This nonsense is about to stop...

[American Horse]

You keep using that word "liberal", I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I think I know who the liberals are in American society. But do you have a brief definition that supports your contention that my own concept is inadequate?

Your definition of Liberal seems to be everyone but you, there is no fixing that level of propaganda poisoning.

With all due respect that is nonsense, and you can do better, I hope.

 

[grunt11b]

These fuckers should be tazed and waterboarded - in that order.

Perhaps Teabaggers should be tasered and waterboarded... just so they can see that it IS torture.

Our special forces get waterboarded in SERE school, if it's good enough for them, it's plenty good enough for terrorists.

 

[grunt11b]

Wow... thanks for proving my point. Ok... if that's the way you want to play... Fascist jackbooted goose stepper.

Call me what you want. Labels that are lies don't really bother me. Why should they? They expose your ignorance, not my policies.

No, it's truthful labels that hurt.

And if you were being objective youd realize that anyone advocating for small government cannot be fascist, because fascism is by definition a totalitarian government.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah... you want smaller federal government and pass that power onto the states....until the states get too powerful... then you'll want the states to pass their power onto the localities... hey.. let's just go to a feudal system... where warlords and wealthy landowners control everything? Oh... wait....

It's called checks and balances, the majority of what the federal government is doing right now was never intended to be done by the federal government and was left to the states to take care of per the constitution. Like the Department of education, where in the constitution does the government have the authority to meddle in education? It isn't there so it was meant to be left to the states, you catchen on yet?
Anything not listed in the constitution is to be left to the states and then to the people. Read the constitution for once in your life.

 

[grunt11b]

The protestors built a tree house in the park??? They have zero respect for anyone else.

Wall street and the financial sector stole your retirement and your raise...maybe even your job. They have zero respect for anyone else..

They could not have done it without progressive government policies, both from the right and the left. Dont blame wallstreet, blame the people who have sat at 1600 pennsylvania avenue for the last 20 years or so and congress.

 

[grunt11b]

There's nothing left to this "movement" but the mentally ill, homeless people, drug pushers, junkies and assorted kinds of prostitutes. It's human trash. If they weren't in these "encampments" they'd be on the streets anyway scattered about. Garbage is garbage, and it's time to clean it up. There isn't anything "political" left about these OWS camps.

LOL.

Boy, do you have an unpleasant surprise coming.

I'll give you a hint to maybe help soften the blow. There is very little of Occupy left in the camps at this point. The movement is shifting tactics. When it emerges again, which it will next month, it will take most of you by surprise.

Thanks for the hint, I love secret squirrel stuff!
OWS is gonna pop up in China!!!!

 

[occupied]

I think I know who the liberals are in American society. But do you have a brief definition that supports your contention that my own concept is inadequate?

Your definition of Liberal seems to be everyone but you, there is no fixing that level of propaganda poisoning.

With all due respect that is nonsense, and you can do better, I hope.

You are the one rejecting standard definitions, substituting your own and refusing to explain yourself. The definition of liberal has been increasingly redefined by the right to mean anyone even slightly moderate, if that is your definition then it is wrong, you are wrong, real liberals get practically no representation, no air time and no respect.

 

[grunt11b]

OK, I'll bite...what are the stated goals of this movement? What do they want to achieve?

Money out of politics. Democracy, not plutocracy. That's the sine qua non.

Other than that, reversal of the government policies that have resulted in the stagnation of most people's incomes and decline of living standards over the past 30 years, with all of the gains going to the richest people. This should follow from getting the money out of politics, though.

Of course, this has been stated before many times ("what do they want" was always a deceptive bit of propaganda), so if you really don't know what the movement wants to achieve, I doubt you'll understand what I'm saying here, either.

And if this is a movement of freedom and liberty, then why is it being led by Unions whoe are openly claiming communism and Marxism? Why at the beginning where people holding signs up with the communist fist on them if this movement is for freedom and liberty? Communism and marxism is the absence of liberty and freedom.

 

[grunt11b]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where was your outrage then when local governments made the Tea Party pay for there permits?
It was nonexistent, that's where.

 

[occupied]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where was your outrage then when local governments made the Tea Party pay for there permits?
It was nonexistent, that's where.

Send occupy a bill then but where do you send it? It was easy with the tea party, Freedomworks has an address and plenty of cash.

 

[grunt11b]

Guess what Pale Rider, a lot of those homeless were and are veterans. I met a number of them at my local Occupy. The Occupy camps provided more support for some of those vets than they ever got from the Government. Some local marines donated a battalion tent to our Occupy to get us through the winter. Try educating yourself from somewhere besides right-wing talk radio.

This is far from over. We'll go home when the corruption ends.

There are communists and marxists in every community, the military is not immune. I find it funny that when Obamas poll numbers hit rock bottom and the left realized that they will lose control of both houses and the white house only then did you guys start caring about government corruption. You didn't care when they passed an unconstitutional health care law, you didn't care when they used 2 trillion dollars behind closed doors for political kickbacks and payoffs, you didn't care about that corruption enough 3 years ago to do this, only now, in an election year. This movement is a fraud, a joke and an embarrassment to what this republic was founded on. You should all be ashamed, but your not and that does not surprise me to the least.

 

[grunt11b]

Guess what Pale Rider, a lot of those homeless were and are veterans. I met a number of them at my local Occupy. The Occupy camps provided more support for some of those vets than they ever got from the Government. Some local marines donated a battalion tent to our Occupy to get us through the winter. Try educating yourself from somewhere besides right-wing talk radio.

This is far from over. We'll go home when the corruption ends.

Guess what dipshit... I'm a serviced connect disabled veteran, and I know fully well what kind of support there is for vets and what it takes to get that help, so don't talk to me like you've got one up on me assclown. Try educating yourself as to whom it is on this board you're talking to before you open that ignorant fucking pie hole in your fat, greasy face.

And to add to that, OWS isn't about veterans and their benefits, so nice try to deflect in all your holier than thou superior attitude bull shit.

Moron leftist jackoff. You'll go home when you're told to go home.

Same here, I am service connected as well. Thank you for your service.

 

[grunt11b]

Thanks for your service Pale, it's a shame that so many of your compadres are getting screwed by the system. OWS is about a lot of things and yes, better support for vets is a big one.

As long as the vets go along with the OWS movement they are, other than that they would shit on the vets like the left has done for years.

 

[grunt11b]

There's nothing left to this "movement" but the mentally ill, homeless people, drug pushers, junkies and assorted kinds of prostitutes. It's human trash. If they weren't in these "encampments" they'd be on the streets anyway scattered about. Garbage is garbage, and it's time to clean it up. There isn't anything "political" left about these OWS camps.

Otherwise known as the poor and disaffected.

Wow, imagine that.... the exact same people that your side has made the most disenfranchised in this country... but those are the ones your side would rather line up against the wall and mow down with .50 caliber machine guns. after all, garbage is garbage, right? Or maybe just taze them and waterboard them.

Fuck you elitist scumbag.

Resorting to petty name calling can be a sign of losing the debate.

 

[grunt11b]

No, just following the rules of assembly by getting permits like the Tea Party does and stop usurping the resources of the general public. Why shouldn;t they follow the rules? What makes them "outside of the law?"

Tea party activists audited by city of Richmond Va. Would that happen to Occupy protesters?

For tea party groups, the audit by Richmond, Va., highlights long-running complaints of a double standard in the treatment of activists. The audit also puts a spotlight on free-speech regulations.

Christian Science Monitor Nov 29, 2011

Tea party activists in Richmond, Va., watched as liberal Occupy Wall Street protesters paid nothing to use the same park that conservatives paid $8,500 to use for three of its "tax day" rallies. So the tea partyers pushed the issue by demanding a full refund of their fees.

Instead of a check, the Richmond Tea Party received a letter from the city saying it may have failed to pay taxes on ticket and food sales – and it should immediately prepare for an audit.

The city denies allegations that the audit warning was some kind of political retaliation or harassment. But for tea party groups, the city missive highlights long-running complaints of a double standard in the treatment of tea party activists.

But when the leaders of the local TPM try, at public meetings, to ask the Richmond Mayor, he ducks out and won't take their questions about it.

Audit away, we will find what most people already know, TP rallies were organized by lobbyists with deep pockets and the OWS was truly an organic thing with no clear leaders to send a bill to, seriously, who would you contact in the OWS to send a bill to?

Communist party of america, SEIU, George Soros. Oh wait, some of that missing 2 trillion dollars could be enough to erase the paper trail, that and we have a justice department that is too incompetent to do it's job to investigate anything anyways.

 

[occupied]

Guess what Pale Rider, a lot of those homeless were and are veterans. I met a number of them at my local Occupy. The Occupy camps provided more support for some of those vets than they ever got from the Government. Some local marines donated a battalion tent to our Occupy to get us through the winter. Try educating yourself from somewhere besides right-wing talk radio.

This is far from over. We'll go home when the corruption ends.

There are communists and marxists in every community, the military is not immune. I find it funny that when Obamas poll numbers hit rock bottom and the left realized that they will lose control of both houses and the white house only then did you guys start caring about government corruption. You didn't care when they passed an unconstitutional health care law, you didn't care when they used 2 trillion dollars behind closed doors for political kickbacks and payoffs, you didn't care about that corruption enough 3 years ago to do this, only now, in an election year. This movement is a fraud, a joke and an embarrassment to what this republic was founded on. You should all be ashamed, but your not and that does not surprise me to the least.

Don't think for a minute that Obama and the democrats will be left out of the scorn that is going to be piled on the heads of everyone inside the beltway, the election season is young yet, everyone will be forced to publicly state where they stand.

 

[occupied]

Tea party activists audited by city of Richmond Va. Would that happen to Occupy protesters?

For tea party groups, the audit by Richmond, Va., highlights long-running complaints of a double standard in the treatment of activists. The audit also puts a spotlight on free-speech regulations.

Christian Science Monitor Nov 29, 2011

But when the leaders of the local TPM try, at public meetings, to ask the Richmond Mayor, he ducks out and won't take their questions about it.

Audit away, we will find what most people already know, TP rallies were organized by lobbyists with deep pockets and the OWS was truly an organic thing with no clear leaders to send a bill to, seriously, who would you contact in the OWS to send a bill to?

Communist party of america, SEIU, George Soros. Oh wait, some of that missing 2 trillion dollars could be enough to erase the paper trail, that and we have a justice department that is too incompetent to do it's job to investigate anything anyways.

Yes while we are at it let's simply investigate all of the money used in any recent protest movement, the tea party would shit a brick if their money trail was exposed for all to see.

 

[Jackson]

Audit away, we will find what most people already know, TP rallies were organized by lobbyists with deep pockets and the OWS was truly an organic thing with no clear leaders to send a bill to, seriously, who would you contact in the OWS to send a bill to?

Communist party of america, SEIU, George Soros. Oh wait, some of that missing 2 trillion dollars could be enough to erase the paper trail, that and we have a justice department that is too incompetent to do it's job to investigate anything anyways.

Yes while we are at it let's simply investigate all of the money used in any recent protest movement, the tea party would shit a brick if their money trail was exposed for all to see.

Please expose it for us. You seem to have inside knowledge.

 

[occupied]

Communist party of america, SEIU, George Soros. Oh wait, some of that missing 2 trillion dollars could be enough to erase the paper trail, that and we have a justice department that is too incompetent to do it's job to investigate anything anyways.

Yes while we are at it let's simply investigate all of the money used in any recent protest movement, the tea party would shit a brick if their money trail was exposed for all to see.

Please expose it for us. You seem to have inside knowledge.

That's just the thing, it is public knowledge that lobbyists such as Freedomworks did practically all of the national Tea Party organizing and that Fox gave them practically unlimited positive coverage but we will never know what combination of petroleum, pharmaceutical, defence and financial sector cash funded them as we apparently have no right to know who is meddling in our national politics. Thanks republicans, that's all your fault.

 

[American Horse]

Thanks but no thanks, I don't want the discussion to devolve into all that which leads to charges that "one" doesn't understand their own philosophy, that being me.

Actually, I was trying to avoid that. I assume that you do understand your own philosophy, and that the lack of understanding lies with me, in that I have no clue what you mean by those terms -- since you quite obviously DON'T mean the words' standing and common meanings.

Going by those standard and common meanings, your statement that financial corporations give more to liberals than to conservatives, or that they mostly are liberals, is nonsensical gobbledegook and self-evidently wrong. I assumed in the beginning that you were using "liberal" and "conservative" as a sloppy way of saying "Democratic" and "Republican," respectively, which is fairly common. Since Wall Street does occasionally give more to Democratic than to Republican candidates (although not consistently), that modification would make your statement true at least some of the time.

Your response to this post, however, showed that the parties isn't what you mean, and I am left in the dark about what you are talking about.

So it's not that I think YOU don't understand your philosophy. It's that I don't understand it -- because by the normal meanings of the words you are using, it's gibberish -- and so I am asking you to define your terms. I promise not to play "gotcha," but I do reserve the right to replace the words you are using with ones more appropriate to the meaning you intend.

1st of all, I am only referring to the definitions for America, because of all the many reincarnations and permutations over the years and in different countries.

You are right, it is too easy to get sloppy when party affiliation is conflated or confused with political philosophy. But it is generally accepted that Republicans are mostly conservative, that is to say they hold to traditions and resist change (all but the most thought out and debated change) - their history shows that; ... from the time of Roosevelt to the ascendance to the house and senate in 1994, Never mind all the accusations of hypocrisy and radicalism that came (before and) after the so called “conservative revolution” of 1994. If we do that we are only talking about opinions and making accusations. As you remember, the republicans were call “radical conservatives” back then, which terms are mutually exclusive.

Briefly I will define the two as follows and then expand;
Conservatism is reliant on institutions and traditions, and resists change except along the normal approved and accepted processes; that is preserve liberty by keeping the constitution as a first principle. If it’s not broken don’t fix it.

Liberalism is reliant on change to achieve its aims, which it claims are equality and freedom, and the noble aim of egalitarianism which more of late involves human justice. Almost any method of change is acceptable if it can be achieved within established institutions. The institutions are open to interpretation or majority opinion.


I'll support my deinitions by going briefly into the constitution and conservative and liberal points of view.

Conservatives and Republicans are both strong on national defense, to the point of being aggressive in that posture. Conservatives and Republicans are both usually strong on adherence to the constitution (the nations seminal institution) and that takes into its concept the bill of rights, the first of which is the 1st amendment, (I'll label it "Freedom of Religion" [establishing or abridging] which is the first followed by press, assembly, and petiiton...) I can be a conservative (and a Republican) and be a strong proponent of freedom of religion, even while I am an atheist, because without freedom of religion there can be no other freedoms. IMO that is partly why it is the first, but to me really has no religiously moral implication.

Liberals (to a lesser extent Democrats I believe) take a different interpretation of the first amendment, not content to see it as a complete freedom, but as something that should be excluded from government functions, government property, ceremonies, etc. The-too-free practice of a religion, particularly a dominant religion encroaches on the freedoms of other religious or non religious people to their discomfort. I completely understand that, and hesitantly support it, since as an atheist I am uncomfortable in openly religious ceremonies. But, on the other hand, if I am to rely on a basis of freedom other than men or a "man", then I will absolutely accept the rhetorical vehicle that my freedom comes from (a) "god, or a "creator," “providence” as insurance from loss of freedom. To rely on the rule of law, is inherently defective because they are drafted and enacted by mere majorities of the legislature.

Therefore as a conservative, I rely foremost on the original document, the ultimate institution of the country. Conservatives support or are strong on institutions. Liberals no doubt love the constitution too, but they see it as a living document, and approve of its change by reinterpretation, since amending it is too time consuming, and onerous. Conservative say (at least they claim that) only the words of the original document are meaningful, and until amended by modern terms by actual amendment must be followed. Liberals say the words are from a past century, and “must be interpreted by today’s meanings or argue about the meanings, because it is a new age, with new devices the drafters could not conceive of in their time.” That is a liberal outlook, and it gets application in the courts by liberal judges, that is to say judges who also see a necessity to "update" it.

That is just the first amendment, but I look at all of those in the Bill of Rights with the same perspective. And liberals, from their point of view see it just as I described in the preceding three paragraphs.

Everything breaks down along those lines, whether it is economic or social issues. Abortion is another good example. I believe that to deprive a human being of life is to deny it of the first of all rights, and the first one laid out in the Dec. of Ind. - Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) Property is life, if I own myself, and when property can be taken for the benefit of the many, then there is an open debate and therefore there is doubt that I own myself. To take a life, even in the womb throws open to question of the value of life as inferior to the rights of the individual. There the question is: does a person lose the right of eliminating a life in their body, when they had decisive a role in creating it? (rape and I suppose incest notwithstanding)

These are the basic reasons, I, and I think most as conservative persons come down as I do on all issues, whether it be commerce, free enterprise, trade, federalism, states rights.

There are things that are already done that liberals claim that conservatives would oppose and do away with. But as they are imbedded in our lives and are powerful and helpful institutions I support them, but I would accept change to improve or modernize them. The short (but not complete) list is: Taxation, the Federal Reserve, abortion, and Social Security. Almost al of those I don’t even have a quarrel with (with the possible exception of abortion) because they go to the true original meaning of conserve from which the word conservatism derives: To save, to keep, protect, to hold against, to defend.

I don't think most of us out here who are participating in the political culture are particulary doctrinaire about the definitions of their philosophies, as long as they are coherrent, and have a basis.

 

[Dragon]

AH:

Those are quite standard definitions of "liberal" and "conservative." By those definitions, I see no evidence that Wall Street is liberal (seeks liberty and equality or promotes change within established institutions in service to liberty and equality), or that it gives more to liberal candidates than to conservative ones.