The Real 'Far Right'

[midcan5]

The proof in the end is in the pudding. Every step that moves this nation forward has been done by a liberal president. Be it freedom, social security, public education, medicare, equal rights, or any you care to mention.

The constant berating of the other has always been from the right, the reactionary forces that oppose progress and change. These are laws it seems of the political and cultural universe. This opposition to change will always be from the right.

Talk, friends is cheap, but accomplishments come hard as healthcare demonstrates. In the final page it is what you do not how you define the other.



"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.'" President John F Kennedy on September 14, 1960

 

[JScott]

Its funny how both sides say its the other sides fault because "youre partisan". We're all partisan, like it or not.

I lean left but I dont proscribe to everything the left stands for.

What makes partisanship bad is the inability to share ideas. Neither side wants to admit anything beneficial about the other side. I asked someone the other day what they liked, at all, about the healthcare bill or the current president. He never responded. No discussion. Thats stupid. Its not retarded, its not ignorant, its stupid.

Thats what I see in all these political forums. Stupidity. When I see "liburls" I see stupid partisanship, the same with "neocons". When I see "youre a ****ing moron" I see the same thing.

Maybe some of you come here just to stir up partisan arguments. Id hate to think you live your lives by saying things like "I hope the ****er ends up as a vegetable" about people you know.

I don't believe in everything you said. One thing I've noticed is that the left tends to want to force their views on the rest of us and the right tends to want to be left alone. I'm sure that Bible-bangers are an exception but the bulk of conservatives want to live and let live.

You cant give an exception. The Christian right is always forcing their views on us. The right forced their view of Iraq on us. They tried to force their opinion of torture. There are other things they force on us too.

Sure, democrats force their view as well. Theyre all politicians, if they want their ideas to come to pass sometimes a little force is necessary. Forcing an idea is not a bad thing always. If its beneficial to us as a nation, then I could see it as good.

Partisans twist the truth. They all lie. Both sides do it. They all make things up. When the facts are brought out they continue to use the lie. They all use derogatory names. Its stupidity.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The constant berating of the other has always been from the right, the reactionary forces that oppose progress and change. These are laws it seems of the political and cultural universe. This opposition to change will always be from the right.

Well that IS the real definition of "conservative." Someone who opposes change.

Reactionary - someone who wants to turn back the clock to a "happier" time.
Conservative - someone who opposes change
Progressive - someone who advocates incremental and moderate change
Radical - someone who advocates drastic, immediate change

The real terms (until the attempt to redefine them) have nothing to do with right or left.

 

[Bfgrn]

The proof in the end is in the pudding. Every step that moves this nation forward has been done by a liberal president. Be it freedom, social security, public education, medicare, equal rights, or any you care to mention.

The constant berating of the other has always been from the right, the reactionary forces that oppose progress and change. These are laws it seems of the political and cultural universe. This opposition to change will always be from the right.

Talk, friends is cheap, but accomplishments come hard as healthcare demonstrates. In the final page it is what you do not how you define the other.



"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.'" President John F Kennedy on September 14, 1960

I totally agree. America and progress are synonymous. We have always been leaders, not followers. America has always been at the cutting edge of science, exploration, cultural and human rights advancements.

When you really think about it, conservatism is the antithesis of America...

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

[mudwhistle]

The proof in the end is in the pudding. Every step that moves this nation forward has been done by a liberal president. Be it freedom, social security, public education, medicare, equal rights, or any you care to mention.

The constant berating of the other has always been from the right, the reactionary forces that oppose progress and change. These are laws it seems of the political and cultural universe. This opposition to change will always be from the right.

Talk, friends is cheap, but accomplishments come hard as healthcare demonstrates. In the final page it is what you do not how you define the other.



"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.'" President John F Kennedy on September 14, 1960

I totally agree. America and progress are synonymous. We have always been leaders, not followers. America has always been at the cutting edge of science, exploration, cultural and human rights advancements.

When you really think about it, conservatism is the antithesis of America...

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Hate to break this to you...but conservatism is what made this country the great country that it is.

Your ideas are what made us into what we are because your ideas are already at work in Europe.

Your ideas are counterproductive while hard work and persistence are what allows us to accomplish what most other countries feel is the impossible.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The idea that hard work and persistence are "conservative" principles is a joke.

They are ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. was no conservative - but his hard work and persistence are the stuff of legend.

You are deluded.

 

[KYConservative]

Somebody, anybody please, please, please call ME a "Far-Right Winger"!! PLEASE?

I'll wear it like a badge of honor!

You see many (on the left and right) consider anyone that believes in God, an Evangelical Christian mainly to be "far right".

Oh, I believe every word of the Bible! That makes me "extreme far right"
AND
I make preparations for the future, I plant "crisis gardens", can our own food, raise our own meat, and eggs. We live on a farm secluded in the country. That would make me a "radical extreme far rightie" correct?

I am soooo proud!

YOU'RE A FAR RIGHT-WINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Now....feel better??????

Yep!!

Thanks Mudwhistle! I just needed to hear it.

Besides, it allows everyone on USMB to fully identify with whom I am....liberals worst nightmare "a Bible thumping, gun toting married, Christian white male in his mid-forties that is retired from the military".

psst. coming by for coffee Monday? Didn't see ya the past two days.

 

[Bfgrn]

Translation: If you don't buy into what I was told to believe about this particular case AND what I believe to have been the intent of "our founders", then you are stupid.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Really? It's not arbitrary, it's called history, ever hear of it? Tell me when I get to a part that resembles today's corporations, OK?

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

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.

When you stop posting someone's opinion on history (just because you happen to agree with the opinion doesn't magically transform that opinion into historical fact) and claiming it is historical fact ... then I'll comment. Until then, I'll just keep disagreeing with your opinion.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is history, not opinion.

But hey, this is the land of opportunity, you're always welcome to do your own research and attempt to dispute my facts...

Gangs of America by Ted Nace - the rise of Corporate Power and the disabling of democracy

The Uncooling of America The History of Corporations in the United States

Chapters excerpted from Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann



The Theft of Human Rights

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.

Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.

There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.

A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.

-- William Jennings Bryan
address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, from a personal perspective - and this is gonna piss off and confuse pretty much everybody on here.... I don't see the DNC and the GOP as left or right... I see them both on the left side of the following line:

Totalitarianism...................................................................................................................Anarchy

If you were to put both parties somewhere along this line, both the DNC and the GOP would be "left" of center. Now, the problem that I really have is that the Founding Fathers (God Bless Them), wrote the Constitution to put us just on the safe side of anarchy.... Enough law and order to prevent chaos, but maximum freedom for the individual.

Contraversial, huh?

What??!!

lol, maybe you should read the instructions before you try out that thinking cap you apparently got for Christmas.

Which bit is too hard for you? One one extreme of the political spectrum is complete state control, on the other side is absolutely no law whatsoever. That's not hard. According to the Constitution, we are supposed to have minimal goverment control and maximum individual freedom - and responsibilty. Enough law to keep us from anarchy but that's about it.

Told ya it was contraversial. Didn't realize it was 'above your intellectual paygrade'.

Those extremes aren't left/right extremes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is history, not opinion.

And what YOU believe the ramifications are and the divergence it represents from the intentions of the founders is pure opinion.

I'll decide whether or not to dispute your "facts" when you post one.

Still waiting for that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is history, not opinion.

And what YOU believe the ramifications are and the divergence it represents from the intentions of the founders is pure opinion.

Not really... but feel free to continue yelling at the clouds...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is history, not opinion.

And what YOU believe the ramifications are and the divergence it represents from the intentions of the founders is pure opinion.

Not really... but feel free to continue yelling at the clouds...

Yes, yes I see. YOUR opinions are "facts." Other people's opinions are "yelling at the clouds."


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[mudwhistle]

The idea that hard work and persistence are "conservative" principles is a joke.

They are ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. was no conservative - but his hard work and persistence are the stuff of legend.

You are deluded.

What does MLK have to do with this?

I'm talking about kids getting out of school early and working their asses off just to scrap together a living. I'm talking about having the feeling that you can do anything when you put your mind to it because your government doesn't tell you you can't.

It's entrepreneurship. Believing in the possibility that you can work your ass off and benefit from it instead of some schmuck in Washington telling you he's gonna put a ceiling on your potential and take your profits because they don't belong to you.

 

[concept]

Today's moonbat liberoidal likes to prtend they are the same as a classical liberal from so long ago.

They are not even close to same.


Kennedy would be considered a right wing extremist by the socialist libs of today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So I guess Bill O'Reilly's repeated ad nauseum references to the far left, which he uses very inclusively to include much or most of the left,

is BULLSHIT?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the term for those to the right of the sane conservatives (the endangered species of politics), but to the left of the rightwingers in bunkers, with machine guns and bags of rice and drinking their own urine,

is 'wingnuts'.

Any objections?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The idea that hard work and persistence are "conservative" principles is a joke.

They are ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. was no conservative - but his hard work and persistence are the stuff of legend.

You are deluded.

What does MLK have to do with this?

I'm talking about kids getting out of school early and working their asses off just to scrap together a living. I'm talking about having the feeling that you can do anything when you put your mind to it because your government doesn't tell you you can't.

It's entrepreneurship. Believing in the possibility that you can work your ass off and benefit from it instead of some schmuck in Washington telling you he's gonna put a ceiling on your potential and take your profits because they don't belong to you.

What does MLK have to do with hard work and persistence (your words not mine)?
Just a clear example that these are not "conservative" or "liberal" values. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh has brought you up to believe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that hard work and persistence are "conservative" principles is a joke.

They are ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. was no conservative - but his hard work and persistence are the stuff of legend.

You are deluded.

What does MLK have to do with this?

I'm talking about kids getting out of school early and working their asses off just to scrap together a living. I'm talking about having the feeling that you can do anything when you put your mind to it because your government doesn't tell you you can't.

It's entrepreneurship. Believing in the possibility that you can work your ass off and benefit from it instead of some schmuck in Washington telling you he's gonna put a ceiling on your potential and take your profits because they don't belong to you.

That's what the rich want you to think. Good boy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The proof in the end is in the pudding. Every step that moves this nation forward has been done by a liberal president. Be it freedom, social security, public education, medicare, equal rights, or any you care to mention.

The constant berating of the other has always been from the right, the reactionary forces that oppose progress and change. These are laws it seems of the political and cultural universe. This opposition to change will always be from the right.

Talk, friends is cheap, but accomplishments come hard as healthcare demonstrates. In the final page it is what you do not how you define the other.



"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.'" President John F Kennedy on September 14, 1960

I totally agree. America and progress are synonymous. We have always been leaders, not followers. America has always been at the cutting edge of science, exploration, cultural and human rights advancements.

When you really think about it, conservatism is the antithesis of America...

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Hate to break this to you...but conservatism is what made this country the great country that it is.

Your ideas are what made us into what we are because your ideas are already at work in Europe.

Your ideas are counterproductive while hard work and persistence are what allows us to accomplish what most other countries feel is the impossible.

REALLY??? Then why were the Loyalists, Tories and Lobster-backs conservatives?

The “Barbarism of the times”

SOCIOLOGIST SEYMOUR MARTIN Lipset once remarked that, after the Revolution, there were and never have been any true “conservatives” in America. This view, which seems preposterous to modern readers, makes sense if one considers the 18th century context of the term “conservative” as a proponent of monarchy. Therefore, in 1783, the only Americans deserving the term “conservatives” (monarchists) were the Loyalists, and they were in the process of democratizing their viewpoints or packing their suitcases. Already, many Loyalists had fled the new nation, never to return.

Loyalists were the “status quo” element of American society in the 1770s: they did not agree wholeheartedly with British policy, but considered the Revolution too drastic and damaging an alternative. They professed obedience and loyalty to the King of England, earning them the sobriquet, “Tories” (or, worse, traitors). Most were well-to-do, on the upper fringes of society, and involvement in a failed revolution posed a risk to their wealth and position. They counted among their ranks royal officials, doctors, lawyers, and ministers, while others had engaged in shipping and commerce, often with close ties to England. Strong concentrations of Loyalists existed in New York and the Carolinas, especially in the coastal cities where trade flourished. To Jefferson, this alone raised suspicions (“They all live in cities,” he complained). Above all, the Tories were, in terms of personalities, the epitome of “conservative,” not wishing to risk sudden change. One Loyalist declared, “As long as government subsists, subjects owe an implicit obedience to the laws of the supreme power.” To do otherwise, would be to “plunge at once into anarchy.”

When war broke out, Tories joined the British military as militiamen, spies, saboteurs, counterfeiters, and even regular soldiers, in sizeable numbers.

 

[mudwhistle]

The idea that hard work and persistence are "conservative" principles is a joke.

They are ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Martin Luther King Jr. was no conservative - but his hard work and persistence are the stuff of legend.

You are deluded.

What does MLK have to do with this?

I'm talking about kids getting out of school early and working their asses off just to scrap together a living. I'm talking about having the feeling that you can do anything when you put your mind to it because your government doesn't tell you you can't.

It's entrepreneurship. Believing in the possibility that you can work your ass off and benefit from it instead of some schmuck in Washington telling you he's gonna put a ceiling on your potential and take your profits because they don't belong to you.

That's what the rich want you to think. Good boy.

I'm nobody's boy. And the rich aren't fooling me....nor can they. However the rich Dems are fooling your dumb ass.

The difference between this country and others is at least we have hope.

In other countries you're born into your class and you stay there.

Many come here and recognize that in America...that they can do anything they put their minds to. You just can't see it. Ether you don't believe it's possible or you're too damned lazy or don't have the vision to do what it takes.

And I don't base my philosophical beliefs off of class-envy like you seem to.