How Liberalism Lost America

[Bern80]

ahh last election Liberals got millions more votes.
sore losers anyone?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Here are current polls, representing the last 4 polls this year, instead of 2009.

=================================== Republicans

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 10-14, 2010. N=990 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"In general, is your opinion of the Republican Party favorable or not favorable?"

Favorable: 34%, 33%, 38%, 35%


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 6-7, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"I'm going to read you the names of several individuals and groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of one please just say so. The Republican Party."

Favorable: 40%, 42%, 36%, 41%

================================= Democrats
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 10-14, 2010. N=990 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"In general, is your opinion of the Democratic Party favorable or not favorable?"
Favorable: 45%, 37%, 42%, 42%



FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 6-7, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"I'm going to read you the names of several individuals and groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of one please just say so. The Democratic Party."

Favorable: 42%, 42%, 50%, 54%

Institutions (2)

You do understand the difference between a political party and an ideology right?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]

There are other points worth debating, but I wanted to focus on this one for two reasons:

1. I think you're right that using the Courts rather than the Legislative process has backfired. The problem is that Conservatives are heading that way too. Instead of focusing on ammending the Constitution, Impeaching judges, or other countless ways they have to fight back under checks and balances against the Judiciary, they're purposely setting up Court cases to attempt to change the law from court. Take for example the Legislature of South Dakota working on an abortion law they openly acknowledge will face a Roe v. Wade challenge in the hopes that Bush's nominees on the SCOTUS will over turn Roe v. Wade.

Conservatives don't see this as being "activist", but attempting to overturn the law of the land via judicial ruling rather than legislative action is every bit as activist as Roe v. Wade and other unpopular cases were.

2. There's also the argument that this is in fact the role of the Courts, namely protecting unpopular rights and unpopular people in the face of the mob mentality. Judicial Review is a logical consequence of how the system works and is indeed necessary in order to ensure that our basic freedoms are preserved.

Bottom line: It may not have been popular to make those rulings, but if it preserved a person's basic rights, it was correct to do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]

Right because attacking government endorsement of a religion = attacking morality. It's not even an attack on the damn religion. Come on PC you're better than that BS.

Do you really believe that forcing kids to cite a prayer to the Christian God doesn't violate their freedom of religion, and would you really be in favor of such a thing?

Here is a clear difference between the left, you, and the right, (in every sense), me.

First, no one, at any time, is forced. At this time schools recite the pledge, but no child is either 'forced' to say the pledge, or even stand at such time.

Second, I see no reference to Christ...so there is 'prayer to the Christian God.'

The prayer is benign, almost, 'I hope we all stay well.'
Yet you on the left go bananas....

The courts became your version of a god....

 

[topspin]

wow conservatards would get pitch forks if the prayer were muslim or hindu. stuped white trash rednecks.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The republlicans were in lock step with the NPR during Bush Sr.s Administration, sharing technology, RNC receiving campaign funds, and did you know that George Bush is the only president who the Chinese celebrate during New Years? He brought them oil companies so the Communist would have heat. Then along comes Bush jr. & we get the repeat. He lets China become a permanent member of the WTO, even had that in his 1st plank if you ever read it. And borrowed trillions to sustain taxcuts and wars, that you will be paying for to the NPR. There is probably a book on it somewhere. Richard Nixon took us into Russia, Bush Sr. took us into China. Bush Jr. let the Chinese slide when we found weapons caches in the Afghan mountains being used against our troops. Bush apologized to China for their pilot ramming a US spy plane in open waters. Then he attends several get togethers with China, and attends the Olympics.

1. Hughes Electronics and Loral Space & Communications Ltd. are both under investigation by the Justice Department and two Congressional committees for their role in transferring sensitive U.S. space technology to the Chinese after Hughes and Loral satellites were destroyed in two Chinese rocket explosions.
A House-Senate conference has agreed to transfer export licensing authority, reversing a 1996 decision by President Clinton that came under fire this year amid allegations of unauthorized technology transfers to China and favoritism to a big campaign contributor.
Washingtonpost.com: Key Stories on Chinese Missile Allegations

2. China Resources Holding Company of Hong Kong is said to be the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Foreign Trade, and according to western intelligence sources, this international bank serves as a front for Chinese intelligence. China Resources owns half interest in Hong Kong Chinese Bank. The other half is owned by the Lippo Group, an Indonesian banking and real estate conglomerate which had close ties to President Clinton before all hell broke loose over illegal campaign contributions.

The so called campaign contribution scandal, as labeled by the national media, is actually a classical foreign intelligence operation which exploited corruptible politicians and lax security for strategic financial gain. China's intelligence interest and investments in Clinton is now bearing fruit in a windfall of one sided trade deals with the United States
Red Chinese Threat

3.Chung gave $10,000 to Kerry's campaign -- most of it illegally -- hosted a fund-raising party in Beverly Hills, and threw in an extra $10,000 to honor Kerry at a Democratic Senate Campaign Committee event. Kerry eventually returned all the Chung money.
More than anything else, the saga of John Kerry, Johnny Chung and Liu Chao Ying, as laid out in a series of interviews, court records, campaign finance disclosure forms and bank documents obtained by NBC News, is a story of what can happen when the pursuit of campaign cash gets out of hand. Kerry's Chinese campaign connections - Nightly News - msnbc.com

4. NEW DETAILS HAVE EMERGED ABOUT AN ALLEGED CONTRIBUTION OF
ABOUT 100-THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM A CHINESE MILITARY AEROSPACE
OFFICER TO THE 1986 CLINTON-GORE REELECTION TREASURY. NEW ALLEGATIONS ABOUT A CLINTON "CHINA CONNECTION"

But,...sputter,.........but your side did it first................................

That all looks like free trade to me. Or business and open politics.

Bush went to the Olympics? No shit, the horror of it all to support our country.

Again I will ask. What conservative has had personnal dealings with communist?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals....

Another day, another inaccurate thread pointing fingers at the other to avoid a honest assessment of American history.


Point by point rebuttal of PC usual corporate apology for the world we find today, blaming others, rather than thinking on their own.


(1) Liberalism today is hopefully (tries) a pragmatic recognition of the real world. "How we go on in the here and now," as Bernard Williams calls it. All these labels shift, classical liberalism never existed in any pure form, it could actually be said and argued that most of the founders were elitist statesmen, on the order of Plato's philosopher kings. Slavery fits nowhere in liberal thought. Even among the founders there were broad ideological differences.

(2) By the time Hobhouse came along populism and progressivism had already had a long history. They began in the 1890's as a reaction to the changing society much like today, with massive immigration, corporate power, and the growing separation of haves and have nots. "We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized... The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, [small] business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of the capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty." Written in 1892, it was part of the Populist platform.

(a) This link contradicts that premise. Leonard Hobhouse - Liberal Thinkers - Liberalism

(b) "Conservative, a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]" And Liberal "in U.S. politics tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823." From liberal in dictionary.com. The more powerful debasement of liberalism came from corporate propaganda, see below (4).

(3) If viewing defines an ideology, one would need to examine the viewer's motives and whether they made sense. Just saying something means little without proof. Today's liberalism grew out of FDR's enormous accomplishments during the Great Depression. Consider that we had economic sanity till Reagan began the destruction of regulatory enforcement. For those interested in liberal political philosophy check out John Rawls, Isaiah Berlin, Bernard Williams, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Starr, and Jeremy Waldron. This piece details liberalism's story marvelously. This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America. Pass It On.

(4) 'Liberal' became pejorative through almost fifty years of corporate support of think tanks that provided the environment in which they could manipulate law, regulation and information in their favor. It started back in the 1890 and earlier, grew strong under FDR and LBJ and became truth through the constant bombardment of exaggeration and lies, such as Reagan's Cadillac mom. "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] See also: [ame=http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html]The Conservative Nanny State[/ame] and [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905342/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (9780767905343): Kevin Phillips: Books[/ame]


(5) America is now and has always been liberal, admittedly most will not use the label liberal because of the information noted above. Iran is a conservative nation, America is not. No nation has ever been founded on conservatism, as the first conservative would still be in the cave had a liberal not coaxed them out. See: The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press

(a) Courts (litigation) are part of American culture and since K street and many politicians are lawyers on both sides, this point has no validity today. In truth, individuals create much of America's useless and frivolous law through our courts as each person thinks themselves in possession of the final truth. And since mucho greenbacks are a big goal for all. Think about that for a bit. See this piece. Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system | Video on TED.com

(b) Libertarians are conservatives who think pot and greed are national values. Socialism already exists in America through market sharing, corporate sharing and ownership, Social Security and a host of other social goods. "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly."(*) No one is really an anarchist who is mentally older than five. The tea party is a contemporary populist movement, but as I have written often it lacks real American values. Communists are non-existent today, actually they may have always been nonexistent as Communism like Christianity is just too darn hard. Christians are mostly non-existent too.

(c) I sorta agree, but it is not a good thing for democracy as it concentrates power (ideas) in the hands of the already powerful. It is ideas, right or wrong, that dominate thought. "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

(*) Norman Thomas


PC, you need a bit of education on the reality out there, stay away from corporate mediated and revised thought for a few months is my suggestion as a great seer of human nature.


Anyone interested in real history check out Richard Hofstadter's, 'The Age Of Reform,' and William Manchester's 'Glory and the Dream,' for fair assessments of the times covered in this debate. Both excellent balanced history.


"I would say quite seriously, that I am a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture." Daniel Bell

I love the way you answer my posts....I wish more folks would be as thorough, as erudite...

Now, that being said, of course, you are totally incorrect. Which is what makes it even more fun!

1. "...classical liberalism never existed in any pure form..."
A simple obfuscation on your part, as the argument is about ideals: what would we wish, as compared to what we have today.
We conservatives would wish the a society based on government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly.

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical] liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

b. Whether or not the ideal existed, is irrelevant, as, as Browning said "One's reach should exceed one's grasp else what's heaven for?"

2. "...the founders were elitist statesmen..."
Again, a viewpoint not thought out...for what difference does this make if their ideal is the correct one?
Or, should we stop using Arabic numerals, because the 19 hijackers were Arabic???

3. "Slavery fits nowhere in liberal thought. Even among the founders there were broad ideological differences."
Again, a red herring (don't take that personally....well, maybe...)
The argument can be made easily that a) the Founders wanted to end slavery and that is why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, so that the South would not be eternally in charge of the legislature, b) Southern states would not join the Union if it were outlawed outright, c) several of the Founders began Manumission Societies as early as 1785 (Jay tried in 1777).
d) can you name any society that had no slavery?

4. "...progressivism had already had a long history. They began in the 1890's as a reaction to the changing society..."
a) A distinction without a difference. First, 1890 to the publication in 1911 is hardly 'a long history.'
b) Hobhouse is in the OP as a way to show how the value of the society mitigates absolute individualism, and thus the evolution from Classical Libealism to the abomination that it has become. In the link that I provided, Hobhouse sets parameters for the new views, and argues against Marxism.

5. There is neither doubt nor argument as to the necessity for reform from the period after the Civil War.
Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100

b. While LaFollette was not at home with the businessman-politician that was coming to dominate the Republican Party, he could not abide the Democrats, whose stronghold was the South, where they now engaged in depriving black citizens of the right to vote. African-Americans would have progressed beyond the new immigrants, LaFollette declared, if they “had been fairly treated, if they had received kindly recognition, if they had been given the opportunity to make homes for themselves, if their labor had been properly rewarded.” David P. Thelen, “Robert LaFollette and the Insurgent Spirit,” p. 10-11.

c. TR was not suggesting the destruction of big business, or even monopolies, but in regulation of same. LaFollette was disturbed by TR’s willingness to live with monopolies, rather than the National Progressive Republican League’s desire to smash them .

6. Now, here is the problem: the reforms of the progressives, populists, socialists were correct and responsible. Had they been 'sunsetted' and this nation continued as one of opportunity, meritocracy, and individualism, we would not be having this debate.
As I said earlier, we would all be 'liberals.'

a. The primacy of the state, the collective, over the individual, the Constitution, is the corruption of progressive reform.

7. " "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions"
Why didn't you simply write: "I'm good and you're bad. So there."
Childish.
For example, the most racist President was our first Progressive President.
The progressive-liberals based their doctrines on racism, nativism, and eugenics.

8. " Today's liberalism grew out of FDR's enormous accomplishments during the Great Depression."
Another great example of what I have stated about progressive-liberals: many of FDR's reforms made America what it is today, in a positive sense, but he both retarded recovery from the Depression, and acted as thought his whims (i.e. the price of gold) and NRA regs, were more valid than the Constitution.
And, as Isaiah Berlin said in "Two Concepts of Liberty," "human goals are many" and no individual can choose what is best for all. This summarizes the fatal flaw in liberal thought.

a. Like Immanuel Kant before him, Rawls argued that the moral judgments of ordinary people are the proper departure point for political morality. John Rawls, “ A Theory of Justice.”

9. "Courts (litigation) are part of American culture ... this point has no validity today."
Of course, this is self-serving on your part. It is the people who are the real arbiters of what is just and correct, not unelected judges. Your side must use judges because the views of the people are contrary, in many cases, to the liberal perspective.

10. While it is an eternal truth that societies evolve, and we must have some mix of the various political philosophies, experience and a careful study of history will show that it is the totalist views of the fascists, nazis, communists, progressives, have given us concentration camps, gulags, political prisoners, violence, and repression.

a. This is the outcome of what Thomas Sowell calls a lack of Second Stage Thinking by the left: an ability to see the results of public policy.

11. So, while I most enjoy correcting and instructing you in history and policy, it saddens me to have to correct you in civility. Some of your statements suggest that I have been thrashing you thoroughly, and there is some anger welling up...now, you know the effect that has on your blood pressue, and I would so much miss these battle.
a."...another inaccurate thread pointing fingers at the other to avoid a honest assessment ..."

b. '...PC usual corporate apology for the world we find today, blaming others, rather than thinking on their own."

c. '...PC, you need a bit of education ..."

And here, the proof of your sense of humor: "...my suggestion as a great seer of human nature."

Adieu...and you're welcome.

 

[topspin]

ahh last election Liberals got millions more votes.
sore losers anyone?

Care to redo that Election today.

I bet he does not get Nearly as many votes this time around.

Obama the Candidate was a much more Moderate fellow, than Obama the President.

Hell he talked like a ******* conservative on some issues, and Millions of Americans fell for it.

mid term smid term, it's odd when the party in power especially this dominant doesn't lose seats. If I were betting on 12 today Obama by a wider margin than last time.

 

[Bfgrn]

6. Now, here is the problem: the reforms of the progressives, populists, socialists were correct and responsible. Had they been 'sunsetted' and this nation continued as one of opportunity, meritocracy, and individualism, we would not be having this debate.
As I said earlier, we would all be 'liberals.'

They WERE 'sunsetted' by the Reagan conservative scourge of Voodoo economics. All it did was reincarnate the robber barons and recreate the wealth disparity those reforms were crafted to prevent. Human nature never changes PC. There will NEVER be logical basis to 'sunset' them.

The history of mankind is an endless tragedy for the common man. And every tragedy is the result of aristocracies, plutocracies, meritocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. The progressive era CHANGED that. From the New Deal to the Great Society was a boom for everyone. It created what America was most admired for; a robust middle class. It was not only a period of middle class economic growth, it was also an era filled with greatly expanded liberties and freedoms for the common man, but THAT doesn't fit into your dogma...

Your arguments are always voluminous, but you live in some world of total ideology and dogma. Voluminous brainwashing it is still brainwashing, just more thorough.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[Father Time]

a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]

Right because attacking government endorsement of a religion = attacking morality. It's not even an attack on the damn religion. Come on PC you're better than that BS.

Do you really believe that forcing kids to cite a prayer to the Christian God doesn't violate their freedom of religion, and would you really be in favor of such a thing?

Here is a clear difference between the left, you, and the right, (in every sense), me.

First, no one, at any time, is forced. At this time schools recite the pledge, but no child is either 'forced' to say the pledge, or even stand at such time.

Second, I see no reference to Christ...so there is 'prayer to the Christian God.'

The prayer is benign, almost, 'I hope we all stay well.'
Yet you on the left go bananas....

The courts became your version of a god....

They WERE forced to cite the prayer PC, don't play this game with me. And don't pretend this wasn't the Judeo-Christian god unless you can name another religious deity named God.

And I wouldn't call "we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee" benign, it's saying that we need God around which I object to.

Now answer the ******* question PC, are you in favor of forcing kids to pray to Gods they don't believe in or not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right because attacking government endorsement of a religion = attacking morality. It's not even an attack on the damn religion. Come on PC you're better than that BS.

Do you really believe that forcing kids to cite a prayer to the Christian God doesn't violate their freedom of religion, and would you really be in favor of such a thing?

Here is a clear difference between the left, you, and the right, (in every sense), me.

First, no one, at any time, is forced. At this time schools recite the pledge, but no child is either 'forced' to say the pledge, or even stand at such time.

Second, I see no reference to Christ...so there is 'prayer to the Christian God.'

The prayer is benign, almost, 'I hope we all stay well.'
Yet you on the left go bananas....

The courts became your version of a god....

They WERE forced to cite the prayer PC, don't play this game with me. And don't pretend this wasn't the Judeo-Christian god unless you can name another religious deity named God.

And I wouldn't call "we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee" benign, it's saying that we need God around which I object to.

Now answer the ******* question PC, are you in favor of forcing kids to pray to Gods they don't believe in or not?

Behave like a grownup, watch you language.

The prayer is as benign as "In God We Trust" on currency.
Nor are you 'forced' to accept same if you pretend you are similarly offended.

There is no force. I have explained same: have someone with a dictionary read it with you.
Anyone can be self-excused from the prayer.

 

[Father Time]

Here is a clear difference between the left, you, and the right, (in every sense), me.

First, no one, at any time, is forced. At this time schools recite the pledge, but no child is either 'forced' to say the pledge, or even stand at such time.

Second, I see no reference to Christ...so there is 'prayer to the Christian God.'

The prayer is benign, almost, 'I hope we all stay well.'
Yet you on the left go bananas....

The courts became your version of a god....

They WERE forced to cite the prayer PC, don't play this game with me. And don't pretend this wasn't the Judeo-Christian god unless you can name another religious deity named God.

And I wouldn't call "we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee" benign, it's saying that we need God around which I object to.

Now answer the ******* question PC, are you in favor of forcing kids to pray to Gods they don't believe in or not?

Behave like a grownup, watch you language.

Oh shut up, you don't get to complain about language when you start insulting people.

The prayer is as benign as "In God We Trust" on currency.
Nor are you 'forced' to accept same if you pretend you are similarly offended.

There is no force. I have explained same: have someone with a dictionary read it with you.
Anyone can be self-excused from the prayer.

Ok my sources on that were bad, but it's still government endorsing religion something that should not be done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Now, here is the problem: the reforms of the progressives, populists, socialists were correct and responsible. Had they been 'sunsetted' and this nation continued as one of opportunity, meritocracy, and individualism, we would not be having this debate.
As I said earlier, we would all be 'liberals.'

They WERE 'sunsetted' by the Reagan conservative scourge of Voodoo economics. All it did was reincarnate the robber barons and recreate the wealth disparity those reforms were crafted to prevent. Human nature never changes PC. There will NEVER be logical basis to 'sunset' them.

The history of mankind is an endless tragedy for the common man. And every tragedy is the result of aristocracies, plutocracies, meritocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. The progressive era CHANGED that. From the New Deal to the Great Society was a boom for everyone. It created what America was most admired for; a robust middle class. It was not only a period of middle class economic growth, it was also an era filled with greatly expanded liberties and freedoms for the common man, but THAT doesn't fit into your dogma...

Your arguments are always voluminous, but you live in some world of total ideology and dogma. Voluminous brainwashing it is still brainwashing, just more thorough.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

Had they been sunsetted, we would not be discussing them today, which obviates your flaccid defense.

"The history of mankind is an endless tragedy for the common man."
The exact opposite is true.

Now, I think one of the other Creedmoor confinees needs to use the computer, be nice and step back to your cell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They WERE forced to cite the prayer PC, don't play this game with me. And don't pretend this wasn't the Judeo-Christian god unless you can name another religious deity named God.

And I wouldn't call "we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee" benign, it's saying that we need God around which I object to.

Now answer the ******* question PC, are you in favor of forcing kids to pray to Gods they don't believe in or not?

Behave like a grownup, watch you language.

Oh shut up, you don't get to complain about language when you start insulting people.

The prayer is as benign as "In God We Trust" on currency.
Nor are you 'forced' to accept same if you pretend you are similarly offended.

There is no force. I have explained same: have someone with a dictionary read it with you.
Anyone can be self-excused from the prayer.

Ok my sources on that were bad, but it's still government endorsing religion something that should not be done.

My insults are clever, and don't use vile language.

Your posts could be more entertaining if you developed the knack.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[
8. " Today's liberalism grew out of FDR's enormous accomplishments during the Great Depression."
Another great example of what I have stated about progressive-liberals: many of FDR's reforms made America what it is today, in a positive sense, but he both retarded recovery from the Depression, and acted as thought his whims (i.e. the price of gold) and NRA regs, were more valid than the Constitution.
And, as Isaiah Berlin said in "Two Concepts of Liberty," "human goals are many" and no individual can choose what is best for all. This summarizes the fatal flaw in liberal thought.

a. Like Immanuel Kant before him, Rawls argued that the moral judgments of ordinary people are the proper departure point for political morality. John Rawls, “ A Theory of Justice.”

Allow me to ask sarcastically, is there really any such animal as political morality?

As a more serious answer, the values of the government should reflect the values of its populace if the government is to remain relevant. One of the truly great things about the American people is that they value basic human freedoms. One of the legitmate purposes of the Judicial branch is to step in when we forget that and allow the Legislative and Executive Branch to go too far in violation of basic human freedoms.

I do think "legislation from the bench" is too far. One of the great tragedies is that the Legislative arm of the Federal Government has systematically refused to use their Constitutionally provided check on the Judicial, namely the ability to impeach Justices if they go too far. That unwillingness to use that check is why the line is so murky as to just how far the Judicial can go.

9. "Courts (litigation) are part of American culture ... this point has no validity today."
Of course, this is self-serving on your part. It is the people who are the real arbiters of what is just and correct, not unelected judges. Your side must use judges because the views of the people are contrary, in many cases, to the liberal perspective.

The Judicial is the short cut route for certain. I get fed up with some of the causes, both Right and Left (though I will concede I see it more often on the Left) that will work to actively create an opportunity for lawsuits so as to bypass the other channels of government.

I do think though there is legitimate cause for bringing some cases to the Judicial. When a law on the books is in violation of your rights as laid out in the Constitution, as a citizen you have the right to seek relief from the Judicial. Attempting to use the Judicial as a tool to force your beliefs is another story.

Let me ramble on a second about School prayer, as that topic has come up in this thread already. As a Christian, I get pretty ticked off when students are warned of "consequences" should they decide to pray at school events. If a Valedictorian wants to lead the crowd in prayer, that should be their choice.

On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for the parents of a child whose teacher is leading the class in prayers that they don't necessarily agree with. It is true that the child has the option to not participate, but when a child is young, is it really fair to ask them to have to stand up to their classmates, resist peer pressure, and opt out just because they're Jewish? or Muslim? or Hindu?

My opinion is that leading kids in prayer at a public school is probably crossing the line into advocating religion. I'd rather the public schools not teach religion under any circumstance as that's my job as a parent. Was taking the case to court the best way to handle that? I'd say no.

 

[Bfgrn]

6. Now, here is the problem: the reforms of the progressives, populists, socialists were correct and responsible. Had they been 'sunsetted' and this nation continued as one of opportunity, meritocracy, and individualism, we would not be having this debate.
As I said earlier, we would all be 'liberals.'

They WERE 'sunsetted' by the Reagan conservative scourge of Voodoo economics. All it did was reincarnate the robber barons and recreate the wealth disparity those reforms were crafted to prevent. Human nature never changes PC. There will NEVER be logical basis to 'sunset' them.

The history of mankind is an endless tragedy for the common man. And every tragedy is the result of aristocracies, plutocracies, meritocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. The progressive era CHANGED that. From the New Deal to the Great Society was a boom for everyone. It created what America was most admired for; a robust middle class. It was not only a period of middle class economic growth, it was also an era filled with greatly expanded liberties and freedoms for the common man, but THAT doesn't fit into your dogma...

Your arguments are always voluminous, but you live in some world of total ideology and dogma. Voluminous brainwashing it is still brainwashing, just more thorough.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

Had they been sunsetted, we would not be discussing them today, which obviates your flaccid defense.

"The history of mankind is an endless tragedy for the common man."
The exact opposite is true.

Now, I think one of the other Creedmoor confinees needs to use the computer, be nice and step back to your cell.

Really PC? Are you that narcissistic of just that ignorant?

Here are you words for the day, study up and come back when you have more knowledge.

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act

Divine right of kings
The age of reason

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
8. " Today's liberalism grew out of FDR's enormous accomplishments during the Great Depression."
Another great example of what I have stated about progressive-liberals: many of FDR's reforms made America what it is today, in a positive sense, but he both retarded recovery from the Depression, and acted as thought his whims (i.e. the price of gold) and NRA regs, were more valid than the Constitution.
And, as Isaiah Berlin said in "Two Concepts of Liberty," "human goals are many" and no individual can choose what is best for all. This summarizes the fatal flaw in liberal thought.

a. Like Immanuel Kant before him, Rawls argued that the moral judgments of ordinary people are the proper departure point for political morality. John Rawls, “ A Theory of Justice.”

Allow me to ask sarcastically, is there really any such animal as political morality?

As a more serious answer, the values of the government should reflect the values of its populace if the government is to remain relevant. One of the truly great things about the American people is that they value basic human freedoms. One of the legitmate purposes of the Judicial branch is to step in when we forget that and allow the Legislative and Executive Branch to go too far in violation of basic human freedoms.

I do think "legislation from the bench" is too far. One of the great tragedies is that the Legislative arm of the Federal Government has systematically refused to use their Constitutionally provided check on the Judicial, namely the ability to impeach Justices if they go too far. That unwillingness to use that check is why the line is so murky as to just how far the Judicial can go.

9. "Courts (litigation) are part of American culture ... this point has no validity today."
Of course, this is self-serving on your part. It is the people who are the real arbiters of what is just and correct, not unelected judges. Your side must use judges because the views of the people are contrary, in many cases, to the liberal perspective.

The Judicial is the short cut route for certain. I get fed up with some of the causes, both Right and Left (though I will concede I see it more often on the Left) that will work to actively create an opportunity for lawsuits so as to bypass the other channels of government.

I do think though there is legitimate cause for bringing some cases to the Judicial. When a law on the books is in violation of your rights as laid out in the Constitution, as a citizen you have the right to seek relief from the Judicial. Attempting to use the Judicial as a tool to force your beliefs is another story.

Let me ramble on a second about School prayer, as that topic has come up in this thread already. As a Christian, I get pretty ticked off when students are warned of "consequences" should they decide to pray at school events. If a Valedictorian wants to lead the crowd in prayer, that should be their choice.

On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for the parents of a child whose teacher is leading the class in prayers that they don't necessarily agree with. It is true that the child has the option to not participate, but when a child is young, is it really fair to ask them to have to stand up to their classmates, resist peer pressure, and opt out just because they're Jewish? or Muslim? or Hindu?

My opinion is that leading kids in prayer at a public school is probably crossing the line into advocating religion. I'd rather the public schools not teach religion under any circumstance as that's my job as a parent. Was taking the case to court the best way to handle that? I'd say no.

I appreciate your entertaining the question about the courts.

1. "...the values of the government should reflect the values of its populace if the government is to remain relevant. One of the truly great things about the American people is that they value basic human freedoms."
Well put, and very true.

2. "Federal Government has systematically refused to use their Constitutionally provided check on the Judicial, namely the ability to impeach Justices if they go too far."
Since the impeachment of judges is for the same reasons as impeachment of the President, I don't beleive that poorly informed and/or unpopular decisions would be within the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' provision...and this is my problem with court decisons that clearly run counter to the wishes of the American people.

3. "...Attempting to use the Judicial as a tool to force your beliefs is another story."
And this is the reason why I thought that the use of the courts in this manner should be discussed. There is no recourse.

a. You may be familiar with the fact that TR had to run as a Progressive because his stance agaist the judicial decisons caused the conservative Republicans to deny him the nomination:
"On 21 February 1912 the Colonel announced that his hat "is in the ring." He then embittered conservatives irreparably by endorsing the recall of state judicial decisions involving constitutional interpretation."
About Theodore Roosevelt


4. Ah, finally! At last I have something with which to disagree...but, alas, only mildly.
a, "...leading the class in prayers that they don't necessarily agree with."
Isn't this the same situation for those students who remain seated during the pledge, or don't salute the flag, as is their right?

b. "...when a child is young, is it really fair to ask them to have to stand up to their classmates, resist peer pressure..."
When is the right time to teach one's child to stand up, or sit down (pun intended) for what they believe?
Although it may be premature to ask you, have you thought about when you discuss same with your-children-to-be?
And how would you feel if your child felt powerful enough to do what he or she felt was right? Proud of the job you did as a parent?

c. "...crossing the line into advocating religion."
On the other hand, what message are we sending by telling youngsters that prayer is not just optional, but forbidden?

d. "...not teach religion..."
The very mild invocation, it seems to me, is not teaching religion, simply refusing to deny that it exists.

5. And where does religion fit into education?
The liberal historian James T. Kloppenberg suggests that guidance comes from civilization’s oldest moral traditions, Christianity. Kloppenberg claims that the central virtues of liberalism descend directly from the cardinal virtues of early Christianity, such as “prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.” He adds that “the liberal virtues of tolerance, respect, generosity, and benevolence likewise extended St. Paul’s admonition to the Colossians that they should practice forbearance, patience, kindness, and charity.” Kloppenberg, “The Virtues of Liberalism,” p. 5-7.

Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Trajan]

1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.

2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's “Liberalism”, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individual’s prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911

a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with today’s conservatives than today’s liberals!

b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900’s by Theodore Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Republican Party and Woodrow Wilson’s Democrats under the banner of “progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that the actual term ‘liberal’ came into widespread use in the United States.

3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 38

4. ‘Liberal’ became a pejorative, as in the following: “The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young.” Thomas and Mary Edsall, “Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics,” p. 9

5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:

a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]

b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.

c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.

Today's conservatism is last year's liberalism because conservatism is always wrong. Liberals win the battles, conservatives accept the liberal victory and have no choice but to incorporate the consequences of that victory as part of their own philosophy.

How many conservatives today do you see opposing women's suffrage? for example.

oh for sure how about desegregating the armed forces?

 

[arKangel]

1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.
.

Most normal, rational, humane people are individualists it is part of being human. Too bad the OP seems so eager to encourage that the term "Liberal" be resigned to the elitist re-definition.

3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 38.

4. ‘Liberal’ became a pejorative, as in the following: “The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young.” Thomas and Mary Edsall, “Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics,” p. 9.

We are only viewed that way if you submit to the re-definition of the word as offered by pinko's.
It really is up to you.

b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.

Anarchists are the opposite of communists!
Why would gold worshipppers like to lump completely opposing ideologies together as "leftist"?
The elitists fund the communist and socialist ideologies (knowing full and well how repugnant such things are to most people) then try to associate them with the truly humane ideologies of liberalism, because true liberalism is what pinko royalists absolutely hate...

Great way to play their useful idiots, the "conservatives" or even "populists" into whatever the rich wish. Too bad for the cowardly gold worshipper, there is a higher plan (or evolution) to which mankind is destined. It is inevitable that humanity will evolve to be ever more humane, it is only a matter of how much life we true liberals/AMERICANS will let the rich destroy.

It starts by refusing the the re-definition of words by the elitists. If we do it now, that is all that it will take to save countless lives from the hate of the pinko.

c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded,

So it really is up to you. Are you going to allow the gold worshipper to dictate to you the re-definition of "Liberal"?

If rich people command you to do so, should you give up the principles of America? The principles of Liberty? Liberalism?

Or are you comfortable to be redefined as a "conservative" a fluid, spineless, after-the-fact follower of whatever the royal pinko demands you to think?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. If liberalism today was the Classical Liberalism of our Founders, all of us would be liberals. In fact, from the New Deal through the 50's Americans pretty much were liberals.

2. Liberalism took a major step toward the current formulation, and the separation from Classical Liberalism, with the publication of L. T. Hobhouse's “Liberalism”, of 1911. It was a pretty good restatement of Classical Liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. But the text is interesting as, unlike some of the more commonly cited formulation [J.S. Mill for instance], Hobhouse argues that, even though wealth is produced by individuals, these same individual’s prosperity relied on the health and security of the community. Modern History Sourcebook: Hobhouse, Liberalism 1911

a. Even a casual perusal of Hobhouse would reveal more in common with today’s conservatives than today’s liberals!

b. The new view was adopted in the early 1900’s by Theodore Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Republican Party and Woodrow Wilson’s Democrats under the banner of “progressivism, but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that the actual term ‘liberal’ came into widespread use in the United States.

3. Today, liberals are viewed by many as permissive on social morality, including government programs that offer not merely indulgence, but appear to many to encourage lazy, ill-mannered, and sexually promiscuous conduct, gaming the system and making excuses for riots, violent crime, and other forms of anti-social behavior. Eric Alterman, “Why We’re Liberals,” p. 38

4. ‘Liberal’ became a pejorative, as in the following: “The favoring of blacks over whites and permissiveness toward drug abuse, illegitimacy, welfare fraud, street crime, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, as well as moral anarchy among the young.” Thomas and Mary Edsall, “Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics,” p. 9

5. Other elements that turned many Americans against liberalism:

a. The use of courts rather than the electoral process to achieve liberal aims. Such Supreme Court decisions as Engle v. Vitale (1962) convinced many that liberals were about to attack traditional morality whenever possible. [The prayer in question: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.]

b. Complicated interrelationships between the various left wing groups, i.e., civil libertarians, socialists, communists, anarchists, populists, etc, melded all together in the eyes of much of the apolitical public. The actions of any of these groups often colored the perception of all.

c. Conservative thinking has been propelled by well-funded, and, more importantly, easily accessible institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, which offer more than equivalent research and information to the Brookings Institution and the Urban League. Access has been multiplied by the advent of the Internet.

Today's conservatism is last year's liberalism because conservatism is always wrong. Liberals win the battles, conservatives accept the liberal victory and have no choice but to incorporate the consequences of that victory as part of their own philosophy.

How many conservatives today do you see opposing women's suffrage? for example.

oh for sure how about desegregating the armed forces?

Conservatives opposed it. They lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Other than destroying America's working class, thanks to the power of corporate money,

name the core issues of modern day conservatism that conservatives are actually winning on.