Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[Pogo]

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

I did a big time double-take on the title.

You just can't make this stuff up.

.

I figured it was an old thread from like 1980

 

[PoliticalChic]

I call you a Twinkie case. Let the managemnt triple their salary, while asking the workers to take an eight percent cut. Is this your business model? Are you really this pathetically stupid?

I've already gotten a two hour recipe for a Twinke. I doubt I'll ever use it. But, neither will I piss on people who don't like getting fucked by people taking huge raises, while asking their employees to take huge cuts.

Fuck those brain dead morons. Growth and prosperity is for intellegent management coming up with strategies that rewards workers, asks for their input, and moves forward as partners. I gather you think this is somehow Marxist.

Watch ya' language.


Twinkie???

Hey....is that a racist comment: yellow outside, white inside......
...I represent....er, resent that.


I gather that you're a lousy worker and got an 8% deduction.



"Let the managemnt triple their salary,..."
“…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine


How you feel now...booyyyyyyeeeee??

You gather wrong. But you're a fucking Twinkie.

No better indication that you've been beaten than your language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you ever going to get over yourself?? Actually I thought you had. I was a fool!!

Based on an information-packed OP.....this is the best you can do???


Not critique, argue, debate, add to or subtract from.....but merely inquire about how I'm doing?

Shirley you can do better.



BTW....that is an awsome avi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bet you want to set up re-education camps for some of us, huh?

As much as you may need it, that wasn't my point. The ONLY reason you have rights is because there's an entity to back them up. You can quote anyone you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, if I were of evil intent and had power over you, your claim of inalienable or natural "rights" would be just so much hot air.

That's what revolutions are for.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

What a massive load of un-refined horse shit.

I DARE you to prove it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You moron. You said that liabilty should extend to making a company bankrupt. That limits the liability. The owners of the company, i.e. the stockholders get a free pass. Do you deny that limited liability gives investors a free pass, whcih might deny a Seventh Amendment right?

Personally, I'd put the owners right behind the corporate management in seeking redress. I personally understand that a modern economy can't work without the "limited liability" that corporations offer. I also accept that this fact requires better checks and balances.

To you, this probably sounds like an abridge to government interference in the free enterprise, i.e. socialism. To me, it's the only reasonable way to make free enterprise work.

Yawn. I already agreed you teeth gnashing troglodyte. Yes, the company, the owner, etc should be held to the fullest extent of the law given a jury and judge sentencing. I didn't word it good enough for you, so you react again. What a fucking loony tune.

I'm just asking for clarification. You seem to agree that the "limited liability" that corporations receive should be nullified. Any act by any corporation that you own, whether a stock in your retirement account, or a company that you received dividends in the past, should put your personal assets at risk.

Buy a share of Manville, you own part of their liability.

I disagree with that, btw. I just wanted to get clarification on the simple minded lassiez faire idiocy.

Draw a conclusion. Here's one: Making your own judgments is fun. Anyone with a handle like dick tuck has issues.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yawn. I already agreed you teeth gnashing troglodyte. Yes, the company, the owner, etc should be held to the fullest extent of the law given a jury and judge sentencing. I didn't word it good enough for you, so you react again. What a fucking loony tune.

I'm just asking for clarification. You seem to agree that the "limited liability" that corporations receive should be nullified. Any act by any corporation that you own, whether a stock in your retirement account, or a company that you received dividends in the past, should put your personal assets at risk.

Buy a share of Manville, you own part of their liability.

I disagree with that, btw. I just wanted to get clarification on the simple minded lassiez faire idiocy.

Draw a conclusion. Here's one: Making your own judgments is fun. Anyone with a handle like dick tuck has issues.

I gather you're clueless as to the real Dick Tuck is.

 

[007]

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.

Here ha go suck ass... a head line... Jimmy Hoffa Warns Of "Civil War" As Michigan Governor Signs "Right-To-Work" Into Law | ZeroHedge

In your face mother fucker.

 

[P@triot]

B) The attempt to change human nature

That part you are 100% correct. Neither party seems to have a clear grasp on the reality of human nature.

Base human nature is to take away things from people that are different.

Wow! For once swallow said something TRUE! He and his idiot liberal dumbocrat pals keep trying to TAKE THINGS that don't belong to them AWAY from people who EARNED them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm just asking for clarification. You seem to agree that the "limited liability" that corporations receive should be nullified. Any act by any corporation that you own, whether a stock in your retirement account, or a company that you received dividends in the past, should put your personal assets at risk.

Buy a share of Manville, you own part of their liability.

I disagree with that, btw. I just wanted to get clarification on the simple minded lassiez faire idiocy.

Draw a conclusion. Here's one: Making your own judgments is fun. Anyone with a handle like dick tuck has issues.

I gather you're clueless as to the real Dick Tuck is.

You gather a lot of nonsense in that void you call a brain. Lint, dust, dead bugs, etc...

There is your clue, Dick Slap.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As much as you may need it, that wasn't my point. The ONLY reason you have rights is because there's an entity to back them up. You can quote anyone you like, but that doesn't change the fact that, if I were of evil intent and had power over you, your claim of inalienable or natural "rights" would be just so much hot air.

Then another protective service would be established in the absent of a current one. In colonial times, this would happen in some instances by the leading families of a settlement to try and convict someone who breached common law. There is no difference here at all. You just have a morbid view of humanity where everyone is evil and greedy and mean spirited....which makes one wonder why you think that a protection service for our rights can determine whether or not you get to keep them.

You believe people are evil, then in the same breath believe government, made up of these same evil people, is omnipotent.

it's a fucking perplexing thought process.

Who said everyone was evil? That's just you putting words in my mouth and doesn't in any way answer my contention that "natural rights" are imaginary. The problem isn't that I think everyone is evil, but that some are and as you said some form of control is necessary, whether you call it "government" or "leading families". I never said government was omnipotent either, just that absent some form of it, rights are ephemeral. What I can't understand is your thought process that automatically makes government "the other". Who's REALLY saying people are evil? Not me.

I said nothing about any form of control, you LOLberal dick tater. I said that if the current protection service of our rights, the government, has abondoned its roll, then it should be altered or replaced.

The rest of what you wrote makes no sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

If the Founders were here today, I'd suggest they'd be in horror of the power of corporations.

So....you're one of those 'hate success' guys?



What are you occupying these days....the couch?

Lol

Classic!!

 

[Londoner]

4. Progressives believed that rights are relative (Dewey spoke of ‘historical relativity&#8217

Dewey's version of historical relativity is worth exploring so as not to straw man it.

He believed that with different historical eras came different beliefs and values. In the 1800s, for instance, a commonly held belief was that woman were too irrational for civic function. Therefore they were excluded from politics and relegated to the home, where their role was as caregiver to the children and the husband. The father was the ultimate ruler of the family. His authority, like the church, came from God. Woman were consigned to a subservient role as man's helper.

Dewey thinks that through history (over time) our beliefs about woman changed. We eventually through history adopted the belief that woman were equally rational as men - and, therefore, every bit as capable of ruling the nation. They were not just caregivers or the helper of men. This lead their entering politics and various other careers of power.

Dewey looks at our changing beliefs and concludes that, on some levels, each historical era is marked by different beliefs and values. Humans change. They evolve. 1820s America is different than 1980s America. Over time we've changed our views about blacks and woman. Advances in science lead to different ways of seeing the world. We've also changed our views about marriage. In the 1800s marriage was more of a property transfer, with the wife's family transferring the woman to the man. In the early 1900s inter-racial marriage was illegal and considered evil. We no longer think that. Our beliefs about things like this are, therefore, relative to the historical era in which they were believed. As historical periods change so too do our beliefs.

Dewey says that education should not be about transferring the values of prior generations to the brains of children. Dewey believes that the most precious possession of any human is his capacity to for choice and reason - to choose his own values and make his own way. He thinks that education shouldn't impose the values of the past on children, but should cultivate the ability of children to develop their own values by which they will live. Conservatives are offended by this kind of freedom because God supplies your values. And you must obey Him.

Therefore, many conservatives - the ones without much education - believe that there are only one set of values ordained by God. If God says blacks and whites can't marry, than man must obey. If God says that woman is man's helper (and should not enter politics but stay in the home and raise the kids), than we must obey God's will. Dewey disagrees. He think's the individual decides these things- and he thinks that with each new historical era, individuals decide these things differently. That's wahy our beliefs on woman have changed.

It's called evolution. History is about change. This is why Dewey's liberalism is so frustrating to conservatives. Dewey gives man the freedom to create the values and institutions by which he will live. Conservatives give man a very limited freedom - the freedom to obey God and Tradition. For conservatives, values are not created by man but by God. Man is a sheep. He obeys God. He doesn't create the morals and rules by which he lives. He obeys! If God says woman must be man's helper, than we must obey. Dewey says bullshit on God. Man has freedom to create his own values anew. Therefore, with each new historical era of humans, man creates unique values by which to live because he has freedom. Values change with history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Progressives believed that rights are relative (Dewey spoke of ‘historical relativity&#8217

Dewey's version of historical relativity is worth exploring so as not to straw man it.

He believed that with different historical eras came different beliefs and values. In the 1800s, for instance, a commonly held belief was that woman were too irrational for civic function. Therefore they were excluded from politics and relegated to the home, where their role was as caregiver to the children and the husband. The father was the ultimate ruler of the family. His authority, like the church, came from God. Woman were consigned to a subservient role as man's helper.

Dewey thinks that through history (over time) our beliefs about woman changed. We eventually through history adopted the belief that woman were equally rational as men - and, therefore, every bit as capable of ruling the nation. They were not just caregivers or the helper of men. This lead their entering politics and various other careers of power.

Dewey looks at our changing beliefs and concludes that, on some levels, each historical era is marked by different beliefs and values. Humans change. They evolve. 1820s America is different than 1980s America. Over time we've changed our views about blacks and woman. Advances in science lead to different ways of seeing the world. We've also changed our views about marriage. In the 1800s marriage was more of a property transfer, with the wife's family transferring the woman to the man. In the early 1900s inter-racial marriage was illegal and considered evil. We no longer think that. Our beliefs about things like this are, therefore, relative to the historical era in which they were believed. As historical periods change so too do our beliefs.

Dewey says that education should not be about transferring the values of prior generations to the brains of children. Dewey believes that the most precious possession of any human is his capacity to for choice and reason - to choose his own values and make his own way. He thinks that education shouldn't impose the values of the past on children, but should cultivate the ability of children to develop their own values by which they will live. Conservatives are offended by this kind of freedom because God supplies your values. And you must obey Him.

Therefore, many conservatives - the ones without much education - believe that there are only one set of values ordained by God. If God says blacks and whites can't marry, than man must obey. If God says that woman is man's helper (and should not enter politics but stay in the home and raise the kids), than we must obey God's will. Dewey disagrees. He think's the individual decides these things- and he thinks that with each new historical era, individuals decide these things differently. That's wahy our beliefs on woman have changed.

It's called evolution. History is about change. This is why Dewey's liberalism is so frustrating to conservatives. Dewey gives man the freedom to create the values and institutions by which he will live. Conservatives give man a very limited freedom - the freedom to obey God and Tradition. For conservatives, values are not created by man but by God. Man is a sheep. He obeys God. He doesn't create the morals and rules by which he lives. He obeys! If God says woman must be man's helper, than we must obey. Dewey says bullshit on God. Man has freedom to create his own values anew. Therefore, with each new historical era of humans, man creates unique values by which to live because he has freedom. Values change with history.

1. Dewey was way-Left totalitarian....that is why he was so appealing to communists.



2. John Dewey was one such Potemkin Progressive. And this man is the greatest single influence on American schoolchildren; his books have been used to train generations of teachers. Even while the Russian civil war was still going on (some seven million killed between 1917 and 1921), Dewey’s books were translated into Russian by the Bolsheviks: they immediately recognized the importance of his ideas to the Soviet collective communist state.
a. 1918, “School’s of Tomorrow,” published in Russian.
b. 1919, “How We Think,” published in Russian.
c. 1920, “The School and Society,” published in Russian.
d. 1921, “Democracy and Education,” published in Russian. The English version, of course, became a bible at Columbia Teacher’s College.
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century



3. In 1928, Dewey, on his trip to the Soviet, was given the full Potemkin treatment. He laughed off the possibility of his being manipulated…”the warning, which appears humorous in retrospect by my kindly friends is that I would be fooled by being taken to show places…” Of course, immediately upon returning, he wrote a six part series for The New Republic, the political ‘font of all knowledge’ of the American left. “My mind was in a whirl of new impressions in those early days in Leningrad. Readjustment was difficult, and I lived somewhat dazed….” Impressions of Soviet Russia, by John Dewey.



4. Here's your 'evolution:'

a. He found that the Bolshevik revolution was a great success, and “I think the schools are a 'dialectic' factor in the evolution of Russian communism.”


b. And, “In spite of secret police, inquisitions, arrests and deportations of Nepmen and Kulaks, exiling of party opponents--including divergent elements in the party--life for the masses goes on with regularity, safety and decorum. If I wished to be invidious, I could mention other countries in Eastern Europe in which it is much more annoying to travel…. Nepmen were private, middle-class businessmen and industrialists who took advantage of the NEP (New Economic Policy), a compromise with capitalism promulgated by Lenin in 1921 which permitted some degree of private enterprise. Stalin abolished this system in 1927.” WAIS - World Association for International Studies


5. During the Stalin Purges...guess who was selected to chair the trial of Trotsky.
"Not Guilty: Findings of the 1937 Commission Chaired by John Dewey Investigating the Charges Against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials [Paperback]
Leon Trotsky $28



Bet you loved the 'evolution' into a 'worker's paradise.'
How's that for context, dupe?

 

[konradv]

Then another protective service would be established in the absent of a current one. In colonial times, this would happen in some instances by the leading families of a settlement to try and convict someone who breached common law. There is no difference here at all. You just have a morbid view of humanity where everyone is evil and greedy and mean spirited....which makes one wonder why you think that a protection service for our rights can determine whether or not you get to keep them.

You believe people are evil, then in the same breath believe government, made up of these same evil people, is omnipotent.

it's a fucking perplexing thought process.

Who said everyone was evil? That's just you putting words in my mouth and doesn't in any way answer my contention that "natural rights" are imaginary. The problem isn't that I think everyone is evil, but that some are and as you said some form of control is necessary, whether you call it "government" or "leading families". I never said government was omnipotent either, just that absent some form of it, rights are ephemeral. What I can't understand is your thought process that automatically makes government "the other". Who's REALLY saying people are evil? Not me.

I said nothing about any form of control, you LOLberal dick tater. I said that if the current protection service of our rights, the government, has abondoned its roll, then it should be altered or replaced.

The rest of what you wrote makes no sense.

I'm not making sense? At least I'm using normal English words and not made up jargon like "LOLberal" and "dick tater". They don't mean anything. You're just being a punk that's getting whiny because someone doesn't see everything your way. If you think the government has abandoned its role, work to get policy changed. I'm merely objecting to the contention we must assume your policy aims are correct because of the Constitution, when those selected to make those decisions don't agree with you. You seem to be misinterpreting the document and need to work to get it changed, because it obviously doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[tjvh]

Who said everyone was evil? That's just you putting words in my mouth and doesn't in any way answer my contention that "natural rights" are imaginary. The problem isn't that I think everyone is evil, but that some are and as you said some form of control is necessary, whether you call it "government" or "leading families". I never said government was omnipotent either, just that absent some form of it, rights are ephemeral. What I can't understand is your thought process that automatically makes government "the other". Who's REALLY saying people are evil? Not me.

I said nothing about any form of control, you LOLberal dick tater. I said that if the current protection service of our rights, the government, has abondoned its roll, then it should be altered or replaced.

The rest of what you wrote makes no sense.

I'm not making sense? At least I'm using normal English words and not made up jargon like "LOLberal" and "dick tater". They don't mean anything. You're just being a punk that's getting whiny because someone doesn't see everything your way. If you think the government has abandoned its role, work to get policy changed. I'm merely objecting to the contention we must assume your policy aims are correct because of the Constitution, when those selected to make those decisions don't agree with you. You seem to be misinterpreting the document and need to work to get it changed, because it obviously doesn't say what you think it does.

The problem lies with people interpreting the Constitution to fit their own twisted ideologies, and not reading what was really written... Or more likely, choosing not to read what was really written because of their ideology.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's way too late to reverse the corrupt government we have. I'm not working to fix shit. It's a waste of time. Secede or revolution. Those are the remaining options. But it looks like most are ready to accept bondage again. So that's probably the way it will go (we're already there.)

The government doesn't protect your rights, they protect themselves and their friends at your expense. They will remove your inalienable rights and you will let them. 300 million plus in this country and most are happy to be babysat by bureaucrats. I'm not working on changing anything in the corrupt government when it is a change in attitude of the public that is needed. And it isn't going to happen until the wheels fall off this clown car.

 

[konradv]

I said nothing about any form of control, you LOLberal dick tater. I said that if the current protection service of our rights, the government, has abondoned its roll, then it should be altered or replaced.

The rest of what you wrote makes no sense.

I'm not making sense? At least I'm using normal English words and not made up jargon like "LOLberal" and "dick tater". They don't mean anything. You're just being a punk that's getting whiny because someone doesn't see everything your way. If you think the government has abandoned its role, work to get policy changed. I'm merely objecting to the contention we must assume your policy aims are correct because of the Constitution, when those selected to make those decisions don't agree with you. You seem to be misinterpreting the document and need to work to get it changed, because it obviously doesn't say what you think it does.

The problem lies with people interpreting the Constitution to fit their own twisted ideologies, and not reading what was really written... Or more likely, choosing not to read what was really written because of their ideology.

That would be the USSC. Who's to say who's really misinterpreting the Constitution? You or those who've trained to do it? Look at what happened recently, a darling of the right upheld Obamacare. Your problem doesn't seem to be with the people or their interpretation, but the document itself. It was left purposely vague, IMO, to be able to change with the times. The was no "original intent" to what was "really written". That assumes all the framers were of the same mind, which they definitely weren't. If you think things aren't going right you need to push for a new Constitutional Convention that spells things out the way you should be. Our present document is very vague and open to interpretation with very little that's as definite as you obviously think it should be.

 

[konradv]

It's way too late to reverse the corrupt government we have. I'm not working to fix shit. It's a waste of time. Secede or revolution. Those are the remaining options. But it looks like most are ready to accept bondage again. So that's probably the way it will go (we're already there.)

The government doesn't protect your rights, they protect themselves and their friends at your expense. They will remove your inalienable rights and you will let them. 300 million plus in this country and most are happy to be babysat by bureaucrats. I'm not working on changing anything in the corrupt government when it is a change in attitude of the public that is needed. And it isn't going to happen until the wheels fall off this clown car.

QUITTER!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, my consent to be governed by the crooks you elect has been revoked. No consent. All you have left is to point a gun at me to force compliance. That's the government you want. One that decides everythign about your life socially/economically.