Reactionary Liberals

[Bfgrn]

Haven't I been saying all along that I am liberal in the truest sense of the word and all those that call themselves liberals today are really nothing but authoritarians ?

The American tradition is the "liberal" tradition, but when "liberal" is used to designate the views of Henry Wallace, we are not even aware that the word has been twisted to mean its exact opposite. For some three hundred years the term "liberal" has expressed a philosophy which is in direct conflict with the philosophy of those who, today in the United States, term themselves "liberals." Liberal and liberalism are defined as follows.

Liberal

"One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters" (Webster's Dictionary)
Liberalism

"A belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in the free exercise of human energy" (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Liberalism

"Liberalism has advocated … individual liberty in government, economics and religion … In political and economic thought, John Stuart Mill represents English liberalism." (Columbia Encyclopedia)

"Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense regards government as a necessary evil. It looks upon all governments, including our own, with suspicion. It believes that the only way to safeguard liberty and protect the individual from the tyranny of government is to limit the functions of government. It fears government and seeks to impose restraints upon the power of government.

"Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor.

The principle of authority, which has enslaved the human spirit during the greater part of recorded history, has been challenged effectively only for a brief period in ancient Greece and again in the last 300 years and only by that concept of life which historically is known as liberalism.

Although the roots of liberalism lie deep in history, liberalism as an organized doctrine begins with the revolt of Oliver Cromwell against constituted authority in England and the rise of the Dutch Republic in Holland. It found eloquent expression in the great essay of John Milton, Areopagitica, which he wrote in 1644, in defiance of law, to uphold the right of free speech and to protest to Parliament against establishment of a censorship.

Nearly a century later, John Locke expounded the principles of liberalism and his writings "became the political Bible of the following century." In the 18th century, the American Revolution established a new type of government based upon the doctrines of Locke, and Adam Smith formulated the liberal doctrine in economic terms. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Bentham, Cobden and Bright were the spokesmen of liberalism.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States stem directly from liberal doctrine. The Constitution of the United States expresses the fear of governmental authority which is characteristic of liberalism. It is designed, not for efficiency, but to safeguard liberty. It shows distrust of all branches of government — of the president, of congress and of the courts and makes each a check upon the others.

The statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" was not intended to mean that they are equal in intelligence, in physical strength, in character or in any other respects in which individuals differ. On the contrary, that statement means that under a just government, all men are equal under the law.

This new and revolutionary doctrine was a moral pronouncement and an affirmation of political belief in direct conflict with the principle of authority under which men are not equal under the law. Under the rule of authority a man's status in the social structure determines what laws apply to him and what he must obey.

Two examples will illustrate the point:

1.

In France, before the French Revolution, the nobility and clergy were not subject to taxes imposed upon other classes of society.
2.

In England, under the Statute of Artificers enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a common laborer or a skilled artisan was not permitted to leave his parish without the consent of his last employer.

The special privileges of French nobles and clergy and the discriminatory restraint upon the freedom of English workmen were based on their status in society. This concept of status is in direct conflict with the liberal philosophy of equality under the law.

Today we can note a definite tendency in our law (for which congress is chiefly to blame) to abandon these liberal principles and to substitute for them the old, discredited, reactionary standards of personal justice and of status. This tendency is most marked in some federal administrative agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which act as prosecutor, judge and jury, unhampered by rules of evidence or ordinary principles of law.

Most of our courts try to follow "the rule of law" but a tendency is apparent, chiefly in our highest court, to substitute justice based upon class distinctions for equality under the law. It is no longer the act alone that constitutes the crime but the act in relation to the status of the actor. A striking example of this is found in the 1934 anti-racketeering law which was construed by the United States Supreme Court as not applying to labor unions.

Modern liberals, as the term is currently used in the United States, are faced with an inescapable moral and intellectual dilemma. This dilemma arises from the fact that they are trying to go in two different directions at once and to follow two wholly conflicting and opposite philosophies of life.

Sincere, modern liberals do not deliberately desire to set up an authoritarian government. All they want to do is to improve the lot of mankind. They want everyone to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed, and they are willing to give government unlimited authority to accomplish desirable ends. They wish to override individual liberties only when individual liberties hinder government in accomplishing results which they approve. They want government to be powerful to do good without being powerful to do harm.

The weakness of a benevolent despotism is that there is no guarantee that it will remain benevolent. The Social Welfare State, the modern liberals' goal, is essentially a Germanic concept. Bismarck was a pioneer in providing social security benefits in 1884 and fostered state-guaranteed insurance for workmen against sickness, accidents, old age and disability. Karl Marx and Bismarck had much in common.

You are not a liberal, you are an ideologue...better described as simply a log...a tree turd that is decaying rapidly...

The America you describe doesn't exist...we are no longer an agrarian society. Are you willing to trust for profit corporations to protect our food and water supply?

Liberals are opposed to imperialism...will you ends the wars of ideology and drastically reduce the mil/ind complex?

Will you treat corporations like our founders, where stockholders are personally responsible for any harm caused by their corporations?

Maybe a new planet would better suit your 'Utopian dreams'

 

[Wry Catcher]

.


What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

HAH

JFK would be called a neocon today.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

Please compare the tax cuts (who benefited) offered by JFK and Clinton, with those of Reagan and Bush; also, which pair of presidents reduced the size of government, and which pair increased the size of government?
Which pair reduced the public debt, and which pair increased the public debt?
Answer: National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gautama]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For EXAMPLE, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

How about: We should be FREE to choose what we want and have our representatives in Govt REPRESENT what we want !!!!

Thus, like the TEA PARTY clamours for: WE WANT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE WHAT HEALTH CARE WE WANT WITHOUT THE GOVT SHOVING THEIR VERSION DOWN OUR THROATS !!!!!

Howzabout them apples, MODERN DAY LIBERALS ?!?!?

The choice of representative was made on election day and guess what? YOU LOST. The country decided against you and now the minority right is upset that they are in the minority and crying about how they don't have representation when they didn't seem to care when democrats were in a similar position only a few years ago. Based on what I remember about it they bragged about it and cheered it. Funny how they aren't cheering now. lol

Oh and just have to tell you how much I laugh everytime I hear that parroted talking point about "shoving (insert bs complaint here) down their throats" That is the way government works. Repesentatives are elected and they pass legislation that governs us all.
You act as if some great tragedy is occuring because the MINORITY is against what is being passed by this country's ELECTED REPPRESENTATIVES and PRETEND that it is being shoved down your throats.

That is the way the system was set up and that is the way it works if you don't like it, move.

BTW, did you feel this way when republicans had control of the executive and legislative branches of government and excluded democrats or is this a new thing brought about by losing the election??

Dr Political Idiot,

What about the SECOND PARAGRAPH in my post, you tunnel-visioned fucking Obamarrhoid ?

Granted that the winning political party would have it's way in DIRECTING the political "game". BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO IMITATE A COMMUNIST-TYPE OF DICTATORSHIP (albeit, for starters, a semi-benevolent one).

WHERE The Pelosi & Reid Combo BEGINS TO BRIBE and STRONG ARM ITS OWN MEMBERS.........and the SALIENT FACTOR here is THE DEGREE of the lack of TRANSPARENCY where ALL the decisions are made BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .....and the THE PREDETERMINED RESULT IS KEPT FROM EVEN ITS OWN PARTY MEMBERS before it's put for a vote WITH ONLY ITS OWN PARTY MEMBERS......then, and ONLY WHEN IT IS SETTLED AMONG THE DIMWITS..... without even a PRETENSE of ANY input by the opposing side..... is the legislation presented to the whole House, or Senate for a vote.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS THIS BEEN SO BLATANTLY ORCHESTRATED !!!!

This is ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS since the "TRANSPARENCY ISSUE" was one of the CENTRAL ISSUES hammered during the campaign by that PATHOLOGICAL LYING Political Charlatan MARXIST POS Obami Salami.

For you, you perfect example of an unscrupulous OBAMARRHOID, to present your pap with the air of "business as usual", is a FLAGRANT CROCK OF PUTRESCENT SHIT !!!!!

 

[MarcATL]

I don't have an 'ilk', Marc. Unlike liberals, the rest of us are individuals. You keep insisting that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a 'neocon'.... then ask us to 'work together'. Why would I want to work with people who seek to 'fundamentally change' a country that didn't need this 'fundamental change'. Why would I work with an administration that fills itself with socialists, marxists and communists? They are not the ideals my country stands for.

You snap out of your partisan funk and help put this country back on the track that our founders set it on.

You snap out of it.

Yes YOU have an ilk. It seems like every time I read your font you PROVE how much of a neo-con you are.

Did a stick break in your ear or something? You just don't listen.

For the forty-eleventh time, neo-cons are those that believe like and/or support the policy and practices like the Bush Regime instituted. Those with beliefs similar to Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al.

Yes or no...do YOU renounce all the above?

 

[drsmith1072]

How about: We should be FREE to choose what we want and have our representatives in Govt REPRESENT what we want !!!!

Thus, like the TEA PARTY clamours for: WE WANT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE WHAT HEALTH CARE WE WANT WITHOUT THE GOVT SHOVING THEIR VERSION DOWN OUR THROATS !!!!!

Howzabout them apples, MODERN DAY LIBERALS ?!?!?

The choice of representative was made on election day and guess what? YOU LOST. The country decided against you and now the minority right is upset that they are in the minority and crying about how they don't have representation when they didn't seem to care when democrats were in a similar position only a few years ago. Based on what I remember about it they bragged about it and cheered it. Funny how they aren't cheering now. lol

Oh and just have to tell you how much I laugh everytime I hear that parroted talking point about "shoving (insert bs complaint here) down their throats" That is the way government works. Repesentatives are elected and they pass legislation that governs us all.
You act as if some great tragedy is occuring because the MINORITY is against what is being passed by this country's ELECTED REPPRESENTATIVES and PRETEND that it is being shoved down your throats.

That is the way the system was set up and that is the way it works if you don't like it, move.

BTW, did you feel this way when republicans had control of the executive and legislative branches of government and excluded democrats or is this a new thing brought about by losing the election??

Dr Political Idiot,

What about the SECOND PARAGRAPH in my post, you tunnel-visioned fucking Obamarrhoid ?

Granted that the winning political party would have it's way in DIRECTING the political "game". BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO IMITATE A COMMUNIST-TYPE OF DICTATORSHIP (albeit, for starters, a semi-benevolent one).

WHERE The Pelosi & Reid Combo BEGINS TO BRIBE and STRONG ARM ITS OWN MEMBERS.........and the SALIENT FACTOR here is THE DEGREE of the lack of TRANSPARENCY where ALL the decisions are made BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .....and the THE PREDETERMINED RESULT IS KEPT FROM EVEN ITS OWN PARTY MEMBERS before it's put for a vote WITH ONLY ITS OWN PARTY MEMBERS......then, and ONLY WHEN IT IS SETTLED AMONG THE DIMWITS..... without even a PRETENSE of ANY input by the opposing side..... is the legislation presented to the whole House, or Senate for a vote.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS THIS BEEN SO BLATANTLY ORCHESTRATED !!!!

This is ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS since the "TRANSPARENCY ISSUE" was one of the CENTRAL ISSUES hammered during the campaign by that PATHOLOGICAL LYING Political Charlatan MARXIST POS Obami Salami.

For you, you perfect example of an unscrupulous OBAMARRHOID, to present your pap with the air of "business as usual", is a FLAGRANT CROCK OF PUTRESCENT SHIT !!!!!

What second paragraph are you whining about?? I see three sentences. So please tell me what you are babbling incoherently about.

Communist type dictatorship?? Seems like you ahve been watching a little too much beck. LOL

You attack the left for things the both parties have done in the past and pretend that it's something new and shocking. How sad I feel for you becuase you are obviously so gullible that you believe anything you hear, swallow it whole without question and then come on boards like thsi to regurgitate it as if it was an original thought.

You complain about transparency after W and the republicans did so much behind closed doors and the hypocritical right defended them for doing so. That fact steals the thunder from your false outrage.

BTW does obama have control over the house and senate?? Seems to me that seperation of powers prevents him from making them do anything that they don't want to do.

You are just as bad, dilusional and dishonest as beck was last night on his program when he quoted bloggers and then tried to hold obama accountable for what they said. LOL

Oh and I am sorry that you fail to grasp how this country works but you are in the minoirty and have no one to blame but your own party. So please keep the whining and crying to a minimum. Thanks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Haven't I been saying all along that I am liberal in the truest sense of the word and all those that call themselves liberals today are really nothing but authoritarians ?

The American tradition is the "liberal" tradition, but when "liberal" is used to designate the views of Henry Wallace, we are not even aware that the word has been twisted to mean its exact opposite. For some three hundred years the term "liberal" has expressed a philosophy which is in direct conflict with the philosophy of those who, today in the United States, term themselves "liberals." Liberal and liberalism are defined as follows.

Liberal

"One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters" (Webster's Dictionary)
Liberalism

"A belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in the free exercise of human energy" (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Liberalism

"Liberalism has advocated … individual liberty in government, economics and religion … In political and economic thought, John Stuart Mill represents English liberalism." (Columbia Encyclopedia)

"Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense regards government as a necessary evil. It looks upon all governments, including our own, with suspicion. It believes that the only way to safeguard liberty and protect the individual from the tyranny of government is to limit the functions of government. It fears government and seeks to impose restraints upon the power of government.

"Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor.

The principle of authority, which has enslaved the human spirit during the greater part of recorded history, has been challenged effectively only for a brief period in ancient Greece and again in the last 300 years and only by that concept of life which historically is known as liberalism.

Although the roots of liberalism lie deep in history, liberalism as an organized doctrine begins with the revolt of Oliver Cromwell against constituted authority in England and the rise of the Dutch Republic in Holland. It found eloquent expression in the great essay of John Milton, Areopagitica, which he wrote in 1644, in defiance of law, to uphold the right of free speech and to protest to Parliament against establishment of a censorship.

Nearly a century later, John Locke expounded the principles of liberalism and his writings "became the political Bible of the following century." In the 18th century, the American Revolution established a new type of government based upon the doctrines of Locke, and Adam Smith formulated the liberal doctrine in economic terms. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Bentham, Cobden and Bright were the spokesmen of liberalism.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States stem directly from liberal doctrine. The Constitution of the United States expresses the fear of governmental authority which is characteristic of liberalism. It is designed, not for efficiency, but to safeguard liberty. It shows distrust of all branches of government — of the president, of congress and of the courts and makes each a check upon the others.

The statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" was not intended to mean that they are equal in intelligence, in physical strength, in character or in any other respects in which individuals differ. On the contrary, that statement means that under a just government, all men are equal under the law.

This new and revolutionary doctrine was a moral pronouncement and an affirmation of political belief in direct conflict with the principle of authority under which men are not equal under the law. Under the rule of authority a man's status in the social structure determines what laws apply to him and what he must obey.

Two examples will illustrate the point:

1.

In France, before the French Revolution, the nobility and clergy were not subject to taxes imposed upon other classes of society.
2.

In England, under the Statute of Artificers enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a common laborer or a skilled artisan was not permitted to leave his parish without the consent of his last employer.

The special privileges of French nobles and clergy and the discriminatory restraint upon the freedom of English workmen were based on their status in society. This concept of status is in direct conflict with the liberal philosophy of equality under the law.

Today we can note a definite tendency in our law (for which congress is chiefly to blame) to abandon these liberal principles and to substitute for them the old, discredited, reactionary standards of personal justice and of status. This tendency is most marked in some federal administrative agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which act as prosecutor, judge and jury, unhampered by rules of evidence or ordinary principles of law.

Most of our courts try to follow "the rule of law" but a tendency is apparent, chiefly in our highest court, to substitute justice based upon class distinctions for equality under the law. It is no longer the act alone that constitutes the crime but the act in relation to the status of the actor. A striking example of this is found in the 1934 anti-racketeering law which was construed by the United States Supreme Court as not applying to labor unions.

Modern liberals, as the term is currently used in the United States, are faced with an inescapable moral and intellectual dilemma. This dilemma arises from the fact that they are trying to go in two different directions at once and to follow two wholly conflicting and opposite philosophies of life.

Sincere, modern liberals do not deliberately desire to set up an authoritarian government. All they want to do is to improve the lot of mankind. They want everyone to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed, and they are willing to give government unlimited authority to accomplish desirable ends. They wish to override individual liberties only when individual liberties hinder government in accomplishing results which they approve. They want government to be powerful to do good without being powerful to do harm.

The weakness of a benevolent despotism is that there is no guarantee that it will remain benevolent. The Social Welfare State, the modern liberals' goal, is essentially a Germanic concept. Bismarck was a pioneer in providing social security benefits in 1884 and fostered state-guaranteed insurance for workmen against sickness, accidents, old age and disability. Karl Marx and Bismarck had much in common.

You are not a liberal, you are an ideologue...better described as simply a log...a tree turd that is decaying rapidly...

The America you describe doesn't exist...we are no longer an agrarian society. Are you willing to trust for profit corporations to protect our food and water supply?

Liberals are opposed to imperialism...will you ends the wars of ideology and drastically reduce the mil/ind complex?

Will you treat corporations like our founders, where stockholders are personally responsible for any harm caused by their corporations?

Maybe a new planet would better suit your 'Utopian dreams'

I am a liberal that does not believe in forcing my views on others with draconian taxes and laws designed to perform some type of ham handed social engineering.

Where did I ever say we were agrarian?

And I know its difficult for people who can do nothing but pigeonhole people into only two different ideologies to accept the fact that I can be very critical of liberal/progressive polices and not be a repudlican.

I have been against the current wars since day one. I have been in favor of recalling all our troops stationed abroad so that they can perform the duty of protecting our country here at home by making our borders, air land and sea, impenetrable.

Certainly stockholders are not personally responsible for what a corporation does but if a corporation breaks the law and fails, stockholders do pay a price that is proportional to their ownership.

Government is out of control whether it be led by dimocrats or repudlicans

It is precisely that people in government believe that they know what's best for all of us and that we simply cannot be trusted to make our own decisions that we have the inexorable trend of ever larger ever more expensive ever more intrusive government.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's so-called Liberals and most Democrats are now Socialists. There is a difference between the two. For example,most Liberals i grew up with could never support an oppressive National Socialist like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The man is currently shutting down all opposition Media and is ending all free speech. No Liberal i knew would have ever supported such oppression. However,if you're a Socialist yourself then obviously you would support those oppressive policies.

Far too many people are still making the mistake of mislabeling Socialists as "Liberals." Real Liberals stand for free speech and individual liberties. Most of today's Democrats stand for neither. They all now fully support authoritarian oppression. Another example would be their continued support for Health Care legislation which fines and possibly imprisons citizens for not having Health Insurance. How could a true Liberal support such awful legislation? People need to wake up and stop labeling people Liberals who are clearly Socialists. There really is a big difference between the two.

 

[Bfgrn]

Haven't I been saying all along that I am liberal in the truest sense of the word and all those that call themselves liberals today are really nothing but authoritarians ?

You are not a liberal, you are an ideologue...better described as simply a log...a tree turd that is decaying rapidly...

The America you describe doesn't exist...we are no longer an agrarian society. Are you willing to trust for profit corporations to protect our food and water supply?

Liberals are opposed to imperialism...will you ends the wars of ideology and drastically reduce the mil/ind complex?

Will you treat corporations like our founders, where stockholders are personally responsible for any harm caused by their corporations?

Maybe a new planet would better suit your 'Utopian dreams'

I am a liberal that does not believe in forcing my views on others with draconian taxes and laws designed to perform some type of ham handed social engineering.

Where did I ever say we were agrarian?

And I know its difficult for people who can do nothing but pigeonhole people into only two different ideologies to accept the fact that I can be very critical of liberal/progressive polices and not be a repudlican.

I have been against the current wars since day one. I have been in favor of recalling all our troops stationed abroad so that they can perform the duty of protecting our country here at home by making our borders, air land and sea, impenetrable.

Certainly stockholders are not personally responsible for what a corporation does but if a corporation breaks the law and fails, stockholders do pay a price that is proportional to their ownership.

Government is out of control whether it be led by dimocrats or repudlicans

It is precisely that people in government believe that they know what's best for all of us and that we simply cannot be trusted to make our own decisions that we have the inexorable trend of ever larger ever more expensive ever more intrusive government.

You miss the point...we DON'T live in an agrarian society like the authors you mention. You need to live in reality. We live in a consumer society. How many people grow their own food today? Are you willing to trust FOR profit corporations to self regulate themselves and protect our food and water supply?

Here's how our 'free market' founders treated corporations...

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood

 

[California Girl]

I don't have an 'ilk', Marc. Unlike liberals, the rest of us are individuals. You keep insisting that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a 'neocon'.... then ask us to 'work together'. Why would I want to work with people who seek to 'fundamentally change' a country that didn't need this 'fundamental change'. Why would I work with an administration that fills itself with socialists, marxists and communists? They are not the ideals my country stands for.

You snap out of your partisan funk and help put this country back on the track that our founders set it on.

You snap out of it.

Yes YOU have an ilk. It seems like every time I read your font you PROVE how much of a neo-con you are.

Did a stick break in your ear or something? You just don't listen.

For the forty-eleventh time, neo-cons are those that believe like and/or support the policy and practices like the Bush Regime instituted. Those with beliefs similar to Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al.

Yes or no...do YOU renounce all the above?

Did someone hit you with the stupid stick?

Every time I read your drivel you PROVE how much of an indiot you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

California Girl, why don't you and your ilk conencrate on IMPROVING the problems vs. FIGHTING those trying to fix it.

If we ALL agree its broken, then lets WORK TOGETHER to FIX it.

We may disagree on how to do so, but we can WORK TOGETHER to improve it. What you and your ilk are doing is nothing short of OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Snap out of your partisan funk and HELP this country get back on track.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

I don't have an 'ilk', Marc. Unlike liberals, the rest of us are individuals.

You're obviously of the ilk that likes to make that kind of imbecilic generalization.

 

[amrchaos]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For exanoke, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

ie:
Other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare.

If you do not pay ffor your health care, the hospitals just shift the amount owed to someone else.

So even in a capitalistic system, there are people who obtain free healthcare.


For some reason, Republicans have yet to address that little snafu in their propaganda.

When politicians talk to people who do not understand an issue, they must concede that it is normal for the public to take conservative measures until they do understand. That is called being human! A good liberal politician has to inform as uickly as possible in order to gain radical change. Obama is not a good liberal politician.

 

[midcan5]

Is there a link with that? I like to read the label before I indulge. What little I read made no sense.

Best book on reactionary politics. Harvard University Press: The Rhetoric of Reaction : Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman