Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Bfgrn]

You don't get it, do you? Corporations are nothing more than groups of people. People incorporate for many different reasons, one of which is that the government actually requires that people who want to do certain things, **** get together to tell others about something bad that is happening, If you insist that corporations have no rights, then you are saying the government can tell people not to talk about some things. The only way you can logically argue that corporations do not have rights is if you argue that people don't. Even if you accept the absurd position that our rights come from the government, only idiots want people to give up their rights completely.

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

What do you mean by undue influence? How do you know what my aspirations for America are? I can name half a dozen corporations that have the exact same aspirations for America you claim you do, should I be able to force them, and you, not to be able to aspire to those goals? Do you think you can mount a cohesive argument that actually describes and defends your position without resorting to demagoguery?

Do you need a few examples? The tobacco industry for years had so much undue influence in Washington and State houses, that they were able to market poison without sanction. And show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

A free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

As it doesn't sound like something Norquist would say, I would have to see the quotation IN CONTEXT. Most especially since fifteen years ago would be early in Clinton's second term when the GOP would not have had a great deal of say about that.

My God, are you that uninformed, or just naive? Ever since Reagan, union busting is the goal of Republicans. Look at the recent union busting by Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Norquist is a piece of shit who is no conservative. He is a dangerous man who wants to dismantle everything our ancestors built and turn America into a plutocracy.

I find it very disturbing that right wing puppets like you will drink every drop of Kool-Aid from the likes of Norquist and Newt without question or thought.

THIS is who and what YOU are Foxfyre.

 

[Intense]

Corporations are great things, but they just shouldn't be allowed to have undue influence on government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

What do you mean by undue influence? How do you know what my aspirations for America are? I can name half a dozen corporations that have the exact same aspirations for America you claim you do, should I be able to force them, and you, not to be able to aspire to those goals? Do you think you can mount a cohesive argument that actually describes and defends your position without resorting to demagoguery?

Do you need a few examples? The tobacco industry for years had so much undue influence in Washington and State houses, that they were able to market poison without sanction. And show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

A free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention. You are buying into the tug of war between Big Government and Big Business, in too many cases, both Despots, Co-Conspirators just fighting over the Reins. Totalitarianism generally gets the final word there. Having the full force of Police, Court, Prisons, Military, there is really no debate there. How many Businessmen that stood up to Hitler or Stalin were alive a year later, even a day later?

Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way. Major changes in the last 50 years, that's mostly a good thing. I grew up on Long Island, very close to Hooker Chemical and Grumman. They sure got away with allot of shit. Sometimes Human Nature needs a big kick in the ass.

Our goal is to Seek and Establish Justice, and maintain it. When things add up, when things compute, when reason prevails, there is balance, which promotes incentive and growth.

 

[Intense]

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

As it doesn't sound like something Norquist would say, I would have to see the quotation IN CONTEXT. Most especially since fifteen years ago would be early in Clinton's second term when the GOP would not have had a great deal of say about that.

My God, are you that uninformed, or just naive? Ever since Reagan, union busting is the goal of Republicans. Look at the recent union busting by Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Norquist is a piece of shit who is no conservative. He is a dangerous man who wants to dismantle everything our ancestors built and turn America into a plutocracy.

I find it very disturbing that right wing puppets like you will drink every drop of Kool-Aid from the likes of Norquist and Newt without question or thought.

THIS is who and what YOU are Foxfyre.

When Union's promote Communism over Free Market Ideals, when Unions seek to punish Non-Union Workers, Non-Union Shops,when Unions want to Dictate their version of reality, and impose it on us, by Intimidation, Threat, Force, there is no love lost between us. You need to clean up your act. Who, in their right mind would want to do away with Private Ballots? How many knee caps need to be broken before the stupid masses see it your way, huh? Union Members are not, and should never be a Privileged Class.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

As it doesn't sound like something Norquist would say, I would have to see the quotation IN CONTEXT. Most especially since fifteen years ago would be early in Clinton's second term when the GOP would not have had a great deal of say about that.

My God, are you that uninformed, or just naive? Ever since Reagan, union busting is the goal of Republicans. Look at the recent union busting by Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Norquist is a piece of shit who is no conservative. He is a dangerous man who wants to dismantle everything our ancestors built and turn America into a plutocracy.

I find it very disturbing that right wing puppets like you will drink every drop of Kool-Aid from the likes of Norquist and Newt without question or thought.

THIS is who and what YOU are Foxfyre.

I wasnt talking about myself and I wasn't talking about Republicans. I was challenging you guys who attribute a quotation to Norquist that I don't believe you can show any evidence that he made, nor can you show that even if it did say the sentence what context it was in or that it was speaking for the Republican Party. Or why, if he said it, it was any big deal.

Nor have you commented on my statements in favor of unions or my arguments for why some unions need to be busted.

In other words you appear to think all unions are great, noble, all-American institutions and anybody who criticizes them are scum? You don't care if there is a downside to unions? And if I dare attempt to discuss them in any way that doesn't condemn Republicans and/or the conservative point of view, I belong to some unacceptable group?

Your response is pretty pathetic as a debate technique don't you think?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Modern progressives are really nothing more than fascists and socialists..

Any person who advocates bigger government and more government control are no "liberal(s)."

I get pissed at times when the fascist/socialist progressives refer to themselves as "liberal" because they're anything but.....

 

[Intense]

Modern progressives are really nothing more than fascists and socialists..

Any person who advocates bigger government and more government control are no "liberal(s)."

I get pissed at times when the fascist/socialist progressives refer to themselves as "liberal" because they're anything but.....

Exactly. They have had a free pass for Decades.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

As it doesn't sound like something Norquist would say, I would have to see the quotation IN CONTEXT. Most especially since fifteen years ago would be early in Clinton's second term when the GOP would not have had a great deal of say about that.

My God, are you that uninformed, or just naive? Ever since Reagan, union busting is the goal of Republicans. Look at the recent union busting by Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Norquist is a piece of shit who is no conservative. He is a dangerous man who wants to dismantle everything our ancestors built and turn America into a plutocracy.

I find it very disturbing that right wing puppets like you will drink every drop of Kool-Aid from the likes of Norquist and Newt without question or thought.

THIS is who and what YOU are Foxfyre.

Do you want freedom or security??? because you can't have both....

So you want to be a slave? because that is exactly what you will be if you allow government to dictate.... You will have no freedom.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Modern progressives are really nothing more than fascists and socialists..

Any person who advocates bigger government and more government control are no "liberal(s)."

I get pissed at times when the fascist/socialist progressives refer to themselves as "liberal" because they're anything but.....

Exactly. They have had a free pass for Decades.

It's mind-boggling to me how they're even referred to as "liberal" these days given their philosophy.

We may as well start calling an apple and orange and an orange an apple...

 

[Intense]

Modern progressives are really nothing more than fascists and socialists..

Any person who advocates bigger government and more government control are no "liberal(s)."

I get pissed at times when the fascist/socialist progressives refer to themselves as "liberal" because they're anything but.....

Exactly. They have had a free pass for Decades.

It's mind-boggling to me how they're even referred to as "liberal" these days given their philosophy.

We may as well start calling an apple and orange and an orange an apple...

They lost thar Right, the moment they decided to Sacrifice Individual Liberty, Unalienable Right, to the Will of the collective, for better or worse. Funny, how that gets denied and proclaimed in the same breath.

 

[Foxfyre]

The situation in Wisconsin is just one example of the divide between left and right.

Scott Walker's policies have generated about as much angst and hate as any governor in the country right now. But the fact is, Wisconsin, like many other states was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. With his and the legislature's efforts, a $3.6 billion defict has been turned into a projected $300,000 surplus this year without a tax increase.

And teachers are still teaching in Wisconsin. Police officers are still patrolling. Life is moving on without any major disruptions. And Wisconsin state workers are still on the job but will have to manage their retirement like almost all other working Americans do. The people of Wisconsin are no longer saddled with the unsustainable burden of providing lifetime benefits for government employees that the huge lion's share of privately employed people do not enjoy. A 9.2% unemployment rate in June 2009 has been brought down to 6.8% in March 2012, well below the national average.

The union had to be busted to accomplish that. But our leftist friends can't stand that it was a Republican who did it. Nor are they willing to acknowledge a single benefit that has resulted from his efforts. They want his head on a platter.

Classical liberals can really appreciate the effort and see its potential in many other applications. But our modern progressives cannot stand seem to abide anything supported by the classical liberals and won't even acknowledge, much less appreciate any benefits that come from 'non-liberal' policies.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Exactly. They have had a free pass for Decades.

It's mind-boggling to me how they're even referred to as "liberal" these days given their philosophy.

We may as well start calling an apple and orange and an orange an apple...

They lost thar Right, the moment they decided to Sacrifice Individual Liberty, Unalienable Right, to the Will of the collective, for better or worse. Funny, how that gets denied and proclaimed in the same breath.

The best part of it all is that I'm politically "left wing" and they're politically "right wing", yet they actually believe they're "left wing" and I'm "right wing."

Progressives need to understand that they're on the right - given their authoritarianism..

I'm a true liberal because I have no desire to dictate other individuals lives or outcomes..

However, as every intelligent non-progressive knows - progressives do their best to change the definition of words/labels...

To be honest with you -- it pisses me off...

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qw9pbh5jnE&feature=relmfu]Obama Gives Away Our Rights in Space and at Sea! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube[/ame]
Obama Gives Away Our Rights in Space and at Sea! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!

 

[Intense]

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.

Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.

Six years later, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled.



This website has been established by the National Center for Public Policy Research to provide news, information and resources on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. Links to external websites are provided for informational purposes only, and no endorsement of their opinions or content by The National Center for Public Policy Research is intended or should be implied.
Law of the Sea Treaty

 

[Intense]

To what purpose do we voluntarily Surrender National Sovereignty to Any Outside Entity? We enter agreements where outside forces arbitrarily decide what Their Jurisdiction is, playing us like Pawns, and there is nothing we can do about it without their consent? Dictators around the Would unite, through abusing their Authority, demanding from us, the flavor of the day, superseding Constitutional Protections, and this is alright, because it is Progressive? Well, **** Me. It's like Alexander Hamilton was reincarnated, to finish what he started. We are so lost without the Ruling Elite, guiding every step, like we can't eat , shit , or pee, without their guidance and direction. Great job Assholes.

 

[francoHFW]

The situation in Wisconsin is just one example of the divide between left and right.

Scott Walker's policies have generated about as much angst and hate as any governor in the country right now. But the fact is, Wisconsin, like many other states was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. With his and the legislature's efforts, a $3.6 billion defict has been turned into a projected $300,000 surplus this year without a tax increase.

And teachers are still teaching in Wisconsin. Police officers are still patrolling. Life is moving on without any major disruptions. And Wisconsin state workers are still on the job but will have to manage their retirement like almost all other working Americans do. The people of Wisconsin are no longer saddled with the unsustainable burden of providing lifetime benefits for government employees that the huge lion's share of privately employed people do not enjoy. A 9.2% unemployment rate in June 2009 has been brought down to 6.8% in March 2012, well below the national average.

The union had to be busted to accomplish that. But our leftist friends can't stand that it was a Republican who did it. Nor are they willing to acknowledge a single benefit that has resulted from his efforts. They want his head on a platter.

Classical liberals can really appreciate the effort and see its potential in many other applications. But our modern progressives cannot stand seem to abide anything supported by the classical liberals and won't even acknowledge, much less appreciate any benefits that come from 'non-liberal' policies.

Total Pubcrappe, dupe. The unions AGREED tp plenty of cuts, but the lying Pub a-hole had to go after collective bargaining- something he never mentioned in the campaign. Off with his HEAD!! LOL

Also loved the slacker from Buffalo who said he was Koch and Walker the Pig was ready to do anything he wanted. You morons are hilarious!

 

[francoHFW]

To what purpose do we voluntarily Surrender National Sovereignty to Any Outside Entity? We enter agreements where outside forces arbitrarily decide what Their Jurisdiction is, playing us like Pawns, and there is nothing we can do about it without their consent? Dictators around the Would unite, through abusing their Authority, demanding from us, the flavor of the day, superseding Constitutional Protections, and this is alright, because it is Progressive? Well, **** Me. It's like Alexander Hamilton was reincarnated, to finish what he started. We are so lost without the Ruling Elite, guiding every step, like we can't eat , shit , or pee, without their guidance and direction. Great job Assholes.

Jeebus, change the channel, dupe, you're a brainwashed, bought off chump, Mr. Bolton

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The new GOP:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

I have searched the internet for proof of this quote, and the only place I can find it is on various labor union sites.

I doubt he ever said it.

You didn't search deep enough there Sherlock. Norquist said it in an interview with Reason magazine 15 years ago. And, if it was false, Norquist would have challenged it years ago.

Not according to Reason.com.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you need a few examples? The tobacco industry for years had so much undue influence in Washington and State houses, that they were able to market poison without sanction. And show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

I asked a specific question, not for examples. The tobacco industry was able to market what you call poison without sanction because the American people wanted the product they were selling, and making something a lot of people wants illegal only makes crooks rich. That was made obvious during prohibition to anyone who was paying attention.

What I find interesting is how you mistake extortion for influence. Is that because you think the people who get elected want to help you? When are you going to learn that all politicians only want to get power and money, in that order?

A free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market.

Umm, what?

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

All I get from this is you have no idea what you mean by undue influence.

 

[clevergirl]

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.

Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.

Six years later, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled.



This website has been established by the National Center for Public Policy Research to provide news, information and resources on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. Links to external websites are provided for informational purposes only, and no endorsement of their opinions or content by The National Center for Public Policy Research is intended or should be implied.
Law of the Sea Treaty

The Treaty would also give the UN power to regulate what they consider "pollutants" including car emissions in the US. It also would then have the power to seize US wealth from oil and mineral deposits in our oceans. This is just one of several such Treaties that the Obama administration is signing...