A Tale Of Two Autos....

[Old Rocks]

Toyota, Ford, and GM are into the hybrid, plugin ev's in a big way. The Fusion or C-Max hybrid costs about $25,000. The C-Max Energi, with the 20 mile ev range, costs $32,000. These are doable numbers.

As the battery technology advances, and the batteries increase in power density and decrease in price, this kind of vehicle will be even more affordable. At some point, it will not make sense to own a vehicle that has only an ICE powering it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

Right. That mandate is unrealistic. There are so many exceptions.
It's all nonsense. Battery technology is not progressing. People are not interested in over priced golf carts on wheels.
Look, there are other technologies out there ( Natural gas, hydrogen) that are better more efficient and cheaper. Here's the problem, they are not politically palatable.
Why? Because any fuel which can be used in autos in lieu of oil, is loaded with political land mines.
Imagine natural gas at $2.80 per therm( 1000 cubic feet) supplanting oil at $98 per barrel( 42 gals) or gasoline at $2.90 per gallon...That is a cheap clean and highly available alternative. The oil companies and of course OPEC would have none of that.
If oil were not the main fuel used in the US for autos, the OPEC nations would fall into bankruptcy. The geo political turmoil would be catastrophic.
Oil companies are among the world's largest corporations. With a much smaller market ,those firms would struggle as well.
The above reasons are give light to the fact that all of these green energy schemes are a lot of nonsense.

No, there is no delivery system for that energy now.
How much capital would it cost to change over from gasoline to natural gas and/or hydrogen?
Who is going to front that capital? The oil companies?
NO.
WHO?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

Right. That mandate is unrealistic. There are so many exceptions.
It's all nonsense. Battery technology is not progressing. People are not interested in over priced golf carts on wheels.
Look, there are other technologies out there ( Natural gas, hydrogen) that are better more efficient and cheaper. Here's the problem, they are not politically palatable.
Why? Because any fuel which can be used in autos in lieu of oil, is loaded with political land mines.
Imagine natural gas at $2.80 per therm( 1000 cubic feet) supplanting oil at $98 per barrel( 42 gals) or gasoline at $2.90 per gallon...That is a cheap clean and highly available alternative. The oil companies and of course OPEC would have none of that.
If oil were not the main fuel used in the US for autos, the OPEC nations would fall into bankruptcy. The geo political turmoil would be catastrophic.
Oil companies are among the world's largest corporations. With a much smaller market ,those firms would struggle as well.
The above reasons are give light to the fact that all of these green energy schemes are a lot of nonsense.

No, there is no delivery system for that energy now.
How much capital would it cost to change over from gasoline to natural gas and/or hydrogen?
Who is going to front that capital? The oil companies?
NO.
WHO?

And that is the whole point of the hybrid ev's. The delivery system for both fuels is already in place. And we have the technology on the market right now that would allow the homeowner to power his vehicle for the ev part with his own solar installation.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com


2. "The fundamentals of economic prosperity: the rule of law, property rights, freedom of contract, low marginal tax rates, the minimum regulatory barriers and costs necessary, sound money, and a stable dollar. Needless to say, “too big to fail” is a policy of failure.
Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” P. 240.



If I may broaden the topic.....the abject stupidity of the 'big government' crowd, raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy, is highlighted in this thread.

This is only superficially about cars....it is about the function of government.



The same problem is seen in taxation and for the same reasons:

a. conservatives see taxes as necessary to pay for legitimate government functions....as outlined in Article I, section 8, enumerated powers.

Any extra is given back in tax cuts.

b. Liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists....see the purpose of taxation as a method of redistribution for purposes of material equality.



Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.

WOW, Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.

You just abdicated PC. You have just admitted to me and everyone on this board what I have been saying all along.

Conservatives.......
When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No PC, this is about a lot more than just cars. It is about people. We, the People. It is about saving something that can never be replaced. It is about human CAPITAL. It is about saving jobs, not only at GM, but at thousands of suppliers and sub contractors. It is about saving an industry that is part of that American exceptionalism you crow about. It is symbol and substance of our identity and our pride as a nation. You right wingers will never understand that. You folks on the right are not for less government. You have proven that every time you gain power. You absolutely LOVE government when it can wreak havoc on people's lives, when it bombs, invades, kills, maims, shuts down, arrests, incarcerates, and executes.

And you choose to deem Constitutional arguments that have gone on between philosophers, scholars, politicians, economists and polemics since the founding of our country as settled.

Conservatism is the scourge of the earth. And you are a very embodiment of that scourge.

Why is it that educating you has to fall on my shoulders?????



1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.




3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.




4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


So...among the most dim-witted (raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy!) the term equality no longer means 'before the law,' but some sort of material equality.

That's what it means to you....isn't it, Boring?


So...
Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


If the rule is broken, and the producers are penalized....property and wealth are confiscated by fiat or by taxation....

....the result is the Obama economy.

Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


Is the concept that the 'equality' in question is the absurd notion of material equality...is that too nuanced for you?

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Nuance?

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief.

The question was asked by a foreign college student at a political forum what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats. After Peggy Noonan went off on some long drawn out answer, the late Ted Sorensen, the man who knew John F. Kennedy's core beliefs better than anyone, said it best and in his usual, concise and word thrifty style.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

It is really the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. And conservatives, because they can't admit to themselves that truth, they have to go through the kind of mental gymnastics, straw man arguments, and cling to such doctrinaire and dogma that you and your comrades try to pawn off as truth.

It's about people PC. And if it is not about people, it is not justice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WOW, Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.

You just abdicated PC. You have just admitted to me and everyone on this board what I have been saying all along.

Conservatives.......
When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No PC, this is about a lot more than just cars. It is about people. We, the People. It is about saving something that can never be replaced. It is about human CAPITAL. It is about saving jobs, not only at GM, but at thousands of suppliers and sub contractors. It is about saving an industry that is part of that American exceptionalism you crow about. It is symbol and substance of our identity and our pride as a nation. You right wingers will never understand that. You folks on the right are not for less government. You have proven that every time you gain power. You absolutely LOVE government when it can wreak havoc on people's lives, when it bombs, invades, kills, maims, shuts down, arrests, incarcerates, and executes.

And you choose to deem Constitutional arguments that have gone on between philosophers, scholars, politicians, economists and polemics since the founding of our country as settled.

Conservatism is the scourge of the earth. And you are a very embodiment of that scourge.

Why is it that educating you has to fall on my shoulders?????



1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.




3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.




4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


So...among the most dim-witted (raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy!) the term equality no longer means 'before the law,' but some sort of material equality.

That's what it means to you....isn't it, Boring?


So...
Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


If the rule is broken, and the producers are penalized....property and wealth are confiscated by fiat or by taxation....

....the result is the Obama economy.

Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


Is the concept that the 'equality' in question is the absurd notion of material equality...is that too nuanced for you?

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Nuance?

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief.

The question was asked by a foreign college student at a political forum what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats. After Peggy Noonan went off on some long drawn out answer, the late Ted Sorensen, the man who knew John F. Kennedy's core beliefs better than anyone, said it best and in his usual, concise and word thrifty style.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

It is really the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. And conservatives, because they can't admit to themselves that truth, they have to go through the kind of mental gymnastics, straw man arguments, and cling to such doctrinaire and dogma that you and your comrades try to pawn off as truth.

It's about people PC. And if it is not about people, it is not justice.

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE]Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube[/ame]



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

 

[Bfgrn]

Why is it that educating you has to fall on my shoulders?????



1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.




3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.




4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


So...among the most dim-witted (raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy!) the term equality no longer means 'before the law,' but some sort of material equality.

That's what it means to you....isn't it, Boring?


So...
Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


If the rule is broken, and the producers are penalized....property and wealth are confiscated by fiat or by taxation....

....the result is the Obama economy.

Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


Is the concept that the 'equality' in question is the absurd notion of material equality...is that too nuanced for you?

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Nuance?

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.




Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief.

The question was asked by a foreign college student at a political forum what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats. After Peggy Noonan went off on some long drawn out answer, the late Ted Sorensen, the man who knew John F. Kennedy's core beliefs better than anyone, said it best and in his usual, concise and word thrifty style.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

It is really the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. And conservatives, because they can't admit to themselves that truth, they have to go through the kind of mental gymnastics, straw man arguments, and cling to such doctrinaire and dogma that you and your comrades try to pawn off as truth.

It's about people PC. And if it is not about people, it is not justice.

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE]Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube[/ame]



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Nuance?

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.




Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief.

The question was asked by a foreign college student at a political forum what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats. After Peggy Noonan went off on some long drawn out answer, the late Ted Sorensen, the man who knew John F. Kennedy's core beliefs better than anyone, said it best and in his usual, concise and word thrifty style.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

It is really the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. And conservatives, because they can't admit to themselves that truth, they have to go through the kind of mental gymnastics, straw man arguments, and cling to such doctrinaire and dogma that you and your comrades try to pawn off as truth.

It's about people PC. And if it is not about people, it is not justice.

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE]Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube[/ame]



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

So....you'd like to scamper away from

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."


Good boy.



That means I win, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Nuance?

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.




Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief.

The question was asked by a foreign college student at a political forum what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats. After Peggy Noonan went off on some long drawn out answer, the late Ted Sorensen, the man who knew John F. Kennedy's core beliefs better than anyone, said it best and in his usual, concise and word thrifty style.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"

It is really the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. And conservatives, because they can't admit to themselves that truth, they have to go through the kind of mental gymnastics, straw man arguments, and cling to such doctrinaire and dogma that you and your comrades try to pawn off as truth.

It's about people PC. And if it is not about people, it is not justice.

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE]Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube[/ame]



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

You seem to be attempting to equivocate, and obfuscate...based on what a Liberal is....

Here....as usual....I can help.

I believe in a movement, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Liberals don't.



How'd I do?
You skewered?

 

[Bfgrn]

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

So....you'd like to scamper away from

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."


Good boy.



That means I win, right?

There is nothing to scamper away from, except your polarized arguments that always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

 

[Bfgrn]

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Horsefeathers.


1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.
b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.
c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.


2. End economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"


3. The view of Liberals of taxation is an excellent example of the theory and practice.

a. While conservatives see taxation as a tool for paying the legitimate (constitutional) obligations of government....with any extra returned as tax cuts....

b. ....liberals view taxation as a weapon toward redistribution of wealth, i.e., 'social justice,' with the aim of equalizing material wealth. This, in itself, is as apocryphal as taking a close-up picture of the horizon.

4. Even though Liberals admit that raising taxes does not bring in more revenue...they pursue same as a religious endeavor.


So..."I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."

Well, let me introduce you to one:



Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" - YouTube



"I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."
Seeing as you are not very well read, perhaps the following will point you in the right direction:

5 .Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.”
Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22

Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

You bring up the term 'nuance' after showing over all your posts and threads that the term 'nuance' is not part of your strict and extreme doctrinaire? Your polarized arguments always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

You seem to be attempting to equivocate, and obfuscate...based on what a Liberal is....

Here....as usual....I can help.

I believe in a movement, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Liberals don't.



How'd I do?
You skewered?

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And I will defend that right.

I believe in the same things, but with nuances that the conservative mind cannot comprehend, because the right wing mind is completely controlled by doctrinaire, dogma and fear, there is no room for nuance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke



You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

So....you'd like to scamper away from

"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."


Good boy.



That means I win, right?

There is nothing to scamper away from, except your polarized arguments that always create liberals as extreme, not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind.

BoringFriendlessGuy, I'd like you to meet BoringFriendlessGuy.

Heck...if only you had the gift of irony.


"...not based on reality or the 'nuance' of liberalism, but on a fear based paranoia and imaginary 'slippery slope' created in YOUR sick mind."


Did you just claim that I was making up a view of libs not based on reality???

But you claim that I am subject to "a fear based paranoia."

Well, Dr. Freud, glad to see you've relied on "reality"!!!



You'll never realize the amusement you provide.




BTW...if you aren't scampering away....could you reaffirm
"I have never had the thought in my life that equality means material equality. And I know of no liberal who forwards that belief."


You did say that, didn't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke



You are the classic example of active ignorance. I have never read one word of Marx.

If John F. Kennedy is a Marxist, then so am I. Because his political beliefs and my political beliefs are the same.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

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 the record of this party and its members demonstrate that 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

You seem to be attempting to equivocate, and obfuscate...based on what a Liberal is....

Here....as usual....I can help.

I believe in a movement, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Liberals don't.



How'd I do?
You skewered?

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And I will defend that right.

I believe in the same things, but with nuances that the conservative mind cannot comprehend, because the right wing mind is completely controlled by doctrinaire, dogma and fear, there is no room for nuance.

"... individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

"I believe in the same things,..."


Did you just come in from jogging on the track around the mental hospital....

you know, the psycho-path....



Possibly you didn't realize what you just averred that you support....one at a time:

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.



Would that be three yeses?

 

[Gadawg73]

Where is there a natural gas or hydrogen filling station?
How come they are not around?
How come the free market has not invested in those?
What free market analyst advises their clients to put their investment dollars in those energy delivery systems?
What large industrial investment group invests in that?
Until Americans learn and listen exactly to what President Bush stated about American energy demand WE WILL continue to be a nation of energy guzzling dumbasses.
WE ARE A NATION ADDICTED TO OIL.
We are a lazy, stupid, dumbaass society that drives around in vehicles that get 9 mpg and believe that if we just continue to drill for oil then all is okay.
Fact is with exploration and capital outlays any and all domestic production would still have to be around a little less than $3 a gallon fof domestic drilling operations to make a profit.
Green is the future. Oil is great for the short term but natural gas and hydrogen vehicles will NEVER get to the showroom UNTIL the delivery system for those fuels is set in place FIRST.

 

[Bfgrn]

You seem to be attempting to equivocate, and obfuscate...based on what a Liberal is....

Here....as usual....I can help.

I believe in a movement, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Liberals don't.



How'd I do?
You skewered?

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And I will defend that right.

I believe in the same things, but with nuances that the conservative mind cannot comprehend, because the right wing mind is completely controlled by doctrinaire, dogma and fear, there is no room for nuance.

"... individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

"I believe in the same things,..."


Did you just come in from jogging on the track around the mental hospital....

you know, the psycho-path....



Possibly you didn't realize what you just averred that you support....one at a time:

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.



Would that be three yeses?

1. individualism

Nuance: the rights of the individual, as long as exercising those rights don't infringe on the rights of other individuals.


2. free markets

Nuance: in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

3. limited constitutional government.

Nuance: No one should be allowed to wield the Constitution as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. The Constitution is a framework and a guideline, not a edict or an all encompassing document.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And I will defend that right.

I believe in the same things, but with nuances that the conservative mind cannot comprehend, because the right wing mind is completely controlled by doctrinaire, dogma and fear, there is no room for nuance.

"... individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

"I believe in the same things,..."


Did you just come in from jogging on the track around the mental hospital....

you know, the psycho-path....



Possibly you didn't realize what you just averred that you support....one at a time:

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.



Would that be three yeses?

1. individualism

Nuance: the rights of the individual, as long as exercising those rights don't infringe on the rights of other individuals.


2. free markets

Nuance: in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

3. limited constitutional government.

Nuance: No one should be allowed to wield the Constitution as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. The Constitution is a framework and a guideline, not a edict or an all encompassing document.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

So.....you're a fraud?


You were....to put this in the mildest term....a prevaricator?


You weren't telling the truth when you claimed to believe in

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.


There could not be a more clear indication of the behavior of a Liberal.

 

[Gadawg73]

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And I will defend that right.

I believe in the same things, but with nuances that the conservative mind cannot comprehend, because the right wing mind is completely controlled by doctrinaire, dogma and fear, there is no room for nuance.

"... individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

"I believe in the same things,..."


Did you just come in from jogging on the track around the mental hospital....

you know, the psycho-path....



Possibly you didn't realize what you just averred that you support....one at a time:

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.



Would that be three yeses?

1. individualism

Nuance: the rights of the individual, as long as exercising those rights don't infringe on the rights of other individuals.


2. free markets

Nuance: in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

3. limited constitutional government.

Nuance: No one should be allowed to wield the Constitution as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. The Constitution is a framework and a guideline, not a edict or an all encompassing document.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

The Constitution IS THE LAW.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious and other views.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

Right. That mandate is unrealistic. There are so many exceptions.
It's all nonsense. Battery technology is not progressing. People are not interested in over priced golf carts on wheels.
Look, there are other technologies out there ( Natural gas, hydrogen) that are better more efficient and cheaper. Here's the problem, they are not politically palatable.
Why? Because any fuel which can be used in autos in lieu of oil, is loaded with political land mines.
Imagine natural gas at $2.80 per therm( 1000 cubic feet) supplanting oil at $98 per barrel( 42 gals) or gasoline at $2.90 per gallon...That is a cheap clean and highly available alternative. The oil companies and of course OPEC would have none of that.
If oil were not the main fuel used in the US for autos, the OPEC nations would fall into bankruptcy. The geo political turmoil would be catastrophic.
Oil companies are among the world's largest corporations. With a much smaller market ,those firms would struggle as well.
The above reasons are give light to the fact that all of these green energy schemes are a lot of nonsense.

No, there is no delivery system for that energy now.
How much capital would it cost to change over from gasoline to natural gas and/or hydrogen?
Who is going to front that capital? The oil companies?
NO.
WHO?

I call this the 'blockade' factor..
IN other words "we can't do that so we won't even look for ways to get it done".
Capital? From where? If the federal government was in on the project, you'd be spot on.
The problem is regulatory road blocks set by the federal government.
Otherwise there would already be private sector companies at least researching if not building the systems of delivery and point of sale.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where is there a natural gas or hydrogen filling station?
How come they are not around?
How come the free market has not invested in those?
What free market analyst advises their clients to put their investment dollars in those energy delivery systems?
What large industrial investment group invests in that?
Until Americans learn and listen exactly to what President Bush stated about American energy demand WE WILL continue to be a nation of energy guzzling dumbasses.
WE ARE A NATION ADDICTED TO OIL.
We are a lazy, stupid, dumbaass society that drives around in vehicles that get 9 mpg and believe that if we just continue to drill for oil then all is okay.
Fact is with exploration and capital outlays any and all domestic production would still have to be around a little less than $3 a gallon fof domestic drilling operations to make a profit.
Green is the future. Oil is great for the short term but natural gas and hydrogen vehicles will NEVER get to the showroom UNTIL the delivery system for those fuels is set in place FIRST.

Puullleeeeeezzzzzzzzzzeee!

Enough of that 'Green is the future' nonsense.....

There is every reason to believe that we have far more energy reserves than the government estimates.

a. The 2008 USGS assessment estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the U.S. portion of the Bakken Formation, elevating it to a “world-class” accumulation. The estimate had a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. The USGS routinely conducts updates to oil and gas assessments when significant new information is available, such as new understanding of a resource basin’s geology or when advances in technology occur for drilling and production…. The 2008 USGS assessment showed a 25-fold increase in the amount of technically recoverable oil as compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. Bakken Formation Oil Assessment in North Dakota, Montana will be updated by U.S. Geological Survey


b. Oil giant BP says it has made a "giant" new oil discovery in its fields in the Gulf of Mexico…. BP said the discovery, amounting to more than three billion barrels, would "support the continuing growth of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico business into the second half of the next decade". BBC NEWS | Business | BP in 'giant' new oil discovery


c. According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic sea floor has 13% of the world's undiscovered "conventional" oil reserves and 30% of undiscovered natural-gas reserves. Oil-Drilling Trade-Offs: Keystone for Alaska


d. The Marcellus Shale [Pennsylvania, Oho, New York] could be one of the USA's most promising natural gas ...that the Marcellus might contain more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. ... Marcellus Shale Gas: New Research Results Surprise Geologists!

 

[Bfgrn]

"... individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government."

"I believe in the same things,..."


Did you just come in from jogging on the track around the mental hospital....

you know, the psycho-path....



Possibly you didn't realize what you just averred that you support....one at a time:

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.



Would that be three yeses?

1. individualism

Nuance: the rights of the individual, as long as exercising those rights don't infringe on the rights of other individuals.


2. free markets

Nuance: in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

3. limited constitutional government.

Nuance: No one should be allowed to wield the Constitution as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. The Constitution is a framework and a guideline, not a edict or an all encompassing document.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

So.....you're a fraud?


You were....to put this in the mildest term....a prevaricator?


You weren't telling the truth when you claimed to believe in

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.


There could not be a more clear indication of the behavior of a Liberal.

And your strict doctrinaire could not be a more clear indication of the behavior of a conservative. It can only be accepted under your strict and narrow terms...no nuance, no rules, black or white, no qualifiers. Thank you for proving that you have a polarized mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. individualism

Nuance: the rights of the individual, as long as exercising those rights don't infringe on the rights of other individuals.


2. free markets

Nuance: in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

3. limited constitutional government.

Nuance: No one should be allowed to wield the Constitution as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. The Constitution is a framework and a guideline, not a edict or an all encompassing document.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

So.....you're a fraud?


You were....to put this in the mildest term....a prevaricator?


You weren't telling the truth when you claimed to believe in

1. individualism


2. free markets


3. limited constitutional government.


There could not be a more clear indication of the behavior of a Liberal.

And your strict doctrinaire could not be a more clear indication of the behavior of a conservative. It can only be accepted under your strict and narrow terms...no nuance, no rules, black or white, no qualifiers. Thank you for proving that you have a polarized mind.

You didn't tell the truth......ashamed?