us. Who do you think is invested in these companies, Ass Hat?

 

[freedombecki]

It runs in the blood of all paternalistic blood-sucking tyrants, since the dawn of man.

This aspect of human nature was discussed this at length in The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.

Nice Link.

The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Well stated. We're going to fix it with a Congress of Conservatives and a President who will have the support of conservative people to take back the wrongful things of the past--like trying to make a charity project out of a government that really and in truly should be serving the Republic with a more basic approach.

Traditional charities and churches should do traditional charitable work, and traditional business of the government should be to create such a great climate for business that the American people will all prosper with top-notch employment opportunities and the best employment rate ever seen. I'm so excited about the campaign in November bringing America back to her senses.

I know we can do it.

 

[Contumacious]

Well stated. We're going to fix it with a Congress of Conservatives and a President who will have the support of conservative people to take back the wrongful things of the past--)

Yo Vern, the welfare/warfare party has been running things since their 1935 take-over? So what the fucketh are you people "conserving"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

It all comes down to whether you trust government to assign the rights the people will have, whether you think the government owns the wealth and should assign how that is allocated among the people, and whether you trust the government to look after your interests better than you would do that for yourself. If that is your point of view, then you are a modern American Progressive.

If you look at the role of government as being the guardian of the rights of the people and otherwise trust a free people will weed out the bad and establish the good in whatever social contract naturally develops just by people living their lives, then you are a modern American Classical Liberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

Hey Einstein, your instincts are way off. What you are trying to paint me as only reflects YOUR paranoia and lack of perspective.

I have never worked for the government. I have been very successful selling construction equipment (bulldozers, excavators, wheel loaders etc.) in the private sector. As a matter of fact, my best income years occurred when I worked 100% commission.

You right wing regressives don't know shit about business, the private sector or success. Your only solution is to CUT, CUT, and more CUTS and never, ever invest.

I don't know a liberal who is not aware of the dangers of too much government. And I don't know a right wing regressive who is even slightly aware of the dangers of too much corporate power and malfeasance.

The latter is the biggest danger we face today. Read up on the recent financial disaster. It was caused BY the private sector. Read up on our failing corporate health care. It is being run by Wall Street investors who have created REAL death panels where profits come before patients.

Educate yourself on Medicare. We, the People who are the beneficiaries of that program are not the ones milking the taxpayers, it is doctors, hospitals and the private sector who are guilty of defrauding the government.

Educate yourself on add on programs to Medicare like Medicare Part D. It hooks corporate milking machines to the taxpayer's tit.

Educate yourself on the military industrial complex. The BIGGEST cases of defrauding the government are private sector corporations who steal billions of dollars every year from We, the People.

You really need to educate yourself and find out the TRUTH. Dogma and paranoia just don't cut it with me. It makes you right wing regressives look so stupid.

Wow... I don't even know where to begin. I will try from the top. Key word -"when" you worked for commission "were" the best years financially, implying you are possibly sucking from the government now perhaps? Invest in what? More failed enviro-friendly nonsensical energy projects sucking Billions from the Taxpayers? The entire Liberal ideology is centered around big Government handout programs, whether that translates to a block of cheese, a free phone, or a Taxpayer subsidized Art Museum. The real danger is Government assuming a role of the grand overseer of PRIVATE businesses. All Government manipulation of private sector Businesses does is hinder prosperity. As much as the Liberal mindset fails to grasp the FACT that the one thing they despise the most is the very same thing which built this nation to it's greatness... Capitalism. The financial crises was by no means limited to the private sector, Fannie and Freddie were major players in the allowance of home ownership to people who simply did not have the financial means to follow through, among many other reasons. As far as Medicare being a godsend... Educate yourself on the near daily fraud the program promotes, which continuously bilks the Taxpayer. We are to believe the same Government which regulates Medicare is remotely capable of overseeing something on the scale of Obamacare with better results? That's laughable!!! Sure our healthcare has it's problems, but it's no accident Canadian's routinely seek medical care in the U.S. over waiting forever for a doctor to address their "immediate" health needs in their own Country with "free" health care already in place. I assure you Canadians pay dearly for the health system they are enslaved to. And now to the Military. Sure there is abuse by contractors in providing for our Military, just as there is abuse in nearly EVERY facet of our nation where money is changing hands. One thing is for sure, the people we entrust to take ideas from the drawing board to systems for our Soldiers in the field have done the best in the world at keeping those who serve safe, and our enemies at bay. You say over, and over "educate yourself" while you dump on people who do not eagerly embrace your progressive way of thinking. To that I say, take your own advice and start "thinking for yourself"... The "education" will find it's own way ... Eventually. You don't learn a damn thing sipping the Kool-Aid.

The only one sipping any 'Kool-Aid' is you. In one post you just parroted a litany of propaganda, lies and bullshit.

Turn off Faux News and grow an adult size brain.

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe just indoctrinated. That and being a Government Employee. What concerns me is the disdain for Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that fail to Worship Government, that fail to show blind allegiance to it. Sometimes I wish that Every Government Worker be required to have worked a minimum of 2 years in the private sector, before, eligibility in being hired by the Government. This hatred of the Golden Goose is troubling. There should be Syndrome name to depict it. I think we need another Government Study.

Hey Einstein, your instincts are way off. What you are trying to paint me as only reflects YOUR paranoia and lack of perspective.

I have never worked for the government. I have been very successful selling construction equipment (bulldozers, excavators, wheel loaders etc.) in the private sector. As a matter of fact, my best income years occurred when I worked 100% commission.

You right wing regressives don't know shit about business, the private sector or success. Your only solution is to CUT, CUT, and more CUTS and never, ever invest.

I don't know a liberal who is not aware of the dangers of too much government. And I don't know a right wing regressive who is even slightly aware of the dangers of too much corporate power and malfeasance.

The latter is the biggest danger we face today. Read up on the recent financial disaster. It was caused BY the private sector. Read up on our failing corporate health care. It is being run by Wall Street investors who have created REAL death panels where profits come before patients.

Educate yourself on Medicare. We, the People who are the beneficiaries of that program are not the ones milking the taxpayers, it is doctors, hospitals and the private sector who are guilty of defrauding the government.

Educate yourself on add on programs to Medicare like Medicare Part D. It hooks corporate milking machines to the taxpayer's tit.

Educate yourself on the military industrial complex. The BIGGEST cases of defrauding the government are private sector corporations who steal billions of dollars every year from We, the People.

You really need to educate yourself and find out the TRUTH. Dogma and paranoia just don't cut it with me. It makes you right wing regressives look so stupid.


"And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

You may want to choose between death by hanging, and death by firing squad, but I'm not limited to those options. Try focusing on what serves Justice, rather than who gets the reins. There are many enemies to living a Just Life, on Your Own terms. Bad Government and Bad Business are just a small part of it. Both Squash Individual Choice and Liberty. Why support either? Support what you believe in and I will support what I believe in. When you are offended by what I believe in, because you have no control over it, that speaks volumes about you Comrade. Oppression is oppression, under any label. Totalitarianism does take many forms, yet they all lead to the same end. Without the Government propping it up, bad business falls on it's own lack of merit. You support Bad Government supporting Bad Business, secretly, and that's okay with you, when your Party is in charge anyway. It's not okay with me when Anyone does it. To be distinct, that is one of the big differences between us. Who do you think is invested in these companies, Ass Hat?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

 

[Intense]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Still, Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Unique Perspective. Try not pissing all over those that are not in agreement with yours.

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

You are imagining and projecting. Check your premise. No wait, reason does have no place in your accusation or argument. Never mind.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

At least you admit to Government Corruption. So do I. The difference between us, is that I don't subscribe to giving the Government Total control over my life, as being the fix to Government corruption. Here is an idea, let's try Enumerated Powers, and Government by the consent of the Governed for a change, as opposed to people like you trying to impose your tainted views of up and down, on the rest of us. I get why you would be afraid of people making up their own minds, coming to their own conclusions, on matters of importance. There is no such thing as a Totalitarian Utopia on Earth. Get a grip, already.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Waste not, want not. So what virtue do you want to punish next? There is no control worthy without both defined purpose and limitation. Whatever you embrace with the fuel of other peoples money, without consent and due process, is theft. No matter how many co-conspirators you recruit. We are not arguing about justifiable, supported controls, based in reality, but those that breach the trust. You act like you can just decree with impunity, like you are above account. Both Nature and Man, see through the hypocrisy of your position.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

Maybe in your dreams. You need a reality check. Again, playing with other peoples lives and money. Maybe, just maybe, providence is something you need to pray on. It is for Government to establish and maintain a fair playing field, not to determine the outcome of the game, or introduce rules arbitrarily without foundation. Progressives need to reestablish the Defense of Justice for each Individual, and stop with the collateral damage in the name of expediency and what is convenient, for you. No Structure is of more value , worth, or importance, than it's purpose for being, in the first place.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Or Progressives, tampering with original intent, built a Welfare State Structure, putting it's own ranks, above the people, it claimed to serve, insuring that whatever befalls us, because of mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption, would be best insulated and the last to feel the bite. You had no Constitutional Authority or Consent to do that. Let me know when the realization sinks in.

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Still, Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Unique Perspective. Try not pissing all over those that are not in agreement with yours.


You are imagining and projecting. Check your premise. No wait, reason does have no place in your accusation or argument. Never mind.


At least you admit to Government Corruption. So do I. The difference between us, is that I don't subscribe to giving the Government Total control over my life, as being the fix to Government corruption. Here is an idea, let's try Enumerated Powers, and Government by the consent of the Governed for a change, as opposed to people like you trying to impose your tainted views of up and down, on the rest of us. I get why you would be afraid of people making up their own minds, coming to their own conclusions, on matters of importance. There is no such thing as a Totalitarian Utopia on Earth. Get a grip, already.



Waste not, want not. So what virtue do you want to punish next? There is no control worthy without both defined purpose and limitation. Whatever you embrace with the fuel of other peoples money, without consent and due process, is theft. No matter how many co-conspirators you recruit. We are not arguing about justifiable, supported controls, based in reality, but those that breach the trust. You act like you can just decree with impunity, like you are above account. Both Nature and Man, see through the hypocrisy of your position.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

Maybe in your dreams. You need a reality check. Again, playing with other peoples lives and money. Maybe, just maybe, providence is something you need to pray on. It is for Government to establish and maintain a fair playing field, not to determine the outcome of the game, or introduce rules arbitrarily without foundation. Progressives need to reestablish the Defense of Justice for each Individual, and stop with the collateral damage in the name of expediency and what is convenient, for you. No Structure is of more value , worth, or importance, than it's purpose for being, in the first place.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Or Progressives, tampering with original intent, built a Welfare State Structure, putting it's own ranks, above the people, it claimed to serve, insuring that whatever befalls us, because of mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption, would be best insulated and the last to feel the bite. You had no Constitutional Authority or Consent to do that. Let me know when the realization sinks in.

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

SO typical of the right wing mind. Thank you for proving that the right uses ZERO human capital in their solutions. It is survival of the richest, social Darwinism. And the right wing Monica Lewinsky's for the opulent just continue to parrot the agenda of their handlers.

So the ONLY entity we need to fear is government. And, if mean old government would just get out of the way, polluters would stop polluting, Wall Street would stop swindling and we can restore the proper order in this world; the beloved and virtuous elite and the lowly and lazy surfs.

THAT is what America WAS. IT was called the Gilded Era. The BI-partisan progressive movement confronted and changed America from an oligarchy to a democracy. We certainly can't have any of that shit in opulent America.

THIS is who and what you are... accept it, embrace it. Just don't expect someone like me who does not worship the opulent to get down on my knees.