Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[CrusaderFrank]

TomPaine.com - It's The Conservatism, Stupid
Paul Waldman
July 12, 2006

A good first step would be to never, ever again use the word with a positive connotation. How many times has a Democrat, in order to score a debating point, said, “A true conservative wouldn’t tolerate these Republican deficits?” How many times have solidly liberal Democrats described themselves as “fiscally conservative?” Those formulations accept that true conservatives are principled people with noble goals. They are not, and should not be talked about as though they were. When was the last time you heard a Republican call himself a “social liberal,” even if he is one? They don’t, because they understand that liberalism is an opposing ideology to which they will give no aid or comfort.

So allow me to offer a few points of attack on conservatism, ones that will resonate with the public and accrue both short-term and long-term gains to the liberals who use them.

1. Conservatism has failed. The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasn’t a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, “Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.”

Conservatives had their chance: a Republican president, a Republican Congress, Republican-appointed courts—in short, the perfect environment for enacting their vision with little to stand in their way—and they failed. Should we be surprised at the level of corruption? Of course not; they don’t think government is there to serve the people, so why shouldn’t they raid it for whatever they can grab?

In short, progressives should start talking about the Bush administration’s failures not as those of a president, but of an ideology.

2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past—a past we don’t want to return to. Liberals need to embrace the culture war, because we’re winning. The story of American history is that of conservative ideas and prejudices falling away as our society grows more progressive and thus more true to our nation’s founding ideals. Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women’s suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, conservatives opposed the 40-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor, and conservatives supported McCarthyism. In short, all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were pushed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, no matter the party they inhabited at the time.

Conservatism is Bill Bennett lecturing you about self-denial, then rushing off to feed his slot habit at the casino. It’s James Dobson telling you that children need regular beatings to stay in line. It’s a superannuated nun rapping you on the knuckles so you won’t think about your dirty parts. It’s Jerry Falwell watching “Teletubbies” frame by frame to see if Tinky Winky is trying to turn him gay. Conservatism is everyone you never wanted to grow up to be.

3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too. We’re afraid, they shout. We’re so afraid of terrorists, we have to become more like the things we hate. We’re so afraid, we have to let our government sanction torture. We’re so afraid, we have to let the government spy on us. We’re so afraid, we have to give the president dictatorial powers. We’re so afraid, we just want to rush to the arms of politicians who say they’ll protect us.

Progressives need to frame their rejection of the fear campaign as an act of courage: Al-Qaida does not scare us, and we will not dismantle our democratic system because we are afraid. The America we love does not cower in fear, as the conservatives want it to.

These are just a few ways progressives can begin to talk about contemporary issues in the context of the larger ideological conflict that shapes our political history. As an added bonus, when we make clear just what it is we are against at its fundamental, philosophical level, we define for the public who we are and what we stand for.

One of the troubling contradictions in contemporary public opinion is that while on nearly every issue the progressive position is more popular, the number of people willing to tell a pollster they consider themselves “conservative” still far outnumbers the number willing to say they’re “liberal.” It wasn’t always that way, and it doesn’t have to be that way. Winning converts isn’t just about convincing people you’re right on the merits of issues, it’s also about showing them that your side is one they want to join, and the other side is one they want to avoid.

The key challenge facing progressives right now is how—once George W. Bush decamps for Crawford in January of 2009—to maintain the increased energy motivating the political left in recent years . They will be able to do so if they come to understand that George W. Bush is not what they need to fight. What they need to fight is conservatism.

Dubya is a Conservative in much the same way Al Gore is a Science Maven

 

[midcan5]

And once more I will ask, tell me something Conservatism has done for the working class, working person, EVER? I ask this often with the usually revisionist non-substantive replies. Give us something concrete such as labor rights? Social Security? Medicare? (Nixon was no conservative btw)? Voting rights?

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

RP: Conservatives have recently accomplished something it took them 40 years to do to liberals - made the word conservative a bad thing. They spent millions revising history to blame everything from the common cold to global warming on liberals. It worked great for a while. But after gaining power they failed miserably to govern or to live up to the high moral standards they preached. Assigning blame is easier than coming up with solutions, taking the moral high ground means taking the moral high ground not hiding behind privilege, so in the end their fantasy evaporated like an empty balloon.

It will take time for the minds of those impressionable youth and adults who have bought into their revisionist finger pointing to see their real lack of any accomplishment, but it has to be clear today that they cannot move America forward. Sure they can help the rich and their corporate friends, but can they build an infrastructure they helped destroy? Given their lack of civic minded duty to America, that is doubtful, only the guts to say we're all in this together as FDR did can we improve a society that is widening the gap between the few rich and the rest of us. Time everyone started to see when all one does is criticize government, one cannot manage a society that requires government.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill

"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[DiamondDave]

Soviet style... try any of his attempts, talk about, or support behind government control or takeover of an industry or business...

OK, let's start here. Obama "took over" one business, in total. GM.

And that was only because GM was in debt to the American taxpayer to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Rather than have GM default on it's debt to the government, Obama moved in to try and make it solvent again, with the end goal of allowing it to be an independent company again in the future.

That is in no way related to Soviet style communism. Not even in the slightest.

try any of his dictating to business what they are going to do...

You mean the businesses that were using taxpayer money to pay out ridiculous amounts of money to a few executives?

Sounds like being a concerned investor to me. Bush was the one who lent out the money in the first place to the banks, not Obama. Obama was just trying to make sure we got the money back.

Did you all WANT the money we invested in the banking industry to dissappear? Because it sure seems like you did.

Again, this would NOT be an example of Soviet Communism.



If you are stating that Obama's style of governing is similar to Soviet Russia, than you must have heard it from some right-wing talking head, as the point is patently false. Unless by some amazing coincidence you happened to reach the same false conclusion by yourself, using almost the exact same language.

Like... let's just say you take any post from rdean, rightwinger, or chris, and you can see an example first hand... hell, right from this thread Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

Specifically?

And there are plenty of conservative ex-military posters... all you have to do is look.. as for wingers.. considering you appear to think that anything right of Obama is 'right wing', that number should increase from your perspective... as for more conservative vets we have here.. Navy, myself, gunny, rgs, tech, big black dog, jester, T, Old Rocks, Ollie... you want me to KEEP listing???

Jester, Navy and Gunny are the only ones I know. You have stated you are one, and I believe you, as there is no reason to think otherwise. As far as the other names you mentioned, some are definite fakes, and I am not familiar with the others.

Now let us delve into government run health insurance, mandates associated to that with compensation, care, quotas, rationing, etc... and lest we not forget that this government first and wrongfully HANDED The money to the companies, then took over for the reasoning of mismanagement or 'too big to fail'... that, winger, is being set up for the fall.. a purposeful plan to do what was done

Obama is a left wing, socialism influenced politician... his concepts and stances are not based in the intent of the constitution, nor in the basis of freedom and individual rights for personal responsibility

As for me listening.. I have no time, nor any need, to listen to radio shows by political entertainers.. but go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that any opposition to left-wing Obama, his administration, and the left-wing congress MUST come from talk shows... ... my god are you ignorant

As for YOU thinking some others being 'fakes'.. whatever floats your boat.. though there is no real basis... I've only had questions about 2 or 3 people on the entire board who claim to be vets... and it is obvious as to why in the language they use when talking about their alleged duty or service

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And once more I will ask, tell me something Conservatism has done for the working class, working person, EVER? I ask this often with the usually revisionist non-substantive replies. Give us something concrete such as labor rights? Social Security? Medicare? (Nixon was no conservative btw)? Voting rights?

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

RP: Conservatives have recently accomplished something it took them 40 years to do to liberals - made the word conservative a bad thing. They spent millions revising history to blame everything from the common cold to global warming on liberals. It worked great for a while. But after gaining power they failed miserably to govern or to live up to the high moral standards they preached. Assigning blame is easier than coming up with solutions, taking the moral high ground means taking the moral high ground not hiding behind privilege, so in the end their fantasy evaporated like an empty balloon.

It will take time for the minds of those impressionable youth and adults who have bought into their revisionist finger pointing to see their real lack of any accomplishment, but it has to be clear today that they cannot move America forward. Sure they can help the rich and their corporate friends, but can they build an infrastructure they helped destroy? Given their lack of civic minded duty to America, that is doubtful, only the guts to say we're all in this together as FDR did can we improve a society that is widening the gap between the few rich and the rest of us. Time everyone started to see when all one does is criticize government, one cannot manage a society that requires government.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill

"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

Conservatives want families to keep more of their money, have more of a choice where to send their kids to school and are no fans of Big Government Ponzi schemes like Soc Security or Medicare that are going to either go bankrupt or start a revolution.

Libs keep pointing to Medicare which is subject to $60 Billion in admitted fraud annually like that was a good thing. That's more than the budgets of most states!

How is funding a State of Fraud a good thing? Please explain this to me!

 

[Vast LWC]

Now let us delve into government run health insurance, mandates associated to that with compensation, care, quotas, rationing, etc...

Sure, let us delve.

Socialism is defined as the government taking over the means of production of a country.

The health insurance industry does not produce anything.

But putting that aside, no-one has suggested the government take over any existing health insurance corporations, which would be necessary before you could even try to consider a "socialism" definition, they are simply providing an alternative service solution for people to pay their medical bills, also known as the "Public Option".

What do mandates to get health insurance have to do with Communism? As for the rest, those are all talking points. You are referencing things that don't actually exist.

and lest we not forget that this government first and wrongfully HANDED The money to the companies, then took over for the reasoning of mismanagement or 'too big to fail'... that, winger, is being set up for the fall.. a purposeful plan to do what was done

None of which Obama did. And the banks have all paid the money back, except for AIG.

Obama is a left wing, socialism influenced politician... his concepts and stances are not based in the intent of the constitution, nor in the basis of freedom and individual rights for personal responsibility

None of which, even if true (which it is not), would make him a Stalinist-Communist-Totalitarian in the slightest.

And "in the basis of freedom" is a talking point. It doesn't actually mean anything.

As for me listening.. I have no time, nor any need, to listen to radio shows by political entertainers.. but go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that any opposition to left-wing Obama, his administration, and the left-wing congress MUST come from talk shows... ... my god are you ignorant

As for YOU thinking some others being 'fakes'.. whatever floats your boat.. though there is no real basis... I've only had questions about 2 or 3 people on the entire board who claim to be vets... and it is obvious as to why in the language they use when talking about their alleged duty or service

The comparison between Obama and Stalinism is an invention of the right-wing talking heads. If you actually do not listen to these programs, then you listen to or read other sources that repeat the same old endlessly-repeated talking points. The primary source is still the same.

But hey, you keep on believing that you came to believe that Obama is a "Communist" all on your own. I'll just keep on being "ignorant", LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's because those shows must pay people to read my posts and it wouldn't be the first time that something I posted in the morning gets talked about on the shows later in the day. We're not Libruls waiting for our talking points from Media Matters or Kos or HufferPufferinton

Yes, Frank, I'm so sure that all the right-wing talking heads get their talking points from YOU instead of the other way around.

Like these talking points:

Conservatives want families to keep more of their money, have more of a choice where to send their kids to school and are no fans of Big Government Ponzi schemes like Soc Security or Medicare that are going to either go bankrupt or start a revolution.

ROFL.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's because those shows must pay people to read my posts and it wouldn't be the first time that something I posted in the morning gets talked about on the shows later in the day. We're not Libruls waiting for our talking points from Media Matters or Kos or HufferPufferinton

Yes, Frank, I'm so sure that all the right-wing talking heads get their talking points from YOU instead of the other way around.

Like these talking points:

Conservatives want families to keep more of their money, have more of a choice where to send their kids to school and are no fans of Big Government Ponzi schemes like Soc Security or Medicare that are going to either go bankrupt or start a revolution.

ROFL.

Yes my pointy headed, mentally challenged little friend, we post here in the morning BEFORE those shows are on. Do you know what the word "before" means?

Where not Libruls linking to Media Matters and only adding "ZOMG!!! DID YOU KNOW THIS??""

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's because those shows must pay people to read my posts and it wouldn't be the first time that something I posted in the morning gets talked about on the shows later in the day. We're not Libruls waiting for our talking points from Media Matters or Kos or HufferPufferinton

Yes, Frank, I'm so sure that all the right-wing talking heads get their talking points from YOU instead of the other way around.

Like these talking points:

Conservatives want families to keep more of their money, have more of a choice where to send their kids to school and are no fans of Big Government Ponzi schemes like Soc Security or Medicare that are going to either go bankrupt or start a revolution.

ROFL.

And why did you leave out the part about explaining how funding the State of Fraud of $60Billion annually is a success?

Did you check Media Matters, Kos and Huffington for your answers and drew lemons there?

 

[mudwhistle]

You still have no concept of freedom of speech.
The first amendment says "Congress shall pass no laws....." which means you can't be arrested or fined for what you say or write.

The first amendment does not prevent you from being criticised or pay the consequences for what you may say. If you call the bosses wife a slut, he can still fire you.....there is no freedom of speech excuse

Gee, thanks for 'splainin' that, rightwhiner. Really, I had no idea...... no idea that you were really a condescending sexist asshole. See - I'm exercising my right to speak freely.

And yet you will still scream "freedom of speech" every time someone criticises something your wingnut idols say

??????????????

Sorry....but I'm not sure you have a point here!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, thanks for 'splainin' that, rightwhiner. Really, I had no idea...... no idea that you were really a condescending sexist asshole. See - I'm exercising my right to speak freely.

And yet you will still scream "freedom of speech" every time someone criticises something your wingnut idols say

??????????????

Sorry....but I'm not sure you have a point here!!!!

Why yes.... And posting Mr Crazy Smiley substitutes for making a point?

 

[DiamondDave]

Now let us delve into government run health insurance, mandates associated to that with compensation, care, quotas, rationing, etc...

Sure, let us delve.

Socialism is defined as the government taking over the means of production of a country.

The health insurance industry does not produce anything.

But putting that aside, no-one has suggested the government take over any existing health insurance corporations, which would be necessary before you could even try to consider a "socialism" definition, they are simply providing an alternative service solution for people to pay their medical bills, also known as the "Public Option".

What do mandates to get health insurance have to do with Communism? As for the rest, those are all talking points. You are referencing things that don't actually exist.

and lest we not forget that this government first and wrongfully HANDED The money to the companies, then took over for the reasoning of mismanagement or 'too big to fail'... that, winger, is being set up for the fall.. a purposeful plan to do what was done

None of which Obama did. And the banks have all paid the money back, except for AIG.

Obama is a left wing, socialism influenced politician... his concepts and stances are not based in the intent of the constitution, nor in the basis of freedom and individual rights for personal responsibility

None of which, even if true (which it is not), would make him a Stalinist-Communist-Totalitarian in the slightest.

And "in the basis of freedom" is a talking point. It doesn't actually mean anything.

As for me listening.. I have no time, nor any need, to listen to radio shows by political entertainers.. but go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that any opposition to left-wing Obama, his administration, and the left-wing congress MUST come from talk shows... ... my god are you ignorant

As for YOU thinking some others being 'fakes'.. whatever floats your boat.. though there is no real basis... I've only had questions about 2 or 3 people on the entire board who claim to be vets... and it is obvious as to why in the language they use when talking about their alleged duty or service

The comparison between Obama and Stalinism is an invention of the right-wing talking heads. If you actually do not listen to these programs, then you listen to or read other sources that repeat the same old endlessly-repeated talking points. The primary source is still the same.

But hey, you keep on believing that you came to believe that Obama is a "Communist" all on your own. I'll just keep on being "ignorant", LOL.

Health care is not a producer, but a service that uses the products of the various medical industries to provide your own personal care.... and yes, government options are indeed getting government into the business of healthcare, taking over control and influence of that service industry... something inspired by the socialist notion of government controlling the service and production

Funny.. 1 person says Stalinism after the other says socialism and socialist inspired programs.. and only links to the USSR when we have examples of government takeover of a business or industry... you changing the terms in your post does not change what was said.. but nice try

Obama has indeed 'did' with the likes of GM... and lest we not forget the 'stimulus' handouts with all the little government mandates to go along with it, being right in line of making the business beholden to the government

And if you think in the basis of freedom is a mere talking point, when we have the examples of the Obama and left-wing stances of invading personal freedoms of contributors for the expense of non-contributors, you are sadly mistaken... it is in fact a reality in leftist government

Your arguments might actually work better if you were not taking your own talking points from left wing sources, and if you actually used what was said by your opposition without trying to change the terminology for your own benefit...

I'll stick to the facts that Obama is socialism inspired and has ideals and actions in direct opposition to what was laid out in the original writings and intent of the constitution.. that very same constitution that helps ensure a society based in the concepts of freedom and not in the basis of entitlement, huge government, and redistribution

 

[DiamondDave]

And once more I will ask, tell me something Conservatism has done for the working class, working person, EVER? I ask this often with the usually revisionist non-substantive replies. Give us something concrete such as labor rights? Social Security? Medicare? (Nixon was no conservative btw)? Voting rights?

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

RP: Conservatives have recently accomplished something it took them 40 years to do to liberals - made the word conservative a bad thing. They spent millions revising history to blame everything from the common cold to global warming on liberals. It worked great for a while. But after gaining power they failed miserably to govern or to live up to the high moral standards they preached. Assigning blame is easier than coming up with solutions, taking the moral high ground means taking the moral high ground not hiding behind privilege, so in the end their fantasy evaporated like an empty balloon.

It will take time for the minds of those impressionable youth and adults who have bought into their revisionist finger pointing to see their real lack of any accomplishment, but it has to be clear today that they cannot move America forward. Sure they can help the rich and their corporate friends, but can they build an infrastructure they helped destroy? Given their lack of civic minded duty to America, that is doubtful, only the guts to say we're all in this together as FDR did can we improve a society that is widening the gap between the few rich and the rest of us. Time everyone started to see when all one does is criticize government, one cannot manage a society that requires government.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill

"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

And the leftist thinking that government is here to actually do stuff for you... no government exists and is here to protect your freedoms and protect the country as a whole from enemies.. to ensure equal treatment under the law, not to hand out equity in the form of entitlements that infringe on the freedoms of contributors... the best thing to do for the working class person is to allow them them have the freedom to succeed or fail by the choices they make, the actions they take, and the abilities they possess

You wish to 'do' something for another.. you voluntarily do it yourself.. not being generous with the monies you collect from others....

 

[SFC Ollie]

Thom Hartmann read this story about a typical American going through life and just about everything we enjoy about America came from liberals.

You, LABOR, making a good wage. That came from unions.

Time off for your wife and she gets to keep her job? Came from liberals.

Healthcare? Came from liberals.

Social Security? Came from liberals. Conservatives bankrupted it, but the concept is a very good idea.

I'm not doing the story justice. Seriously, everything you have, you can thank liberals. Vacation days, sick days, labor laws that protect your sorry ass, etc. I'll try to find the story.

And while the liberals were giving away the store the Conservatives were in the Military keeping our freedoms safe.

Lots of poor black kids serve in the military. Always have. Gays too before Bush though them out of the military. So don't suggest that only conservatives serve. In fact, Obama won the military vote if I'm not mistaken. I guess the troops didn't want to bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Republicans used the military to loot the treasury and you know it. They pissed on the troops. And half of those troops aren't "conservatives". Their mostly poor and middle class, so they are or should be Democrats. Maybe they are brainwashed by the conservative/corrupt generals when they get there because no doubt the military tells them that liberals will cut military spending. And they are correct.

22 years in the military, and you are trying to hand me this BS? The active Army in 2008 had a total of 19.8% black. I suppose in your mind that would be a lot. I won't bother looking up the National number, I'm sure it is slightly lower though. I grew up as poor, in a mixed neighborhood, I graduated HS in a class that was 82% black. So don't tell me your BS get off your lazy ass and find hard numbers. Or go wear the uniform for a few years, then you may be qualified to talk your BS. I have the research and the numbers. Sorry for you but you have seen them 8.4% of the Army claimed to be Liberal LOL and you want to talk shit........

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/docs/demographics/Changing Profile report December 2008.pdf

Military Times Polls

You got nothing.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Thom Hartmann read this story about a typical American going through life and just about everything we enjoy about America came from liberals.

You, LABOR, making a good wage. That came from unions.

Time off for your wife and she gets to keep her job? Came from liberals.

Healthcare? Came from liberals.

Social Security? Came from liberals. Conservatives bankrupted it, but the concept is a very good idea.

I'm not doing the story justice. Seriously, everything you have, you can thank liberals. Vacation days, sick days, labor laws that protect your sorry ass, etc. I'll try to find the story.

And while the liberals were giving away the store the Conservatives were in the Military keeping our freedoms safe.

Hi! Liberal-ish vet here. There are several other liberal vets like myself who are members of this board. I just wanted to let you know that we exist and that conservatives don't have a monopoly in the military. K?

Nope no monopoly, but a strong majority. My salute to all veterans, regardless of politics.

 

[antagon]

I'll stick to the facts that Obama is socialism inspired and has ideals and actions in direct opposition to what was laid out in the original writings and intent of the constitution.. that very same constitution that helps ensure a society based in the concepts of freedom and not in the basis of entitlement, huge government, and redistribution

i get the impression reading your posts, ddave, that you dont think that the US should be a mixed economy at all, that there should be no welfare, medicare, social security, unemployment, public education, etc. that there should be none of the 'socialist inspiration', or progressive policy, in the united states.

these progressive elements of our government are considered infrastructure in mixed economies like the US. they can be credited along with currency, roads, rail and the like as the government's contribution to the economy. without this, capitalism, which im sure you taut in isolation, could not flourish. and there are examples all around the world where this is evident.

..well thats how i see it. are you blind to how modern, first-world governments work in their economies, or are you only hip to the backwards, bare-bones capitalist countries which are abound in the developing world?

ive got you painted out to be one of these libertarian jack-asses, maybe you could set me straight.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'll stick to the facts that Obama is socialism inspired and has ideals and actions in direct opposition to what was laid out in the original writings and intent of the constitution.. that very same constitution that helps ensure a society based in the concepts of freedom and not in the basis of entitlement, huge government, and redistribution

i get the impression reading your posts, ddave, that you dont think that the US should be a mixed economy at all, that there should be no welfare, medicare, social security, unemployment, public education, etc. that there should be none of the 'socialist inspiration', or progressive policy, in the united states.

these progressive elements of our government are considered infrastructure in mixed economies like the US. they can be credited along with currency, roads, rail and the like as the government's contribution to the economy. without this, capitalism, which im sure you taut in isolation, could not flourish. and there are examples all around the world where this is evident.

..well thats how i see it. are you blind to how modern, first-world governments work in their economies, or are you only hip to the backwards, bare-bones capitalist countries which are abound in the developing world?

ive got you painted out to be one of these libertarian jack-asses, maybe you could set me straight.

I do not believe that the federal government exists to be an entitlement system... that those powers are granted to the states via the constitution.. wherein if as a state the state chooses to provide those things, they can do so... and with the power being in the hands of the states, those not agreeing can choose to remain in that state or to move to a state with differing policies while still remaining in the US itself.. once that power is given to the Fed, you have no choice.. nowhere else to go

Stick to the Constitution and not try and use the federal government to grab any and all power it can

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh wow.. who would have thought a winger on here would copy and waste a winger article

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes my pointy headed, mentally challenged little friend, we post here in the morning BEFORE those shows are on. Do you know what the word "before" means?

Where not Libruls linking to Media Matters and only adding "ZOMG!!! DID YOU KNOW THIS??""

Sure Frank, you feed the media. Not the other way around. You go boyee.

And why did you leave out the part about explaining how funding the State of Fraud of $60Billion annually is a success?

Did you check Media Matters, Kos and Huffington for your answers and drew lemons there?

Because I was giving you the credit of that not actually being a talking point?

It made so little sense, that I figured it must be original.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh wow.. who would have thought a winger on here would copy and waste a winger article

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree here, that article did not really add to the conversation.

Sorry "Obama2ndterm", But DDave is right.

 

[antagon]

I do not believe that the federal government exists to be an entitlement system... that those powers are granted to the states via the constitution.. wherein if as a state the state chooses to provide those things, they can do so... and with the power being in the hands of the states, those not agreeing can choose to remain in that state or to move to a state with differing policies while still remaining in the US itself.. once that power is given to the Fed, you have no choice.. nowhere else to go

Stick to the Constitution and not try and use the federal government to grab any and all power it can

the founders recognized the marginal ability if not ineptitude of states to tackle the concerns id raised of infrastructure. the federal government acted then and throughout history to affect these, be it striking a national currency to funding interstate, hell, intercontinental rail infrastructure, national education standards, etc.

you propose an inferior US history to what we have to be proud of today. where does that urge come from? why would you want our country fragmented and underachieving as you think is ....better?