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.
I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...
Your post suggest this question: losing side of what?
1. If it is the election you refer to, it is clear that you have all the depth of wall paper.
2. If it is the America of the Founders, and Liberty itself, that is lost, and you treat it with a shrug, it is a sense of priorities that has been lost, and it is yours.
PC- In later years, natural law was coupled with utility. At least from an economic standpoiint. Classical liberals, were staunch supporters of economic freedom. And still are today. Though there are a lot less of us than the social/special interest group LOLberals of the day.
Conservatives have been saying that for over 200 years
Progressive are not be as bright as they think they are; they advocate an economic model that is failing right now in broad daylight in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and has failed so totally that it has been abandoned by genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba
Conservatives have been saying that for over 60 years
Conservatives have been saying that for over 200 years
Progressive are not be as bright as they think they are; they advocate an economic model that is failing right now in broad daylight in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and has failed so totally that it has been abandoned by genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba
Yeah...frank I wouldn't go spouting who isn't smart around here.
Progressive are not be as bright as they think they are; they advocate an economic model that is failing right now in broad daylight in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and has failed so totally that it has been abandoned by genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba
Conservatives have been saying that for over 60 years
Proving that Progressives are not as bright as they think they are, but they are entertaining
Progressive are not be as bright as they think they are; they advocate an economic model that is failing right now in broad daylight in Greece and Spain (25% unemployment) and has failed so totally that it has been abandoned by genuine Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam and even Cuba
Yeah...frank I wouldn't go spouting who isn't smart around here.
As usual, you add so much to the conversation.
Conservatives have been saying that for over 60 years
Proving that Progressives are not as bright as they think they are, but they are entertaining
Sorry..but conservatives have been trying to sell that "Liberals are Commies" crap for 60 years. Didn't work under McCarthy....doesn't work now
Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Yeah...frank I wouldn't go spouting who isn't smart around here.
As usual, you add so much to the conversation.
I like to match your stupidity with insulting. I feel you are everything that is wrong with this nation.people like you need to be quarantined, for being dangers.
The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history
They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections
Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform
Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
As usual, you add so much to the conversation.
I like to match your stupidity with insulting. I feel you are everything that is wrong with this nation.people like you need to be quarantined, for being dangers.
Proving that Progressive are Fascists
Proving that Progressives are not as bright as they think they are, but they are entertaining
Sorry..but conservatives have been trying to sell that "Liberals are Commies" crap for 60 years. Didn't work under McCarthy....doesn't work now
LOLz
Right
You're for state control of every aspect of human activity and want to take the efforts of others, but no, Dems are not Commies, no Sir no way
Also. McCarthy vastly underestimated the damage real Communists spies were doing at State and in the WH.
1. Modern Liberalism, as distinct from the Classical Liberalism of the Founders, was far from a terrible idea. They endorsed two political themes: a) democratic reforms, and b) apolitical managerial expertise.
a. From the former, progressives supported measures designed to promote more direct democratic input, such as direct election of Senators, state ballot initiatives and referenda on the recall of stated officials.
b. The latter involved scientific management of government, putting political decision making in the hands of ostensibly apolitical bureaucrats, nonpartisan commissions, and regulatory agencies remote from democratic accountability. And these designed to check monopolies and trusts, and regulate railroads and utilities, and favor social welfare legislation.
c. But it didn't end there.
2. For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as progressives repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology. Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action, p. 17.
a. Charles Merriam: The individualistic ideas of the natural rights school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated. Merriam, A History of American Political Theories, p. 307.
3. Lets be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any right at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in nature and natures God. Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
4. Progressives believed that rights are relative (Dewey spoke of historical relativity) and that not just society changes, but human nature itself does; i.e., it is malleable. Compare this to the view of the Founders. The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the Federalist, is the greatest of all reflections on human nature human beings are not angels.
a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.
b. Where else do we see the progressives view? Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский человек, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1] New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
c. The view is consistent today: In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible .Were not interested in social reconstruction; its human reconstruction. http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html_____
5. Until the 1930s, the Constitution served to check progressives enthusiasm. But the Imperial President, FDR, wielded enough power to make the enumerated powers merely a suggestion. New Deal Liberals sought to regulate modern industrial organization, not by returning influence to the individual farmer, worker, or businessman, but by building a parallel capacity in the national government to regulate and direct it.
James Piereson,Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism, p. 6.
6. To review the modern liberals excesses include
a) the removal of natural rights,
b) the attempt to change human nature,
c) denial of the efficacy of the free market with the substitute view that good-natured bureaucrats will know how to assign economic value.
d)Further .that there is no limitation to the power of government.
I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.
Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
So now we're moving the goal posts. The claim was why the founders put limitations on corporations. Not how state laws entailed charters.
I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.
One of the things the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood hates most is the woman's right to vote and they would get rid of it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it!The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history
They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections
Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform
And today, no conservative, for example, opposes the right of women to vote. At least none I can think of. What was once a divisive controversial liberal cause is now universally accepted. Why?
Because progress is human nature. Conservatives, generation by generation, routinely oppose progress; they seek to 'conserve' that which natural human progress is attempting to change.
August 8, 2008
RUSH: Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us, by the way. If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit, but that's another story.
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
- Ann Coulter, The Guardian, Friday 16 May 2003
