Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
.
Most normal, rational, humane people are individualists it is part of being human. Too bad the OP seems so eager to encourage that the term "Liberal" be resigned to the elitist re-definition.
3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, Why Were Liberals, p. 38.
We are only viewed that way if you submit to the re-definition of the word as offered by pinko's.
It really is up to you.
b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.
Anarchists are the opposite of communists!
Why would gold worshipppers like to lump completely opposing ideologies together as "leftist"?
The elitists fund the communist and socialist ideologies (knowing full and well how repugnant such things are to most people) then try to associate them with the truly humane ideologies of liberalism, because true liberalism is what pinko royalists absolutely hate...
Great way to play their useful idiots, the "conservatives" or even "populists" into whatever the rich wish. Too bad for the cowardly gold worshipper, there is a higher plan (or evolution) to which mankind is destined. It is inevitable that humanity will evolve to be ever more humane, it is only a matter of how much life we true liberals/AMERICANS will let the rich destroy.
It starts by refusing the the re-definition of words by the elitists. If we do it now, that is all that it will take to save countless lives from the hate of the pinko.
c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded,
So it really is up to you. Are you going to allow the gold worshipper to dictate to you the re-definition of "Liberal"?
If rich people command you to do so, should you give up the principles of America? The principles of Liberty? Liberalism?
Or are you comfortable to be redefined as a "conservative" a fluid, spineless, after-the-fact follower of whatever the royal pinko demands you to think?
It seems to me that the thinking of Liberals and Conservatives diverge when the topic turns to the attempts to rejuvenate society via public sector or private sector activity. This has been especially true in the United States in the area of primary and secondary school education. The following excerpt is from the book Saving Iraq (Rebuilding a Broken Nation) by Nemir Kirdar, but I believe that it touches upon issues that are also relevant to the United States, especially to the educational systems in our large urban centers.
"Government at all levels should be lean and efficient, just large enough to perform its functions and not used as a patronage system to reward those in power. Similarly, as soon as the appropriate financial infrastructure is in place, government-owned economic assets should be privatized. This shift of financial power from the public to the private sector would reduce the risk of corruption and reinforce democratic processes."
What I think that the author is driving at here is that private sector activities, which conservatives support over public sector efforts, are inherently less "corrupt" because staffing decisions are not dictated by a political spoils system, and because the private sector managers need to be more responsive to the needs and perspectives of the client (or customers) because of the pressures of free-market competition. This is one reason that conservatives are screaming (politically) to have their taxes lowered, so that choices for the services that they need will be made more by free market private sector competition in which the individual makes the choices, rather than by public sector spending, which is the method of delivering services that Democrats have traditionally preferred.
Thanks for the welcome!
To express my point of view further, in a visual manner, I have also created a satirical image titled
"Liberals can't see the truth until it bites them in the butt!" (humor)
11. So, while I most enjoy correcting and instructing you in history and policy, it saddens me to have to correct you in civility. Some of your statements suggest that I have been thrashing you thoroughly, and there is some anger welling up...now, you know the effect that has on your blood pressue, and I would so much miss these battle.
a."...another inaccurate thread pointing fingers at the other to avoid a honest.
11. So, while I most enjoy correcting and instructing you in history and policy, it saddens me to have to correct you in civility. Some of your statements suggest that I have been thrashing you thoroughly, and there is some anger welling up...now, you know the effect that has on your blood pressue, and I would so much miss these battle.
a."...another inaccurate thread pointing fingers at the other to avoid a honest.
'Fun?' I'd rather think is there anything at all that contradicts my erudite words. LOL Let me look.
1. You started with an assumption (If) which assumed something and then decided what it assumed didn't matter. And I said it wasn't cut and dried. For the sake of argument one can always assign meaning to 'ideals.' Once you do, no take backs.
a. I have to admit I've never read about a mid 19th century intellectual group, did one exist? Source? I do think there is often, maybe always, a conflict between city slickers and farm boys or yeoman as they called them then.
b. If something didn't exist in some definable form we'd have a hard time applying it. Wouldn't we?
2. That's way too big a stretch even for you. Rethink?
3. I think we can agree our founding wasn't entirely liberal as we understand it today, but it questioned and controlled power and formed a representative government that cast aside hierarchy which is fundamentally a conservative tenet. Including the south in the Union was a matter of pragmatism. Paul Starr calls it constitutional liberalism as it divides power.
c. agreed
d. I have read that ancient China did not have slavery as we know it, but I admit ignorance on the scope of slavery. From studies in anthropology small social groups did not have slaves as social dependency was key. That could explain China and China ability to remain communist in the modern world. Their relation to others is different than ours.
4. I think there is a big difference between saying it started with Hobhouse as a major influence when the ideas had been around a long time. Glenn Beck does that, he picks someone out and attributes to them all sorts of things without a consideration of the historical moment. Populism and progressivism grew out the very changes I noted and those changes were in progress since the Industrial Revolution, a major source of change neither of us mentioned.
What you saying here is the more modern pejorative interpretation of helping your fellow citizen, it is the yeoman's myth mentioned in "The Reform Years" I noted above. It was myth and remains myth. And the corporate or business yeoman is our contemporary myth. Why not just say it? Kingwood College Library - 19th Century - the 1890s
5. We are in agreement here.
a. It also had lots to do with diminishing farmland, ridiculous mortgages, and immigration just like today.
b. Relevant how? David P. Thelen must live in a small bubble, read about jim crow and the south and the many deaths and murders up till the sixties and you wonder how someone could be so naive as to even write that statement.
c. Politics.
6. We are all liberals, no one in America wants hierarchy and privilege. The labels are only sticks today.
a. That I simply don't see anywhere in America today. I do admit there can be stupid actions but our liberal constitutional system eventually works them out.
7.? Where did this come from? Oh I see the dictionary definitions. You missed the point there, I used the definitions to prove the ideas had been around a long time. I think most early Americans were racists, I think even today many people are racists, but today it is more hidden than before. Maybe you read my Parallel universe OP? http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html
"The progressive-liberals based their doctrines on racism, nativism, and eugenics." Sure they did, can you name anyone who based their doctrines(?) on these items? Please name doctrine, and please make sure they are clearly 'liberal thinkers.'
#8? FDR is pure myth among you righties, read the times, he deserves great credit in a bad situation. He was like gawd to Americans then, it is only the greed and self centered corporate powers that dislike him now and spread this nonsense. Can you name a conservative who has done as much? He is rated our greatest president for a reason.
Timeline of the Great Depression and [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1230302046&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780195326345): Eric Rauchway: Books[/ame]
So you think an individual can or should choose what is best for all? Did you misread or misquote?
I agree??? "a. Like Immanuel Kant before him, Rawls argued that the moral judgments of ordinary people are the proper departure point for political morality. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice." Point?
9. Judges judge cases, no cases no judgments, this is a key part of our political system. Perspectives are in the mind of the beholder.
10. When you find progressive concentration camps let me know. The tragedy of the Japanese internment during WWII was tantamount to the fear that lead to Vietnam tragedy and the Iraq tragedy. Fear has great power over people.
a. Irrelevant comment.
11. You did not correct a single item, you beat around the bush and hide your fear and dislike for an idea that is bad in your worldview. This confuses me as it is both a misreading of history and a conspiratorial view of events. It labels and ascribes rather than informs. You could have written a few words and have done with it.
I am never offended, I actually like a real challenge, but find very few. I hope you aren't offended, don't be. On a few points we would agree, or if not agree, come to the same place. Please source the questions I asked, but no need for point by point, too time consuming. The reason I grow frustrated is you repeat the same argument over and over again always saying the same things and adding bad things to make a case that ignores history in its real complexity.
"[Leonard Hobhouse's] work is a direct response to the poor socio-economic conditions prevailing in England at the time he lived, and an attack on the intellectual currents underpinning it. As a leading thinker of the English school of thought termed social liberalism' or new liberalism', he advocated a significant role for the democratic state in the provision of basic social welfare, employed a language of humanitarianism, social obligation, public duty and social reform. He opposed the widespread trust in the application of evolutionary theory to social theory, belief in natural selection and imperialist thinking. His work aims to show how personal liberties and collective liberties can be reconciled, and how a liberal society does not necessitate a minimal state, but rather a democratic, active state to enable people to develop their true selves furthest." Leonard Hobhouse - Liberal Thinkers - Liberalism
1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's Liberalism, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individuals prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911
a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with todays conservatives than todays liberals!
b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900s by Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Republican Party and Woodrow Wilsons Democrats under the banner of progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelts New Deal that the actual term liberal came into widespread use in the United States.
3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, Why Were Liberals, p. 38
4. Liberal became a pejorative, as in the following: The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young. Thomas and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, p. 9
5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:
a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]
b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.
c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.
1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's Liberalism, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individuals prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911
a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with todays conservatives than todays liberals!
b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900s by Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Republican Party and Woodrow Wilsons Democrats under the banner of progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelts New Deal that the actual term liberal came into widespread use in the United States.
3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, Why Were Liberals, p. 38
4. Liberal became a pejorative, as in the following: The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young. Thomas and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, p. 9
5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:
a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]
b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.
c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.
Have you ever read how the Republican Party came to be what it is today? A sad, tragic tale. It was once an acceptable choice for voters. No longer - unless you hold radical, authoritarian views.
1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's Liberalism, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individuals prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911
a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with todays conservatives than todays liberals!
b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900s by Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Republican Party and Woodrow Wilsons Democrats under the banner of progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelts New Deal that the actual term liberal came into widespread use in the United States.
3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, Why Were Liberals, p. 38
4. Liberal became a pejorative, as in the following: The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young. Thomas and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, p. 9
5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:
a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]
b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.
c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.
It seems to me that the thinking of Liberals and Conservatives diverge when the topic turns to the attempts to rejuvenate society via public sector or private sector activity. This has been especially true in the United States in the area of primary and secondary school education. The following excerpt is from the book Saving Iraq (Rebuilding a Broken Nation) by Nemir Kirdar, but I believe that it touches upon issues that are also relevant to the United States, especially to the educational systems in our large urban centers.
"Government at all levels should be lean and efficient, just large enough to perform its functions and not used as a patronage system to reward those in power. Similarly, as soon as the appropriate financial infrastructure is in place, government-owned economic assets should be privatized. This shift of financial power from the public to the private sector would reduce the risk of corruption and reinforce democratic processes."
What I think that the author is driving at here is that private sector activities, which conservatives support over public sector efforts, are inherently less "corrupt" because staffing decisions are not dictated by a political spoils system, and because the private sector managers need to be more responsive to the needs and perspectives of the client (or customers) because of the pressures of free-market competition. This is one reason that conservatives are screaming (politically) to have their taxes lowered, so that choices for the services that they need will be made more by free market private sector competition in which the individual makes the choices, rather than by public sector spending, which is the method of delivering services that Democrats have traditionally preferred.
It seems to me that the thinking of Liberals and Conservatives diverge when the topic turns to the attempts to rejuvenate society via public sector or private sector activity. This has been especially true in the United States in the area of primary and secondary school education. The following excerpt is from the book Saving Iraq (Rebuilding a Broken Nation) by Nemir Kirdar, but I believe that it touches upon issues that are also relevant to the United States, especially to the educational systems in our large urban centers.
"Government at all levels should be lean and efficient, just large enough to perform its functions and not used as a patronage system to reward those in power. Similarly, as soon as the appropriate financial infrastructure is in place, government-owned economic assets should be privatized. This shift of financial power from the public to the private sector would reduce the risk of corruption and reinforce democratic processes."
What I think that the author is driving at here is that private sector activities, which conservatives support over public sector efforts, are inherently less "corrupt" because staffing decisions are not dictated by a political spoils system, and because the private sector managers need to be more responsive to the needs and perspectives of the client (or customers) because of the pressures of free-market competition. This is one reason that conservatives are screaming (politically) to have their taxes lowered, so that choices for the services that they need will be made more by free market private sector competition in which the individual makes the choices, rather than by public sector spending, which is the method of delivering services that Democrats have traditionally preferred.
As a liberal, I don't have any problem with privatization for services like garbage collection. Having firms like Waste Management and BFI bid on contracts for pickup and disposal instead of town sanitation departments makes perfect sense. Where it doesn't make sense is in areas that human life and the welfare of the people is involved, like health care. Insurance corporations are NOT in the health care business, they are in the profit business. There is NO free market model that has the incentives for insurance corporations to pay for treatment. Their incentives are to collect premiums, then find a loophole to deny paying out for treatments when a major illness hits the consumer.
The whole idea of government is representation that We, the People elect and interact with to represent our best interests as a people and act where those interests are denied or poorly provided.
It seems to me that the thinking of Liberals and Conservatives diverge when the topic turns to the attempts to rejuvenate society via public sector or private sector activity. This has been especially true in the United States in the area of primary and secondary school education. The following excerpt is from the book Saving Iraq (Rebuilding a Broken Nation) by Nemir Kirdar, but I believe that it touches upon issues that are also relevant to the United States, especially to the educational systems in our large urban centers.
"Government at all levels should be lean and efficient, just large enough to perform its functions and not used as a patronage system to reward those in power. Similarly, as soon as the appropriate financial infrastructure is in place, government-owned economic assets should be privatized. This shift of financial power from the public to the private sector would reduce the risk of corruption and reinforce democratic processes."
What I think that the author is driving at here is that private sector activities, which conservatives support over public sector efforts, are inherently less "corrupt" because staffing decisions are not dictated by a political spoils system, and because the private sector managers need to be more responsive to the needs and perspectives of the client (or customers) because of the pressures of free-market competition. This is one reason that conservatives are screaming (politically) to have their taxes lowered, so that choices for the services that they need will be made more by free market private sector competition in which the individual makes the choices, rather than by public sector spending, which is the method of delivering services that Democrats have traditionally preferred.
As a liberal, I don't have any problem with privatization for services like garbage collection. Having firms like Waste Management and BFI bid on contracts for pickup and disposal instead of town sanitation departments makes perfect sense. Where it doesn't make sense is in areas that human life and the welfare of the people is involved, like health care. Insurance corporations are NOT in the health care business, they are in the profit business. There is NO free market model that has the incentives for insurance corporations to pay for treatment. Their incentives are to collect premiums, then find a loophole to deny paying out for treatments when a major illness hits the consumer.
The whole idea of government is representation that We, the People elect and interact with to represent our best interests as a people and act where those interests are denied or poorly provided.
Your point about health insurance is well taken, but I worked for a time for a corporation that provided its employees the option of joining an HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) as well as subscribing to the more traditional indemnity health insurance policies. According to one analysis of HMO's
"HMOs often provide preventive care for a lower copayment or for free, in order to keep members from developing a preventable condition that would require a great deal of medical services. When HMOs were coming into existence, indemnity plans often did not cover preventive services, such as immunizations, well-baby checkups, mammograms, or physicals. It is this inclusion of services intended to maintain a member's health that gave the HMO its name."
See Health maintenance organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
lot's of bluster from conservatards and supposedly they love business and markets.
Look up stock market returns and GDP under Dem vs Repub presidents and let me know what you find.
I'm a greedy investor so I'm with the Dems on this one.
1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's Liberalism, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individuals prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911
a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with todays conservatives than todays liberals!
b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900s by Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose Republican Party and Woodrow Wilsons Democrats under the banner of progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelts New Deal that the actual term liberal came into widespread use in the United States.
3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, Why Were Liberals, p. 38
4. Liberal became a pejorative, as in the following: The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young. Thomas and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, p. 9
5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:
a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]
b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.
c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.
This is what REALLY happened to America.
Now that Republican Conservatives have officially managed to ruin everything, from the banking system, to the budget deficit, to the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are shocked, shocked, that the rest of the country is holding them to account. They feel victimized!
Everything that Conservatives have touched in the past generation, they have broken: the economy, foreign policy, the military, constitutional protections, the list goes on and on. At the moment, the country is embroiled in two endless wars, mired in a massive economic recession and is trying to restore our position in the world that has been morally soiled by a policy of torture.
Conservatives are the most amazing whiners. They whine about being victimized even though for the past 8 years they controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court ... and destroyed everything they touched.
Conservativism is a backward looking, losing philosophy. Current Republican conservatives dirty the name of conservativism even further. Its hard to think of anyone who has done more damage to this country than Conservatives.
When have Conservative Americans ever been correct about anything? At the nation's founding they were Tories, during the Civil War they were slave owners during the Depression they were the cause, in the Second World War they were isolationists. They opposed virtually every program, law or principle that has made this country great. Rather than whining about victimization, they should be ashamed. Of course, Herbert Hoover whined, too.
The GOP is to blame for the terrible struggles we face: their President, their Congress, their Supreme Court, and, most importantly, their failed PHILOSOPHY. Every single thing that was done was rooted in the philosophy of the Republican party, was introduced by the Republican party, was endorsed by the Republican party, and was voted for by the Republican party.
They can try to shed responsibility for this disaster, but it belongs to Republicans, in addition to the disaster in Iraq, the disaster in Afghanistan, the disaster in New Orleans, the disaster in Abu Ghraib, the disaster in Guantanamo, and various other disasters as well. The least the Republicans can do is take responsibility, the way that adults are supposed to take responsibility. They were wrong about the effects of de-regulating the banking industry, 100% wrong.
But, of course, we shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have a bad habit of creating depressions and recessions and pretending that it wasn't their fault. Hoover did it. Now Bush will do it. That doesn't mean that the rest of the Republican party should follow them off a cliff.
The real problem with the contemporary Republican party is that they are fundamentally un-American. They think they are elected only to govern Republicans. They are haters of the first order: they hate gays, they hate minorities, they hate atheists. They have absolutely no respect for the Constitution, except for the Second Amendment. I could go on and on.
Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation. It will go down in history with Hooverism and McCarthyism. Not surprisingly, they were Republican, too.
Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon
This is what REALLY happened to America.
Now that Republican Conservatives have officially managed to ruin everything, from the banking system, to the budget deficit, to the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are shocked, shocked, that the rest of the country is holding them to account. They feel victimized!
Everything that Conservatives have touched in the past generation, they have broken: the economy, foreign policy, the military, constitutional protections, the list goes on and on. At the moment, the country is embroiled in two endless wars, mired in a massive economic recession and is trying to restore our position in the world that has been morally soiled by a policy of torture.
Conservatives are the most amazing whiners. They whine about being victimized even though for the past 8 years they controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court ... and destroyed everything they touched.
Conservativism is a backward looking, losing philosophy. Current Republican conservatives dirty the name of conservativism even further. Its hard to think of anyone who has done more damage to this country than Conservatives.
When have Conservative Americans ever been correct about anything? At the nation's founding they were Tories, during the Civil War they were slave owners during the Depression they were the cause, in the Second World War they were isolationists. They opposed virtually every program, law or principle that has made this country great. Rather than whining about victimization, they should be ashamed. Of course, Herbert Hoover whined, too.
The GOP is to blame for the terrible struggles we face: their President, their Congress, their Supreme Court, and, most importantly, their failed PHILOSOPHY. Every single thing that was done was rooted in the philosophy of the Republican party, was introduced by the Republican party, was endorsed by the Republican party, and was voted for by the Republican party.
They can try to shed responsibility for this disaster, but it belongs to Republicans, in addition to the disaster in Iraq, the disaster in Afghanistan, the disaster in New Orleans, the disaster in Abu Ghraib, the disaster in Guantanamo, and various other disasters as well. The least the Republicans can do is take responsibility, the way that adults are supposed to take responsibility. They were wrong about the effects of de-regulating the banking industry, 100% wrong.
But, of course, we shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have a bad habit of creating depressions and recessions and pretending that it wasn't their fault. Hoover did it. Now Bush will do it. That doesn't mean that the rest of the Republican party should follow them off a cliff.
The real problem with the contemporary Republican party is that they are fundamentally un-American. They think they are elected only to govern Republicans. They are haters of the first order: they hate gays, they hate minorities, they hate atheists. They have absolutely no respect for the Constitution, except for the Second Amendment. I could go on and on.
Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation. It will go down in history with Hooverism and McCarthyism. Not surprisingly, they were Republican, too.
Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon
The 30+ years of conservative dominated policies and government has left Americans to face the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
