Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[NYcarbineer]

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

The constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

The individual's rights protected by the constitution, which de facto limit corporations from infringeing on those rights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, jeebus. This is going to be one giant LOLberal run around, i can see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I've been saying since the 90's, conservatism in America is business. It's a money making media conglomerate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

This is exactly right. The "conservative" movement is dominated by sociopathic personalities that seek to dominate others.

One need only read this board to know that.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

And I answered your question with sound logic, that you chose to ignore. It's typical of dogmatic extremists like yourself to avoid clear wording and intent, when you prefer the Constitution and founders intent means what you wish it meant.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberalism is a failure:

1) It is anti-Christian...to be 100% liberal, one must deny God, well the Christian God but can support other groups like islam to get back at those Christians.

2) It is a blame others model. Someone fucks up their life with drugs, skipping school, etc...well blame others and force them to pay taxes to fix your problems.

3) It supports sloth. Don't want to work hard or even work at all, liberals are for you. Nancy Pelosi said you should have the right to earn a living wage doing whatever you like, painting garbage cans in her demented mind should be a good paying job.

4) It relies on stupid people to believe in it. Most liberals here are idiots, the rest are insane or evil. Only stupid people can believe hurting the people that create jobs will create more jobs.

5) It relies on evil and insanity to work with the masses. Abortion is a main crutch liberal politicians use to get out the vote, while abortion is inherently evil and one must be insane to really support it in the end when one realizes it is murder and murder of mostly liberals' kids.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

And I answered your question with sound logic, that you chose to ignore. It's typical of dogmatic extremists like yourself to avoid clear wording and intent, when you prefer the Constitution and founders intent means what you wish it meant.

So you say dogs are great, I ask you to prove why, you post about cats and then claim sound logic.

Alright, you win. Nice work.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

And I answered your question with sound logic, that you chose to ignore. It's typical of dogmatic extremists like yourself to avoid clear wording and intent, when you prefer the Constitution and founders intent means what you wish it meant.

So you say dogs are great, I ask you to prove why, you post about cats and then claim sound logic.

Alright, you win. Nice work.

You're full of shit. I gave clear argument, and examples of limits placed on FEDERALLY Chartered corporations, founders intent, and the Constitutional authority that permits such regulation. You, on the other hand, live in this laissez faire lalaland, where you pretend to be defending Constitutional limists, where none exist.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wos5MbNe1ZY]Rush Limbaugh's Epic Post Election Meltdown - YouTube[/ame]


WE WON!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals don't need business, Obama supplies all their needs

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Classic Liberalism" - A faux term coined by conservatives includes:

1. The belief that slavery is viable industry.
2. That women should not have the right to vote.
3. That the landed white christian gentry should be the decision makers in this country.

1. I’m proud of you! Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!



2. This must be the....what? third...fourth time you've posted this utterly false, but fully defensive post....
...and I correct it every time, yet you perseverate.

Here is one study that may interest you:
"Perseveration (PSV) in schizophrenia (SCZ)"
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/szb/23/1/63/

The only thing that could possibly rival your post for psychiatric problems would be a copy of the DSM-IV manual.



3. So....as a personal favor to you, here is your correction:
Classical liberalism

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. WoodrowWilson [Democrat] and the Progressives tried to make 'war socialism' permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths.
Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.


c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online


Now, let's see if you are capable of learning!
Or....if you'll simply lie about it.....

...I know where I'm puttin' my money.

 

[007]

I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

 

[007]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

Really, then tell us about Michigan...

 

[Mad Scientist]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

You're ALSO on the losing side, you just haven't realized it yet.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Then why did the founders put so many limits on corporations? Why did the Constitution enable the regulation of interstate commerce?

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".

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

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.

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.

No goal post was moved. Federal chartering existed when interstate commerce was involved. I wasn't talking about state chartering.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

I asked for you to cite the the limitations set forth by the founders, presumably in the constitution, which is why I asked you to cite those passages in the constitution regarding corporate limitations. You came back with state legislation (after the revolutionary war) that granted charters, why and how. So, you moved the goal posts, and are now trying to obfuscate from your original assertion.

And I answered your question with sound logic, that you chose to ignore. It's typical of dogmatic extremists like yourself to avoid clear wording and intent, when you prefer the Constitution and founders intent means what you wish it meant.

So you say dogs are great, I ask you to prove why, you post about cats and then claim sound logic.

Alright, you win. Nice work.

The founders did not put controls over coporations in the constitution. They granted congress the enumerated power to regulate the commerce between states, foreign entities and the Natives. It says nothing about "create charters for corporations and limit their abilities." That was initiatives taken up in state legislation. And the supreme court made case laws either favorably or agains the states rights to do so.

But like all LOLberals, you obfuscate fromt eh original assertion, then claim something else. Then turn around and attack because you can not come up with the evidence for your assertion.

To top it all off, you have a problem with the supreme courts decisions when they go against what you wish, but love them when they go for your wish. That is so shocking.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberalism is a failure:

1) It is anti-Christian...to be 100% liberal, one must deny God, well the Christian God but can support other groups like islam to get back at those Christians.

Absolutely fascinating.

On this thread, on 12/09/2012, when I asked you "so, you're a proud Christian, right?", you responded "I wouldn't claim anything." - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266693-moral-values-and-democrats-5.html

Yet here, when it's politically expedient, you chastise others for not being Christian.

WOW.

And people wonder why so many are leaving the religion. If there is indeed a God, I certainly wouldn't want to be standing next to you during a lightning storm.

.

 

[occupied]

If liberals have done anything wrong it has been to metaphorically bring library books to a knife fight. They have pretty consistently thought that if they just continue to appeal to reason against people who have rejected reason, appealing to the empathy of those who lack it and play the victim before they have even lost that people will somehow wise up and see the error of their ways, campfire singalongs of kumbaya ensue.

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Nice to see the losers still have a sense of humor along with being in total denial.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

Really, then tell us about Michigan...

Obama won Michigan. If you think the Right To Work For Lower Wage law will stand, you haven't been paying attention.