Liberalism: A Disease...

[LittleLightShining]

Liberalism: A Disease which Cannot be Cured with Socialized Medicine
By Glenn Eno

Being a liberal means never having to defend a position. You simply talk over the top of your accusers; blaming them for feeling the way you do. You do not have to justify your position. It’s not your fault. Conservatives are the ones who allow big business to make profits. They don’t have compassion for the poor, the elderly, minorities, illegal immigrants, and the environment and (gasp) the children. You do love the children don’t you?

Academia is teaching our children that to be a good American you need to provide for those less fortunate than you. In earlier times if a family ran upon hard fortunes, members of the community would come together to assist these people. Churches, (yes shhhhh churches) would provide food, clothing and shelter to help community members through their temporary situation. Now people look to the government for long term solutions, ie: welfare. The United States social welfare system has become a career for an increasingly large segment of the population. The problem is now it has become career for politicians and government employees. Liberals have no more concern for poverty than they do for national defense. Liberals must keep citizens in poverty in order to keep enough of a voting block to remain relevant. They must keep blacks and Hispanics uneducated and poor. These minorities represent the largest emerging voting block in the United States. It is criminally insane that politicians would conspire to keep the group of people they champion as slaves and pawns in the continuing struggle for power.

The greed of liberalism is the mirror image of what they portray as the problems with a capitalistic society. If you want see into the soul of a liberal you must first understand that they have none. They are a shape shifter. They just meld into whatever position they must in order to capture the moment. This may mean they have to take a different position than they did the day before. This is not a problem for them. They will relentlessly attack whoever dares to point out any hypocrisy. Liberals are an educated people who must be able metamorphose into the caring, cultured person that will stand up to the greed of capitalism. This is the cornerstone of their true passion; the redistribution of wealth.

As more Americans become wealthy it is imperative to be able to claim more of their hard earned money. Middle income Americans must continue to work harder to prevent being swallowed into the tidal wave of entitlements. Liberals will try to convince you that the middle class in vanishing. There is a reason for this; it’s because this is true. Liberals are the root cause for this. Liberals are raising the bar of poverty to include more Americans. The recent bribe for the vote, also known as the economic stimulus package has drawn a definitive line in the sand between rich and poor. When liberals repeal the tax cuts enacted after the 2008 Presidential election, the definition of rich will be as follows: If you are a single person making 75,000.00 or married and making 150,000.00 you will now be in the bull’s-eye of tax increases. Any citizens below this line will be eligible for the money redistribution. This will be the death of the middle class. You will be either a have or a have not. The mere fact that the new "low class" represents about 75 percent of the registered voters increases the likelihood that the slaves will have to vote for their masters in order to keep receiving the free money from the rich. Republicans, not conservatives, will compromise with liberals in order to keep a seat at the table. The only difference between this and the slavery of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds is the modern day slaves are beholding to a financial master instead of a labor master. As more people are assimilated into this slavery, less Americans working and earning their money will have a say in the electoral process. Liberals will control the majority of voters but this will not be enough by itself. The second front on this war on capitalism comes in the judiciary. Liberals have filibustered conservative judges at every opportunity. If they are allowed to appoint like minded judges then the last defense against a socialistic society will be thwarted. If liberalism cannot be voted out or ruled unconstitutional then the impending civil war between capitalism and liberalism will begin. This will not be a black versus white, man versus woman or right versus left. This will be the battle between right versus wrong.

So many people are dependant on government today. They do not see the cancer growing in Washington. Career politicians with no agenda other than power are selling out the principles of personal freedom. They do not have to pay into Social Security therefore they will not fix it. They do not have to be concerned with term limits. There is nothing to check the advancement of liberalism, except the truth. Congressmen have become far removed from their constituency. There is no accountability because they can spend their way back into office. They spend the tax dollars of working Americans to buy votes from the slaves of politics.

In the 1930’s FDR started the move towards our present nanny state. Americans helping one another has been a staple of our compassion since the creation of our great nation. The New Deal introduced the government into the mix. After all, we had fought wars, created a democracy, freed slaves and expanded the borders of our country. We had done things no nation had ever accomplished. Surely we could provide for the less fortunate better than any country ever had. Through the years more and more people, some citizens, some not, have benefited from what they have seen as entitlements. We have given away money, food, healthcare, housing and heating fuel. Government programs have grown exponentially because the original plan to help the needy became a way of life for entire generations. The entitlement mentality was being passed on from mother to daughter. I’ve heard people say "It’s my tax dollars; I am entitled to get some of it back!" These same people were and are no longer paying income tax into the system. They are living off from the sweat of others. There is no incentive to do otherwise. Taxpayers just above the threshold are giving up their pride and slipping into this governmental formed slavery. I believe the next logical step for the liberals is to expand benefits into an untapped source: Americans should have the right to have a new car and to be able to fill it with fuel. I see the government signing a contract with their union friends to produce automobiles for Americans who cannot afford them. This benefit to liberals is twofold: it will increase the number of people enslaved to the government and it will serve as a bailout to the automotive union workers. Part two of this plan will be to provide gas cards to these people; fuel assistance for gasoline as well as heat. They can fund this through their new best friend, windfall profit taxes on oil companies. None of this will provide one penny of relief to what is left of the middle class. It would probably increase the price of a gallon of gas by 20%. Liberals never conceive a plan that doesn’t force Americans to bend over and grab their ankles. The worse part of this is weak kneed Republicans will quickly form their own give away plan to counter the "generosity" of their liberal partners, I mean counterparts.

My last opinion is to point out the "Liberals Against Progress, Diligently Opposing Growth Stimulus, or LAPDOGS. The LAPDOGS are members of congress who serve no purpose other than to destroy America and capitalism. The rank and file include, in no particular order:

* "UpChuck" Schumer- He must be the single most arrogant piece of crap in Washington. He no more cares about the average citizen than Hitler cared about a Jew. His sole purpose in Washington is to be an obstructionist to idea which is not his own. His condescending manner is only trumped by his total, unwavering IGNORANCE of what America stands for- Freedom and pursuit of happiness. Every time he sees a camera it is an opportunity for him to grandstand for America. He is a worthless, self-serving traitor to the people he claims to represent. He only represents his own sound bite. New York and America will be a better place the day he retires and ceases to undermine democracy. He has no redeeming qualities and in this forum, I cannot use the language needed to properly describe this hypocrite.

* Nancy Pelosi- Same crap, different office. Nancy, how are those illegal migrant workers doing at your winery?

* Bernie Sanders- Bernie has a special place in my heart. He was elected because the former congressman from Vermont lied to gun owners about supporting the second amendment. He has probably done more grandstanding than socialist in Washington. If not for the gaff of Peter Smith he may have never had the opportunity to get red in the face and pound his fist in a speech in the House of Representatives, which, as the camera panned out, was almost empty.

* Patrick Leahy- See: Chuck Schumer. If you could look up the phrase "we need term limits" in an encyclopedia there would be a picture of the senate intelligence committee leak source.

* Howard Dean- He became the governor of Vermont when Richard Snelling died in office. Howard the Coward saw such great events as civil unions and the economic socialist education plan called Act 60 occur on his watch. His "I have a scream" speech is Howie in a nutshell. He is an extremely arrogant, temperamental lit fuse. I’m glad America got to see the real Howard Dean.

* Harry Reid- The little engine who couldn’t. If you give a spineless, ignorant little man the equivalent of "open mike night" and tell him no one can physically assault him he will say anything. He accuses conservatives of corruption while doing his secret land deals. I believe he became irrelevant shortly after he no longer needed diapers- probably about the year 2002.

* Hillary Clinton- My god, she must be the unhappiest woman in America. Oh wait, she’s married to Bill. I don’t believe she has an honest bone in her body. She thinks she has a birth right to power, just like all liberals. She is wrong. The Clintons are what is wrong with politics today. Don’t go away mad, just go away.

* Barack Hussein Obama- I think if he could have waited until 2012 he could have used that time to polish the edges. He has absolutely no clue on how to answer a spontaneous question. His ability to read from a prepared statement is quite impressive. His ignorance of the issues screams every time he opens his mouth in any forum which he does not control. I’m glad we are finding this out before the election. If he had four more years he may have been able to go to the Bill Clinton school of how to avoid a question and never be asked why. His platform is now out in open and his agenda can be brought to light without him crying about the race card. He will play the race card either with Hillary before the convention or with McCain during the election.


Glenn Eno
Catamount Security & Electric Inc.

editorial found here (http://www.truenorthradio.com/editorials/editorial_07_08b_08.shtml)

[acptulsa]

Wow. The propagandizing gets just a little heavy here and there, but otherwise you really found a gem here!

[LittleLightShining]

I agree. I think the author really puts liberalism into perspective. Most people who call themselves liberal (not politicians) don't understand that they are being manipulated the way they are. They have fallen headlong into a most compassionate ditch. Most "poor" people who appear to benefit from socialistic, liberal policies don't realize that their true political worth is their dependence.

[Kludge]

John Stossel on Al-Gore Syndrome (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tQYP6K0ZdU)

[acptulsa]

They have fallen headlong into a most compassionate ditch.

What a turn of phrase! Love it.

What would happen if they were convinced of the truth of the assertion that their sole political value to the nation is their inability to stand on their own two feet? Would they get mad? At whom? Probably at whomever burst their bubble...

To get yourself a slave, just pamper your victim?

[Mesogen]

Ok, so what if I said that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid aren't really liberals?

These labels cause division where there shouldn't be division.

Real "liberals" are people like Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, and Mary Ruwart. But again, why use labels?

Articles like this are meant to do one thing, get you hating some "other side" and then you start looking for ways to fight the "enemy." Well, there's only one real way, right? Vote for people like George W. Bush and John McCain!

This works for Democrats and Republicans, but it shouldn't work for people who think for themselves.

[LittleLightShining]

What a turn of phrase! Love it. Thanks :D


What would happen if they were convinced of the truth of the assertion that their sole political value to the nation is their inability to stand on their own two feet? Would they get mad? At whom? Probably at whomever burst their bubble...

I have a hard time thinking that the pawns will ever be convinced of the truth. As long as the liberals keep playing their cards the same way they come out as benevolent protectors. If the bubble burst it would no doubt be at the hands of a more conservative bunch who would then be swiftly blamed and derided as heartless capitalists. So yes, the anger would be misplaced. And it all has to do with a basic misunderstanding of economics, I think.


To get yourself a slave, just pamper your victim?Not many people would run away from a life of (relative) luxury to scrape up a living by their own accord, now would they? And the longer it goes on the harder it will be to find anything to scrape together.

[Kludge]

Classical liberalism is not spoken of. It is inferred that we speak of social liberalism when liberal is uttered, hence why Nolan set out to create a chart with another axis.

That said, our current sets of labels have all been bastardized. Time to move on to more specific labels to avoid being confused with other members in an umbrella term.

I now call myself a propertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarian) instead of a libertarian to avoid any confusion.

[acptulsa]

These labels cause division where there shouldn't be division.... it shouldn't work for people who think for themselves.

I understand what you're saying and your points are completely valid. But there is a school of thought out there that is doing no favors for this nation as a people, and if we can't name it how will that help us wrestle with it?

I would probably have said statists, or nanny statists, socialists or totalitarianists, but most people don't know them by those terms.

[Kade]

I agree. I think the author really puts liberalism into perspective. Most people who call themselves liberal (not politicians) don't understand that they are being manipulated the way they are. They have fallen headlong into a most compassionate ditch. Most "poor" people who appear to benefit from socialistic, liberal policies don't realize that their true political worth is their dependence.

Most "conservatives" don't realize they support a fascist party, that gives tax payer money to large corporate interests....

More low-blows.

I realize plenty, and I still call myself liberal.

Shitty hit piece.

[LittleLightShining]

Ok, so what if I said that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid aren't really liberals?

These labels cause division where there shouldn't be division.

Real "liberals" are people like Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, and Mary Ruwart. But again, why use labels?

Articles like this are meant to do one thing, get you hating some "other side" and then you start looking for ways to fight the "enemy." Well, there's only one real way, right? Vote for people like George W. Bush and John McCain!

This works for Democrats and Republicans, but it shouldn't work for people who think for themselves.I hear you. But the labels have been co-opted so we're going to have to take them at the meaning in fashion right now, aren't we?

If you look at the website where I found that it's a neo-con paradise, so you have to take it with a grain of salt, which I do. I would have suggested the author save the personal criticisms since the examples didn't necessarily explain why these folks are "liberals" as put forth in the article. But that's just me. Mr. Eno makes some very good observations about liberalism nonetheless.

[acptulsa]

Shitty hit piece.

No. I disagree. And I think it just appears that way to you not because it isn't valid but because it is one-sided.

No one says there aren't problems on both sides. And more than a few Republicans are part of this same problem, yes...

[Kade]

No. I disagree. And I think it just appears that way to you not because it isn't valid but because it is one-sided.

No one says there aren't problems on both sides. And more than a few Republicans are part of this same problem, yes...

FDR interred Americans and expanded the size of the government like a animal balloon elephant at a kid's party. He was no liberal...

And neither are the other tools...

This back and forth is simply infuriating.

Conservatism is a disease.

[LittleLightShining]

This back and forth is simply infuriating. Hahahah! You can dish it out pretty well, though.


No. I disagree. And I think it just appears that way to you not because it isn't valid but because it is one-sided.

No one says there aren't problems on both sides. And more than a few Republicans are part of this same problem, yes...Totally! Because who wants to be the bad guy? It's almost gone so far now that they all have to support the nanny-state. Anything else is political suicide and rioting in the streets.

[acptulsa]

Conservatism is a disease.

Liberalism and conservatism both have devolved into--or had their names co-opted to describe--diseases. Or maybe the same disease. I'd like to see both terms reclaimed to their original meanings. That would be good for the nation...

[Kade]

Hahahah! You can dish it out pretty well, though.

Totally! Because who wants to be the bad guy? It's almost gone so far now that they all have to support the nanny-state. Anything else is political suicide and rioting in the streets.

I'm a proud liberal, in a way that shouldn't even qualify this nonsense... this rant is merely another attempt to cement the idea that liberals outside the government are want the expansion of the government...

I mean seriously... even the bleeding heart liberals I know, REALLY do care about the poverty class... (even if I disagree with their ideas on how to help them).

Liberalism is offensive to "conservatives" because it allows for things they find offensive...

[Kade]

Liberalism and conservatism both have devolved into--or had their names co-opted to describe--diseases. Or maybe the same disease. I'd like to see both terms reclaimed to their original meanings. That would be good for the nation...

Statist?

[acptulsa]

Statist?

We know the Demopublicans and Republicrats both are. But they will continue to try to differentiate themselves, in words if not in deeds...

I have noticed in this election far more than in any other I've ever seen the mainstream media working very, very hard to convince us that there is quite a lot of difference between Obama and McCain. It's like, "yes you really really do have a choice! We really gave you a real choice, not a Hobson's choice. We promise!"

[Kade]

We know the Demopublicans and Republicrats both are. But they will continue to try to differentiate themselves, in words if not in deeds...

I have noticed in this election far more than in any other I've ever seen the mainstream media working very, very hard to convince us that there is quite a lot of difference between Obama and McCain. It's like, "yes you really really do have a choice! We really gave you a real choice, not a Hobson's choice. We promise!"

The media is also anti-socialism... but nobody here seems to mind that..

[LittleLightShining]

The media is also anti-socialism... but nobody here seems to mind that..What media? The media that swoons over McCain? Or the media that swoons over Obama?

[Kade]

What media? The media that swoons over McCain? Or the media that swoons over Obama?

Both are heavily, heavily anti-socialism.

The headline on CNN yesterday was "Betancourt calls her captives Terrorists"



On BBC it was Betancourt asks Columbian Government to stop using hate words to describe the FARC.

We live in a corporate controlled fascism.

[acptulsa]

The media is also anti-socialism... but nobody here seems to mind that..

I wonder how many here even notice that? For most of us, that doesn't push our buttons. Despite all the "liberal media" propaganda and what not, I think old Rupert Murdoch is doing an amazing job of selling us into becoming the first totalitarian monstrosity since Gorbachev was kind enough to say, "To hell with this crap." And they are actually skating--or appearing to skate--right down the middle of the road all the while...

Amazing, amazing.

[Kade]

I wonder how many here even notice that? For most of us, that doesn't push our buttons. Despite all the "liberal media" propaganda and what not, I think old Rupert Murdoch is doing an amazing job of selling us into becoming the first totalitarian monstrosity since Gorbachev was kind enough to say, "To hell with this crap." And they are actually skating--or appearing to skate--right down the middle of the road all the while...

Amazing, amazing.

It is amazing. I think we, as citizens, ought to be getting quite mad.

I feel there is so much ingrained stupidity.

[IRO-bot]

Most "conservatives [and liberals*]" don't realize they support a fascist party, that gives tax payer money to large corporate interests....

More low-blows.

I realize plenty, and I still call myself liberal.

Shitty hit piece.

I fixed your sentence. It was only a marginal mistake. Be honest sir.

Mod Note: The text in red above was not in Kade's post, but was added here by Iro-Bot. In the future, please don't edit someone's post that you are quoting. Thanks.

[LibertyEagle]

We live in a corporate controlled fascism.

Don't forget that Nazism stood for National Socialism.

Corporatism is in fact defined by corporations and government co-mingling. So, once again, the answer is to enforce the constraints on government that were laid out in our Constitution.

Corporatism and Socialism in America
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp


Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state — whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts — inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.

Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.

Leftists usually understand how wartime provides politically connected corporations with high profits and cushy contracts. What is more often neglected is that the history of the American domestic welfare and regulatory state also corresponds closely to the rise of corporatism. It is no coincidence.


To convince the anti-corporate skeptic of the benefits of the free market, it is crucial to defend the legitimate systems of profit and private property, but it is also vitally important to make clear that America doesn’t have a free-market economy, and indeed many of the ills associated with free markets are actually the result of state capitalism — or socialist corporatism. That the expansion of government regulations, often done in the name of combating corporate excesses, is frequently supported most enthusiastically by corporate interests makes it all the easier to explain economic liberty to those who have become disenchanted with the current system and misattribute the problems to the free market.

[LibertyEagle]

The media is also anti-socialism... but nobody here seems to mind that..

They are very socialistic. Promoting big government, which they do, is very socialistic.

[Theocrat]

The biggest folly and failure of liberalism is its appeal to egalitarianism. For liberalism, equality for everyone (not equality before the law) often trumps reason, respect for private property, individual ingenuity, and even old-fashioned hard work, among other things. Egalitarianism is just the elevator which leads down to the basement of socialism, and eventually to the torture room of communism.

[LibertyEagle]

Guys,

Using the term "liberal", is probably not the best one for us to use. As classical liberalism is very much what this movement is all about. The term "liberal" was co-opted long ago. Much like the neocons co-opted the term "conservative". If you're a traditional conservative, doesn't it just tick you off when people ascribe the neocons beliefs to conservatism? It sure does me.

I would well imagine that classical liberals feel the same when the term "liberal" is derided in the same way. Since this movement is a big tent, we might want to come up with a different term to describe those people we are referring to. It seems to me that the term, statist, describes it well. As statists are people who advocate big government.

What do you guys think?

[LittleLightShining]

What do you guys think?
I can live with this.

[acptulsa]

I would well imagine that classical liberals feel the same when the term "liberal" is derided in the same way. Since this movement is a big tent, we might want to come up with a different term to describe those people we are referring to. It seems to me that the term, statist, describes it well. As statists are people who advocate big government.

What do you guys think?

I think you just took everything I was trying to say throughout this thread and stated it clearly, concisely and even somewhat sweetly. This leaves me in no position to argue whatsoever.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is very little difference between statists on the right and statists on the left. Rightward statists want to outlaw drugs and legalize guns, while leftward statists want to outlaw guns and legalize drugs. The only real difference between statists on the right and the left is found in the details of what specifically they sek to ban, or to control access to.

Problem is that allowances can be easily revoked, where bans are not easily lifted. The long term results of the above, will find us with both drugs and guns banned.

The crux of the problem is not found on the left or on the right, but with the concept of authoritarianism itself. When any party person or politician decides that they have more right to dictate to the American people what they are or are not allowed to do, and that their dictation holds more weight than the free and sovreign will of the individual, then they have spat in the face of the Founding Fathers and denigrated the fundamental principles around which we once formed this great nation.

Whether it is a so-called 'liberal' who is really only 'liberal' with the redistribution of other's wealth, or it is a so-called 'consevative' who is really only 'conserving' their own personal twisted paradigm of morality; the root of the problem boils down to one class of people who feel that it is not merely their right, but their obligation to tell society how to behave, and to force their own personal views of right and wrong upon a society within which their views do not fit.

The foundational principles of this Republic do not allow for statism or authoritarianism. Indeed, the most hard-core Federalists from the infancy of our nation (with one glaring exception) would gasp in horror at how our government, and our population in general accepts federal authority even more readily than the British subjects accepted the authority of the King during the 18th century. The one glaring exception being the 'alien and sedition acts' which were, in the end, resoundly rejected.

Continuing the left-right paradigm which has been developed into a false dichotomy of an illusory choice by the powers that be and the propaganda works, is not fruitful. If we are to examine the situation truthfully and without preconceptions, it will become quite obvious that the left statists and the right statists are fraternal twins, differing only in the realm of specifics and details of what they seek to allow and disallow. Then, when we also realize that allowances are easily revoked while disallowances tend to persist, we will come to the realization that neither the left statists nor the right statists are in any way 'less evil' than the other, and further that the final result of all of this is that eventually EVERYTHING will be disallowed, and we will eventually have to seek permission from the authorities in order to sleep, eat, breathe, and use the restroom.

In sum, the rightward statists are no less evil than the leftward statists. Both are inherently evil, and by our continuing to promulgate this left-right division (as though it were actually real) we are playing into the hands of our enemies, keeping ourselves divided, and diminishing our own effectiveness against our real enemies: the statists.

[amy31416]

Guys,

Using the term "liberal", is probably not the best one for us to use. As classical liberalism is very much what this movement is all about. The term "liberal" was co-opted long ago. Much like the neocons co-opted the term "conservative". If you're a traditional conservative, doesn't it just tick you off when people ascribe the neocons beliefs to conservatism? It sure does me.

I would well imagine that classical liberals feel the same when the term "liberal" is derided in the same way. Since this movement is a big tent, we might want to come up with a different term to describe those people we are referring to. It seems to me that the term, statist, describes it well. As statists are people who advocate big government.

What do you guys think?

I like the idea, my only question is what do we call ourselves, since the phrase "conservative" has been hijacked? Not that we necessarily need a label, but it makes communicating easier.

[GunnyFreedom]

I like the idea, my only question is what do we call ourselves, since the phrase "conservative" has been hijacked? Not that we necessarily need a label, but it makes communicating easier.

Principled? ;-)

[LibertyEagle]

I like the idea, my only question is what do we call ourselves, since the phrase "conservative" has been hijacked? Not that we necessarily need a label, but it makes communicating easier.

I don't know. Constitutionalist?

[amy31416]

Principled? ;-)

That goes without saying. :)


I don't know. Constitutionalist?

That's as close as I could come to something reasonable, but does that imply Constitution Party to a lot of people? I think it's really one of our only options.

[Theocrat]

I don't know. Constitutionalist?

Constitutionalist? (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) :D

[acptulsa]

I like the idea, my only question is what do we call ourselves, since the phrase "conservative" has been hijacked? Not that we necessarily need a label, but it makes communicating easier.

Libertarians? Libertines? The forces of liberty?

Anything but late for dinner.

[muh_roads]

Conservatism is a disease.

Neo-Conservatism is the disease. Not conservatism.

[Kade]

Neo-Conservatism is the disease. Not conservatism.

I'm making the point that this should apply to the correct definition of liberal as well...

I don't know why you folks are missing this point.

Insult "New Liberalism" or Neo-liberalism all you want... leave the liberals alone unless you have a problem with their principles, but don't pretend to define them for us.

[muh_roads]

This article is only half correct. Bush, McCain, Cheney, Kristol, and so many countless others are liberals too.

Neo-Conservatism = Liberalism. It's as old as Woodrow Wilson.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know why you folks are missing this point.



Us folks? Um, do please put that broad brush back into the bag from whence it came. Say thankee sai. Seems to me that the majority of folks in this thread are quite on with your point, and so you appear to be tilting at windmills here. Perhaps a re-read of the thread?


ETA: yes, I do also see the people who, being dim of eye and slow of mind have completely ignored and overlooked your point. I'm simply saying they should be addressed individually, rather than "us people" when the majority of "us people" are not guilty of the offense from which you are recoiling.

[Kade]

This article is only half correct. Bush, McCain, Cheney, Kristol, and so many countless others are liberals too.

Neo-Conservatism = Liberalism. It's as old as Woodrow Wilson.

Where the fuck do you get this shit from?!

Why don't you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Or go to your library and get Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.

Whatever you do, stop using Neo-con words to label people.





"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – Lord Acton

[Kade]

Us folks? Um, do please put that broad brush back into the bag from whence it came. Say thankee sai. Seems to me that the majority of folks in this thread are quite on with your point, and so you appear to be tilting at windmills here. Perhaps a re-read of the thread?

Folks here refers to the continued ignorance on the point... it regrows, like a putrid and festering liquid at the bottom of a toothbrush jar.

[ronpaulhawaii]

:eek:Weeze bein neo-conned by the neo-libs :eek:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/2217337.gif

I wonder that statist is too broad a term. Couldn't a minarchist be considered one fringe of any such classification, (with totalitarian on the other side)?

[ARealConservative]

Where the fuck do you get this shit from?!

Why don't you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Or go to your library and get Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.

Whatever you do, stop using Neo-con words to label people.





"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – Lord Acton

sorry Kade, but it is true. Compassionate conservatism at the core is meant to address equality of opportunity.

[Kade]

:eek:Weeze bein neo-conned by the neo-libs :eek:


I wonder that statist is too broad a term. Couldn't a minarchist be considered one fringe of any such classification, (with totalitarian on the other side)?

Example #46789.

Lucky for me I can't see whatever trash you posted as a picture. You're a moderator, you could at least act like you deserve authority.

[acptulsa]

:eek:Weeze bein neo-conned by the neo-libs :eek:

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/2217337.gif

lol


I wonder that statist is too broad a term. Couldn't a minarchist be considered one fringe of any such classification, (with totalitarian on the other side)?

Does the English language have a nice, prepackaged ten-dollar word for "people sick to death of being ripped off"? Because I think that's the main thing we all have in common...

[GunnyFreedom]

Folks here refers to the continued ignorance on the point... it regrows, like a putrid and festering liquid at the bottom of a toothbrush jar.

I'm not surprised. When your problem is with say 15% of a population but yet you continue to rant and rail against 99% of said population as if guilty of the same, then you will never kill the infection, and will in all probability cause it to grow on account of the knee-jerks who, while not guilty, become offended at the prejudicial treatment and begin to develop a hatred of "dam liberals."



Example #46789.

Lucky for me I can't see whatever trash you posted as a picture. You're a moderator, you could at least act like you deserve authority.

yup. my point exactly. had you bothered to slow your breathing and pulse down long enough to actually comprehend what you were looking at, you would have sen that RPH was speaking in favor of (rather than opposed to) your original point.

Now, by being an asshole to him anyway, you make RPH angry at you, and thus create an enemy out of a friend.

This is why you will never kill the infection of which you spoke...every time you kill 1 gram of the infection, you sem to go out of your way to CREATE 2 grams where at first there was none.

[Kade]

sorry Kade, but it is true. Compassionate conservatism at the core is meant to address equality of opportunity.

Liberalism does not suggest how to address inequality of opportunity, it simply teaches that it is unjust.

[Truth Warrior]

Great OP liberal critique article, as far as it goes.

Pretty good for a conservative statist. ;)

Only wish he'd gone back to Wilson "the Progressive" POTUS.

[acptulsa]

Example #46789.

Lucky for me I can't see whatever trash you posted as a picture. You're a moderator, you could at least act like you deserve authority.

Oh, Kade. Careful or you'll be in the running against Kludge for Official Forum Curmudgeon.

[ARealConservative]

Liberalism does not suggest how to address inequality of opportunity, it simply teaches that it is unjust.

.....and that government is here to maximize equality of opportunity.

[Kade]

I'm not surprised. When your problem is with say 15% of a population but yet you continue to rant and rail against 99% of said population as if guilty of the same, then you will never kill the infection, and will in all probability cause it to grow on account of the knee-jerks who, while not guilty, become offended at the prejudicial treatment and begin to develop a hatred of "dam liberals."

Ironically, whatever righteous declarations those deservedly backwater trash receptacles muster will ultimately be protected first by people like myself, before the burdening and festering lard asses of couch-potato Conservatism decide to act positively to any true call of liberty that doesn't just involve their God-given right to not be offended.

No, these people ought to be called out. I take a verbal beating everyday for saying things that the general 95% on this forum ought to fucking know.

[Kade]

.....and that government is here to maximize equality of opportunity.

Bullshit. No liberal thinker believes government is a fool-proof solution. They also don't believe that an anarchist market is either... this is more proof that you folks have really bought into the punditry.

[acptulsa]

Well, now, what better way to get your enemies fighting over the unimportant than to change the meanings of all their favorite words on them and let them rant and rave about how they liked the old meanings better?

[Kade]

Well, now, what better way to get your enemies fighting over the unimportant than to change the meanings of all their favorite words on them and let them rant and rave about how they liked the old meanings better?

Liberal is only an offensive word to people who don't know better. The liberals don't refer to themselves by anything else... if this is a standard... look at the people who call themselves "conservative".

[ARealConservative]

Bullshit. No liberal thinker believes government is a fool-proof solution. They also don't believe that an anarchist market is either... this is more proof that you folks have really bought into the punditry.

Who said anything about fool proof solutions?

Liberals are misguided, not retarded. :D

[muh_roads]

Where the fuck do you get this shit from?!

Why don't you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Or go to your library and get Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.

Whatever you do, stop using Neo-con words to label people.

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – Lord Acton

Kade,

How many examples throughout history do you need until you realize there is no difference between the two parties?

btw I'm not calling you, the citizen and the voter, a neocon. My labels are reserved for our politicians.

[Kade]

Who said anything about fool proof solutions?

Liberals are misguided, not retarded. :D

I think a market economy with limitations is not fool-proof but better than state property and better than anarcho-capitalism.

That might be misguided, but that deserves another thread, and a much longer debate and discussion.

We can start with the propaganda of the corporate media and enterprise controlled information control to spin the failures of purist free-market in both Brazil and Mexico as failures of "socialism".

[Kade]

Kade,

How many examples throughout history do you need until you realize there is no difference between the two parties?

btw I'm not calling you, the citizen and the voter, a neocon. My labels are reserved for our politicians.

Liberalism is not a party.

That does not mean that some leaders have not been liberals.

[acptulsa]

Liberal is only an offensive word to people who don't know better. The liberals don't refer to themselves by anything else... if this is a standard... look at the people who call themselves "conservative".

Liberal is a word that once meant enlightened, fair minded, sophisticated and empathetic, more or less. Now it means socialist to many in this nation, which is not the same thing (as you have often pointed out). And conservatism has fared no better, as your own better judgement will, I think, allow. Who cares to look at the people who misuse these words?

I wish to look at them no more than necessary to beat them. And I don't want my fellow troops arguing over whether their use in the original sense of the labels they wear mean they bear any relationship to those jackasses that misuse the same word. Especially not if and when the time comes to charge!

[GunnyFreedom]

Ironically, whatever righteous declarations those deservedly backwater trash receptacles muster will ultimately be protected first by people like myself, before the burdening and festering lard asses of couch-potato Conservatism decide to act positively to any true call of liberty that doesn't just involve their God-given right to not be offended.

No, these people ought to be called out. I take a verbal beating everyday for saying things that the general 95% on this forum ought to fucking know.

Did you just call "people who are not guilty of the offence which you accuse them of, but who become offended at your prejudicial treatment of them" "deservedly backwater trash receptacles" ???

As I said, again, you are doing this to yourself. You are creating the very animosity which you then feed off of. It's like a bizarre form of Munchausen by Proxy. You run around thwapping innocent people on the head until they become pissed at you, so you can then point to them and whine about how much everyone hates liberals.

It's your own choice whether or not you apply critical thinking to your own self here, but I'm just saying don't expect anybody to pity you when you are obviously creating the problem in the first place.

[Kade]

Liberal is a word that once meant enlightened, fair minded, sophisticated and empathetic, more or less. Now it means socialist to many in this nation, which is not the same thing (as you have often pointed out). And conservatism has fared no better, as your own better judgement will, I think, allow. Who cares to look at the people who misuse these words?

I wish to look at them no more than necessary to beat them. And I don't want my fellow troops arguing over whether their use in the original sense of the labels they wear mean they bear any relationship to those jackasses that misuse the same word. Especially not if and when the time comes to charge!

Once?! You have been fed propoganda. Can you not just accept that? Only neo-cons and Fox News watchers think Liberal is an insult...

You can start here: http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535

[acptulsa]

Did you just call "people who are not guilty of the offence which you accuse them of, but who become offended at your prejudicial treatment of them" "deservedly backwater trash receptacles" ???

As I said, again, you are doing this to yourself. You are creating the very animosity which you then feed off of. It's like a bizarre form of Munchausen by Proxy. You run around thwapping innocent people on the head until they become pissed at you, so you can then point to them and whine about how much everyone hates liberals.

It's your own choice whether or not you apply critical thinking to your own self here, but I'm just saying don't expect anybody to pity you when you are obviously creating the problem in the first place.

Passive-agressive behavior is a neo-liberal statist trick, not a construct of classical liberal thought...

[Kade]

Did you just call "people who are not guilty of the offence which you accuse them of, but who become offended at your prejudicial treatment of them" "deservedly backwater trash receptacles" ???

As I said, again, you are doing this to yourself. You are creating the very animosity which you then feed off of. It's like a bizarre form of Munchausen by Proxy. You run around thwapping innocent people on the head until they become pissed at you, so you can then point to them and whine about how much everyone hates liberals.

It's your own choice whether or not you apply critical thinking to your own self here, but I'm just saying don't expect anybody to pity you when you are obviously creating the problem in the first place.

Münchhausen! Good insult, but bad comparison. Even the moderators jump on the gravy train with the propaganda Gunny.

Here, read the Oxford Manifesto (http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535).

I don't whine about how much people hate liberals, I'm pointing out that some of you don't seem to know what you are talking about, and you are using the insults of the people you despise, in a form that was meant as pure propaganda, and you are propagating it to their benefit.

[Kade]

It's your own choice whether or not you apply critical thinking to your own self here, but I'm just saying don't expect anybody to pity you when you are obviously creating the problem in the first place.

I apply critical thinking to everything I do and say Gunny. I am asking for the same in return, always. Never pity.

[GunnyFreedom]

Passive-agressive behavior is a neo-liberal statist trick, not a construct of classical liberal thought...

You have a very valid point, but I would say that that particular behavior can be transferred simply by "the company we keep" without the other neo-lib philosophical statist baggage coming with it.

[Truth Warrior]

Welcome to the Website of the Congressional Progressive Caucus!
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=1&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=1&SectionTree=1

AKA liberal AKA SOCIALIST!

"The end justifies the means." -- St. Karl Marx :p

Lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc.

Whatever it takes to further the agenda.

[acptulsa]

Once?! You have been fed propoganda. Can you not just accept that? Only neo-cons and Fox News watchers think Liberal is an insult...

Damn it Kade you're more than intelligent enough to know that you're creating a false argument and I'm not about to let it stand. Liberal and liberal are homonyms. Time has led to the classical definition and the devolved, bastardized definition pretty much being two completely meanings called by names that sound extremely similar.

You're condemning me for saying something about apples because you choose to act like you thought I was talking about oranges.

[Kade]

Damn it Kade you're more than intelligent enough to know that you're creating a false argument and I'm not about to let it stand. Liberal and liberal are homonyms. Time has led to the classical definition and the devolved, bastardized definition pretty much being two completely meanings called by names that sound extremely similar.

You're condemning me for saying something about apples because you choose to act like you thought I was talking about oranges.

Come up with another name then. It is an insult to place liberalism as a label on statist.

This was the work of Strauss, the father of neo-conservatism. You are being puppets. I will avoid the current version of Conservatism, (look at ARC's name!! I feel for him... and I am avoiding it)


Liberal Manifesto (http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535).

Would you prefer I say "Real Liberalism"?

[GunnyFreedom]

I apply critical thinking to everything I do and say Gunny. I am asking for the same in return, always. Never pity.

And yet you continue to 'thwap' the very people who are on your side, until they finally get pissed at you, so you can point at their pissyness as justification for your original thwapping. Seriously, it's kinda plain on it's face here.

[muh_roads]

Once?! You have been fed propoganda. Can you not just accept that? Only neo-cons and Fox News watchers think Liberal is an insult...

True. But Fox news viewers are also too stupid to realize that Fox News is a liberal news station.

[acptulsa]

Come up with another name then. It is an insult to place liberalism as a label on statist.

This was the work of Strauss. You are being puppets.


Liberal Manifesto (http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535).

An absolutely valid point, Kade. Please, however, excuse us if we find it more important to try to educate the masses in terms they can understand than to kowtow to your delicate sensibilities. We beg of you.

[Kade]

True. But Fox news viewers are also too stupid to realize that Fox News is a liberal news station.

Name one principle of Fox News that is liberal. Please.

[ARealConservative]

I will avoid the current version of Conservatism, (look at ARC's name!! I feel for him... and I am avoiding it)


Liberal Manifesto (http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535).

Would you prefer I say "Real Liberalism"?

I recognize that modern day conservatism is religious fascism in disguise. I have zero problems with people that use the word conservatism as a form of profanity.

And remember.....don't pity me. It is a disgusting emotion.

[GunnyFreedom]

An absolutely valid point, Kade. Please, however, excuse us if we find it more important to try to educate the masses in terms they can understand than to kowtow to your delicate sensibilities. We beg of you.

Hear me, I beg! (sorry, just finished Wolves of the Calla by Stephen King. I strangely find myself very attracted to the language of midworld and outworld.)

[Kade]

And yet you continue to 'thwap' the very people who are on your side, until they finally get pissed at you, so you can point at their pissyness as justification for your original thwapping. Seriously, it's kinda plain on it's face here.

I was "thwapping" (wtf?) Paladin. My use of "folks" was the group of Paladins that keep popping up... in this thread that includes our gently educated moderator who chose to come amongst us Serforums to post what I could only image was a ridiculous picture of some sort...

What should I call these "folks"?

[acptulsa]

What should I call these "folks"?

It was a perfectly lighthearted image of stick figures running about hollering "omg" and "oh noes". And, honestly, if a moderator cannot interject a note of levity into a discussion that is quickly escalating into the realm of "much ado about nothing" then what is the internet coming to?

What you should call these "folks" is the nation's last, great hope for liberty. Imperfect as we are. Sorry not to meet your expectations, but with due diligence on your part we might not be beyond hope after all...

[GunnyFreedom]

I was "thwapping" (wtf?) Paladin. My use of "folks" was the group of Paladins that keep popping up... in this thread that includes are gently educated moderator who chose to come amongst us Serforums to post what I could only image was a ridiculous picture of some sort...

What should I call these "folks"?

Again, (I feel like I am wasting keyboard electrons here) had you actually taken the time to analyze what Ron Paul Hawaii posted, he was posting about how neo-libs have coopted the term 'liberal' in much the same way that neo-cons have coopted the term 'conservative.' In other words, RPH was POSTING ON YOUR SIDE, and yet you CONTINUE to bash him with a prejudicial fervor. Even now, when this is something like the third time it has been pointed out to you. But yet you still cling to your original judgement anyway.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hear me, I beg! (sorry, just finished Wolves of the Calla by Stephen King. I strangely find myself very attracted to the language of midworld and outworld.)

This series slides downhill. The last book I enjoyed was one of the previous novels where the main character told about his life experiences prior to the current adventure.

[Truth Warrior]

From the OP article:

"The greed of liberalism is the mirror image of what they portray as the problems with a capitalistic society. If you want see into the soul of a liberal you must first understand that they have none. They are a shape shifter. They just meld into whatever position they must in order to capture the moment. This may mean they have to take a different position than they did the day before. This is not a problem for them. They will relentlessly attack whoever dares to point out any hypocrisy. Liberals are an educated people who must be able metamorphose into the caring, cultured person that will stand up to the greed of capitalism. This is the cornerstone of their true passion; the redistribution of wealth. "

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[muh_roads]

Name one principle of Fox News that is liberal. Please.

lol, I'll just broadly paint this because there are way too many things a person could point out.

How about all the free passes they give the current administration while attacking Ron Paul every chance they got? The embrace of global warming thru the term "climate change"?

They support the status quo. They support corporate welfare. They defend the slum of a system we call "capitalism" which is really just "corporatism".

To be liberal is to take from one and give to another.

Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh. It is all a show. For if they can't convince their retarded audiences that this is actually a two party system, they would be out of a job.

[acptulsa]

From the OP article:

Throw more gas on the fire, TW. IMO, this passage is not describing our friend Kade. It is someone else--and a fine example of how far the word in question has been degraded.

Dammit, having Kade's stubborn ass here is one of the greatest blessings. We need to learn to have respect for those we try to educate and persuade, or we will squander this revolution in one massive fail after another!

[Kade]

It was a perfectly lighthearted image of stick figures running about hollering "omg" and "oh noes". And, honestly, if a moderator cannot interject a note of levity into a discussion that is quickly escalating into the realm of "much ado about nothing" then what is the internet coming to?

What you should call these "folks" is the nation's last, great hope for liberty. Imperfect as we are. Sorry not to meet your expectations, but with due diligence on your part we might not be beyond hope after all...

I am political flotsam. I am have more power now, it feels, being floating debris, with no party affiliation and no demands on my time. I have an aggravated and infuriated base of passionate free-thinkers behind me to make considerable noise in any one direction, if we so desire.

Word is out that I will not be supporting Obama... not with the AU, the SSA, or the AAI, and not personally.

He crossed the line with the proposed expansion of the faith-based initiatives, something that the Executive Branch has near endless and unlimited power in... with the General Appropriations Funds.

I have nothing, and thus, my groups will probably splinter all over the place... Obama has lost the vote of the secularists, not that he really needs us anymore.

[GunnyFreedom]

This series slides downhill. The last book I enjoyed was one of the previous novels where the main character told about his life experiences prior to the current adventure.

Well, I have enjoyed it imensely thus far. Next I will read "Song of Susannah" and see for myself if it becomes tiresome. It might well, but at least I'll wrap up all the story arcs. ;-)

[The_Orlonater]

I'm making the point that this should apply to the correct definition of liberal as well...

I don't know why you folks are missing this point.

Insult "New Liberalism" or Neo-liberalism all you want... leave the liberals alone unless you have a problem with their principles, but don't pretend to define them for us.

Deal. ;)

[raystone]

An absolutely valid point, Kade. Please, however, excuse us if we find it more important to try to educate the masses in terms they can understand than to kowtow to your delicate sensibilities. We beg of you.

+1

[Kade]

lol, I'll just broadly paint this because there are way too many things a person could point out.

How about all the free passes they give the current administration while attacking Ron Paul every chance they got? The embrace of global warming thru the term "climate change"?

They support the status quo. They support corporate welfare. They defend the slum of a system we call "capitalism" which is really just "corporatism".

To be liberal is to take from one and give to another.

Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh. It is all a show. For if they can't convince their retarded audiences that this is actually a one party system, they would be out of a job.

Gunny, are you seeing this? Why not get on this clown for continuing the same junk I was just talking about...


Paladin,

Liberals don't like corporations, to be honest. They prefer small business ownership and proprietorships.

Liberals don't like traditional status quo government.
Liberals don't like corporate press and the stifling of free speech.
Liberals DO NOT like the Bush Administration...

What are you even talking about... I need a Fox News principle that fits with a liberal principle still..

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Well, I have enjoyed it imensely thus far. Next I will read "Song of Susannah" and see for myself if it becomes tiresome. It might well, but at least I'll wrap up all the story arcs. ;-)

I forget--is this the last book?

[Kade]

Throw more gas on the fire, TW. IMO, this passage is not describing our friend Kade. It is someone else--and a fine example of how far the word in question has been degraded.

Dammit, having Kade's stubborn ass here is one of the greatest blessings. We need to learn to have respect for those we try to educate and persuade, or we will squander this revolution in one massive fail after another!

Don't worry about TW, he has been on my ignore list for two weeks now.

[Truth Warrior]

Throw more gas on the fire, TW. IMO, this passage is not describing our friend Kade. It is someone else--and a fine example of how far the word in question has been degraded.

Dammit, having Kade's stubborn ass here is one of the greatest blessings. We need to learn to have respect for those we try to educate and persuade, or we will squander this revolution in one massive fail after another!
He's ignoring me. :cool:

We need Kade just like we all need cancer! That is exactly what he is, BTW.

It describes Kade to a T, based on ALL of our previous interactions.

WAKE UP!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, are you seeing this? Why not get on this clown for continuing the same junk I was just talking about...


Paladin,

Liberals don't like corporations, to be honest. They prefer small business ownership and proprietorships.

Liberals don't like traditional status quo government.
Liberals don't like corporate press and the stifling of free speech.
Liberals DO NOT like the Bush Administration...

What are you even talking about... I need a Fox News principle that fits with a liberal principle still..

From reading the thread, I consider Paladin to be one of the 15% I mentioned earlier. He has, what, 154 posts to your 2,804? I'm simply conducting triage. Dealing with the more pressing thing then moving on to the next pressing thing.

[muh_roads]

Gunny, are you seeing this? Why not get on this clown for continuing the same junk I was just talking about...


Paladin,

Liberals don't like corporations, to be honest. They prefer small business ownership and proprietorships.

Liberals don't like traditional status quo government.
Liberals don't like corporate press and the stifling of free speech.
Liberals DO NOT like the Bush Administration...

What are you even talking about... I need a Fox News principle that fits with a liberal principle still..

Actually Kade you just described exactly what Liberals love.

The problem is people like you are calling yourself a liberal. Stop it. You are a freedom lover just like us. You are just confusing the terms.

Liberals in Washington are apart of the same profiteering complexes that the neocons embrace. Hasn't the 2006 election taught you anything? Nothing has changed.

[acptulsa]

We need Kade just like we all need cancer! That is exactly what he is, BTW.

Maybe you have a point. After all, it does build character and give people a greater appreciation of things they didn't realize were important in this life...

You and I cannot do this alone, TW. If you can't help us recruit allies just because they are strange bedfellows and your sensibilities are too delicate, get the hell out of the way.

[The_Orlonater]

Hey Kade, in tradition. What are liberals about? Compare it to conservatism, not neo-conservatism.

[GunnyFreedom]

I forget--is this the last book?

No, there is one more, the seventh book is called "The Dark Tower" (a fitting finale for the "Dark Tower Series" methinks, and that is actually followed by a prequel called "Everything's Eventual"

The entire series is as follows:

The Dark Tower I - The Gunslinger
The Dark Tower II - The Drawing of the Three
The Dark Tower III - The Wastelands
The Dark Tower IV - Wizard and Glass
The Dark Tower V - Wolves of the Calla
The Dark Tower VI - Song of Susannah
The Dark Tower VII - The Dark Tower

Prequel: Everything's Eventual:
(and) The Little Sisters of Eluria (Short Story)

and it has been called by some to be King's 'Magnum Opus.'

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hey Kade, in tradition. What are liberals about? Compare it to conservatism, not neo-conservatism.

Yes, what is the difference between a neo-liberal and a classical liberal? I am unfamiliar with this subject.

[Truth Warrior]

Don't worry about TW, he has been on my ignore list for two weeks now.
Yep, got your number BIG TIME. And you know it. ;)

[amy31416]

Gunny,

I agree with you (and acptulsa) on so many points, but they've been made so many times. How many times can we say "We dig you Kade, we're glad you're here, you're attacking the wrong people," just to hear "It's not enough! I get attacked every day here and you guys just don't get it, you don't use the word liberal correctly!"

It's a good point, the same thing happened to the term "conservative," so we try to come up with a better term.

Still not good enough.

Damn I'd hate to have to buy you a birthday present Kade.

[LibertyEagle]

Hey Kade, in tradition. What are liberals about? Compare it to conservatism, not neo-conservatism.

Kade,
You have some people here, willing to listen. Talk to them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, what is the difference between a neo-liberal and a classical liberal? I am unfamiliar with this subject.

See Kade? With a little less ranting, raving, and pre-judging; and a little more diplomacy, there actually comes progress. One thing I learned on the canvass is that once someone is actually asking the question at point of their own accord, you have come 90% of the way towards establishing your point.

Zamboni - near as I can tell, the difference between neo-lib and classical liberal is the same as the difference between neo-con and classical conservative. Mostly authoritarianism with a sprinkle of interventionism for flavor. I am sure that Kade, however, can enlighten us further.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, what is the difference between a neo-liberal and a classical liberal? I am unfamiliar with this subject.

A classical liberal is Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, etc. Go read on www.mises.org

The term, liberal, was co-opted, just the same way that the word, conservative, was. It works well to ruin movements and keep us fighting with each other at the low levels, over some stupid label or political party affiliation, while the bad guys are running off with our country.

This is also a good site and it has been around for a long time. It's got a mind-blowing amount of free stuff.
http://www.fee.org/

[muh_roads]

Gunny,

I agree with you (and acptulsa) on so many points, but they've been made so many times. How many times can we say "We dig you Kade, we're glad you're here, you're attacking the wrong people," just to hear "It's not enough! I get attacked every day here and you guys just don't get it, you don't use the word liberal correctly!"

It's a good point, the same thing happened to the term "conservative," so we try to come up with a better term.

Still not good enough.

Damn I'd hate to have to buy you a birthday present Kade.

I'm proud of the term conservative. I attack fellow "conservatives" who love McCain & Bush and call them out as neocons every chance I get.

I also love reminding democrats about the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the Kosovo war and the robbing of the social security trust fund that Clinton did under the veil of "balancing the budget". Third largest raider of SS money behind Dubya and Reagan. That isn't "balancing the budget".

I also remind conservatives how Reagan wasn't that great of a guy. 2nd largest abuser of the fed behind Bush. His speeches in 1964-1976 were great. The moment he took office he was a failure.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny,

I agree with you (and acptulsa) on so many points, but they've been made so many times. How many times can we say "We dig you Kade, we're glad you're here, you're attacking the wrong people," just to hear "It's not enough! I get attacked every day here and you guys just don't get it, you don't use the word liberal correctly!"

It's a good point, the same thing happened to the term "conservative," so we try to come up with a better term.

Still not good enough.

Damn I'd hate to have to buy you a birthday present Kade.

I know exactly where you are coming from. My friend has an alcoholic daughter who is killing herself. she is making every single decision she encounters, badly. she refuses to listen to anybody but herself, and if 1000 people tell her one thing, she will rather do the other anyway. It simply does not matter how much of a preponderance we build. We have gathered some 30 relatives who love her dearly, and 50 friends likewise, and all of us together cannot make ven the smallest dent.

But Kade is not an alcoholic; and his perception is not being filtered by an addictive substance. Unlike my friends daughter, at some point there must be a level of preponderance where he will stop for a minute and listen.

[Kade]

Hey Kade, in tradition. What are liberals about? Compare it to conservatism, not neo-conservatism.

This is the most recent manifestation of Liberalism, rather the modern version of "old" liberalism.

http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=537

Liberalism dates back to the beginning of the enlightenment, with the deist, and according to Bertrand Russell was effectively summed up most by Stuart Mill, Jefferson, and Locke.

[LibertyEagle]

See Kade? With a little less ranting, raving, and pre-judging; and a little more diplomacy, there actually comes progress.

Yeah well, it's not only Kade that has been doing this.

It's only my opinion, but I sincerely believe we have to hone our skills in reaching people. Somehow, we've got to figure out how to listen to people and find out where their hot spots are and speak to those issues. Until they understand what they personally have to gain from returning to a constitutional government, we will never succeed. I know it's hard not to resort to name-calling, because it's so very frustrating, but what we're doing is like selling a product. Unless we extol it's benefits, in terms that the customer cares about, no one will be interested in buying it.


One thing I learned on the canvass is that once someone is actually asking the question at point of their own accord, you have come 90% of the way towards establishing your point.

Well said. :) Maybe you can give us some insight into how you did that?

[acptulsa]

My friend has an alcoholic daughter who is killing herself.

Sorry to hear that, Gunny. That must be tough for all who are even remotely connected, yourself included.

Hope I'm not too crass in capitalizing on it, but I'm glad you brought it up. Let's see now if we can get a concrete example.

Neocon: Throw her ass in prison and let the state straighten her out.

Neolib: Throw her ass in rehab and let the state straighten her out.

"Paleo"con: Tough love and catch her when she falls.

Classical liberal: Well, Kade? I bow to the master.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

A classical liberal is Mises, Bastiat, Hayek, etc. Go read on www.mises.org

The term, liberal, was co-opted, just the same way that the word, conservative, was. It works well to ruin movements and keep us fighting with each other at the low levels, over some stupid label or political party affiliation, while the bad guys are running off with our country.

This is also a good site and it has been around for a long time. It's got a mind-blowing amount of free stuff.
http://www.fee.org/

Interesting. So classical liberals are for free markets? What is the stance on issues such as these:

Intervention/nonintervention
So called, "legislating morality"
Taxes
Gun Control
Social Programs

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[GunnyFreedom]

AFAIK, originally 'liberalism' referred to a philosophy which granted 'liberty' to the people in general. By the neo-libs co-opting the term, they are trying to push it into the meaning of 'the powers that be, being very 'liberal' with the application of authority.'

In much the same way, the original term 'conservative' meant to 'conserve' the fundamental principles of freedom, liberty, and individual sovreignty laid out int he Declaration and Constitution; whereas with the neo-cons coopting the term they are trying to pust the definition more in the way of 'conserving power into the hands of those who run the country, and conserving our empire abroad.'

Neither of which in any way, shape, or form resemble the ORIGINAL meaning of the words 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting. So classical liberals are for free markets? What is the stance on issues such as these:

Intervention/nonintervention
So called, "legislating morality"
Taxes
Gun Control
Social Programs

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Classical liberals are against the state in all its forms.

[Truth Warrior]

Maybe you have a point. After all, it does build character and give people a greater appreciation of things they didn't realize were important in this life...

You and I cannot do this alone, TW. If you can't help us recruit allies just because they are strange bedfellows and your sensibilities are too delicate, get the hell out of the way.
You sound just like the GOP dealing with the Socialists, for decades now.

They Lose TOO. They aren't ANY good at it either. Why do the liberals HATE Ann Coulter sooooo much? She just kicks their butts, with their own tools and tactics.

BTW, that's why Ron Paul very often stands alone in the Congress now.

[Kade]

Yes, what is the difference between a neo-liberal and a classical liberal? I am unfamiliar with this subject.

Classical Liberalism: Is strictly laissez faire, and is often associated with the desire for limited government and individual freedom. They often desire rationality and property rights as first principals. They also strongly favor the purist forms of natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, Republican limits of power (Constitution or Charter), and free market economic systems. Examples include Thomas Paine and Adam Smith.

Neo-liberalism: Strictly economic liberalism. Very strongly anarcho-capitalist. Consider all other freedoms paled in comparison with economic freedom. Examples include Friedman and Hayek.

Liberalism: Rule of thumb with liberalism is simply "freedom of thought". Taking directly from the definitions derived from Blackwell and Russell, Liberals put emphasis on individual rights and equality of opportunity, extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government and a support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal access to law, or Just Law. Usually strong advocates for an Open Society.
Examples include: Popper, Jefferson, Soros, among others.

Statism: A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.

[acptulsa]

Classical Liberalism: Is strictly laissez faire, and is often associated with the desire for limited government and individual freedom. They often desire rationality and property rights as first principals. They also strongly favor the purist forms of natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, Republican limits of power (Constitution or Charter), and free market economic systems. Examples include Thomas Paine and Adam Smith.

Hey, TW. If this sounds like the enemy to you, I'm sure as hell glad no one died and made you tsar. ;)

[Kade]

I know exactly where you are coming from. My friend has an alcoholic daughter who is killing herself. she is making every single decision she encounters, badly. she refuses to listen to anybody but herself, and if 1000 people tell her one thing, she will rather do the other anyway. It simply does not matter how much of a preponderance we build. We have gathered some 30 relatives who love her dearly, and 50 friends likewise, and all of us together cannot make ven the smallest dent.

But Kade is not an alcoholic; and his perception is not being filtered by an addictive substance. Unlike my friends daughter, at some point there must be a level of preponderance where he will stop for a minute and listen.

There are people here who simply don't understand. My stubbornness is not an attribute of my mental stagnation, nor is there a threshold to which I will sit idly back while you define me in a corner and then ask nicely for me to shut up and drink the flav-o-aid.

[acptulsa]

The name of the game is divide and conquer the fools--and they'll redefine the whole damned dictionary to win. The question is, can we secure our defenses and take the offensive before they kick our dog asses?

[ARealConservative]

There are people here who simply don't understand. My stubbornness is not an attribute of my mental stagnation, nor is there a threshold to which I will sit idly back while you define me in a corner and then ask nicely for me to shut up and drink the flav-o-aid.

:D

I like Kade.

There, I said it!

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah well, it's not only Kade that has been doing this.

It's only my opinion, but I sincerely believe we have to hone our skills in reaching people. Somehow, we've got to figure out how to listen to people and find out where their hot spots are and speak to those issues. Until they understand what they personally have to gain from returning to a constitutional government, we will never succeed. I know it's hard not to resort to name-calling, because it's so very frustrating, but what we're doing is like selling a product. Unless we extol it's benefits, in terms that the customer cares about, no one will be interested in buying it.



Well said. :) Maybe you can give us some insight into how you did that?

Well, for one, picking and choosing your battles is important. I didn't even try to reach the McCain guy who threatened to blow me off his porch with a shotgun the moment he discovered I was canvassing for Ron Paul. I just said, "Good luck with the death squads when they come around, and Semper Fi!" did an about-face and marched away.

Beyond that, the most important thing you already mentioned -- finding THEIR hotbutton issues and describing why strict construction (ie the Ron Paul platform) addresses their issues far better than anything we have seen in the last century.

Generally, it's the excitement of the canvasser which is infectious. If I am dull and bored when trying to show people why strict constructin has all the answers, then they will be dull and bored also. But if I am excited and jazzed as to how strict construction will address their hotbutton issues, then they will get excited too, and want to know more.

Once THEY want to know more, you have them.

The only thing I had a hard time overcoming was the 'electability' question. I encountered fully 1/3 of every door I knocked on, where people sincerely and passionately explained to me, "Well, now that I understand what he stands for, I love everything Ron Paul stands for and I'd love to vote for him. Yes, I WOULD vote for him if only he could win."

In that, I found nothing to effectively counter the FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC brainwashing. Yes, I managed to convince some to vote for him anyway, but if it weren't for the electability brainwash, we'd have hit at the bare minimum 20% in SC, 30% in AL; and probably 40% in NC. I'd bet my life on it.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Kade,

Thank you for the clarification. Note that I'm not trying to stir up trouble with my next question, which is:

Is Mr. Obama, in your opinion, more classical liberal than statist? Why or why not?

It seems to me that he would be closer on the statist side, based on the definitions which you provided. Once again, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, I just want to know where the modern Democratic Party is classified.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[muh_roads]

This is the most recent manifestation of Liberalism, rather the modern version of "old" liberalism.

http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=537

Liberalism dates back to the beginning of the enlightenment, with the deist, and according to Bertrand Russell was effectively summed up most by Stuart Mill, Jefferson, and Locke.

Too globalist for me. The following speaks in terms of desires for the world.

* to abolish capital punishment all over the world;

* to redirect public spending from military expenditure towards investment in social capital, sustainability, and the alleviation of poverty;

* to limit the sale of arms, and to prevent the sale of the means of repression to non-democratic regimes, and to promote the effectiveness of the UN register of conventional arms;

They speak of free markets which is different from "Neo-Libs" but I don't understand how they can accomplish their world goals without the classic "take from one and give to another".

I got a Bilderberg vibe after reading some of that.

[acptulsa]

Once THEY want to know more, you have them.

The only thing I had a hard time overcoming was the 'electability' question...

This is also my experience. No bet, Gunny!

[Kade]

Look, what do we have in common?

We hate statism. A real word, that has real meaning, even in it's name...

I lean more strongly against social statism, most of you lean more against economic statism, but that does not mean we don't have the same desires... or that we are on different sides.

I am a liberal. Most likely, of all the things I believe, you possibly disagree most strongly with my stance on a mixed economy. We can argue and debate, rationally, the positions of individual things... I prefer to avoid blanket ideas... for instance, statements such as "All government programs are worthless". I don't really agree... for example, I happen to like the byproducts of NASA, and DARPA...

I am most passionate about freedom of thought. That is my first principle I suppose... with free thought comes the ability to discuss and express all other freedoms... even the ideas on what it is to be free.

[Kade]

Too globalist for me. The following speaks in terms of desires for the world.

* to abolish capital punishment all over the world;

* to redirect public spending from military expenditure towards investment in social capital, sustainability, and the alleviation of poverty;

* to limit the sale of arms, and to prevent the sale of the means of repression to non-democratic regimes, and to promote the effectiveness of the UN register of conventional arms;

They speak of free markets which is different from "Neo-Libs" but I don't understand how they can accomplish their world goals without the classic "take from one and give to another".

I got a Bilderberg vibe after reading some of that.

I don't entirely disagree... I don't think they have set out how to do those things... more of an ideal scenario. I too fear far reaching globalist efforts... and unrealistic "utopian" constructs.

[Kade]

Kade,

Thank you for the clarification. Note that I'm not trying to stir up trouble with my next question, which is:

Is Mr. Obama, in your opinion, more classical liberal than statist? Why or why not?

It seems to me that he would be closer on the statist side, based on the definitions which you provided. Once again, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, I just want to know where the modern Democratic Party is classified.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Mr. Obama is more statist than liberal. His stances on the expansion of certain programs is beyond my threshold of tolerance.

[LibertyEagle]

Most likely, of all the things I believe, you possibly disagree most strongly with my stance on a mixed economy.

Would you please explain what you mean by a "mixed economy"?

Thanks.

[LibertyEagle]

Kade,

Thank you for the clarification. Note that I'm not trying to stir up trouble with my next question, which is:

Is Mr. Obama, in your opinion, more classical liberal than statist? Why or why not?

It seems to me that he would be closer on the statist side, based on the definitions which you provided. Once again, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, I just want to know where the modern Democratic Party is classified.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

I have yet to see one single solitary thing about Obama that you could describe as classical liberalism. Keep in mind that Ron Paul's heroes were classical liberals.

Look for Bastiat's "The Law" on the internet. It's short and it's out there for free in several places, one of which is probably mises.org.

[Truth Warrior]

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Liberal-You-Must/dp/1400054184/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215546947&sr=1-4

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

This forceful, sarcastic, and often hilarious book offers tips on arguing with liberals, which include the following: don't be defensive, always outrage the enemy, and never apologize to, compliment, or show graciousness to a Democrat. Welcome to the world according to Ann Coulter. Ever combative, Coulter is unafraid to court controversy or confront her detractors head-on, whether they are mainstream journalists and talk-show hosts who have misquoted her without apology or "weak and frightened conservatives" craving liberal approval. Though the writing is often over-the-top, the book if full of one-liners that will delight conservatives, such as "the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes." But there is more here than just insults and countless jabs at Bill Clinton, and even her most devoted readers will find much new material in the book. Largely a collection of her syndicated columns from the past decade, How to Talk to a Liberal also includes columns that were never released or were rejected by editors--in Coulter's words, "what you could have read if you lived in a free country." --Shawn Carkonen

Should be required reading for the Revolution ( skip the Neocon stuff ;) ).<IMHO>

[muh_roads]

I prefer to avoid blanket ideas... for instance, statements such as "All government programs are worthless". I don't really agree... for example, I happen to like the byproducts of NASA, and DARPA...

Yes but even the good programs still require you to "take from one and give to another" in order for them to work. If there was no IRS people would have more money than they know what to do with. These things would still get funding thru donations.

In some cases the "good government programs" might get more funding than they normally would if we let government divvy things up. I could see Microsoft, for example, donating almost all the money they'd save from the repeal of the 16th amendment to things like NASA. Them and their employees already give a lot to things like Space-X, etc.

[LibertyEagle]

Kade,

I excerpted this from the link you provided. What part of this do these folks expect to be forced by big government? Because if that is what they believe, it is very different than what the classical liberals desired.


We believe that the conditions of individual liberty include the rule of law, equal access to a full and varied education, freedom of speech, association, and access to information, equal rights and opportunities for women and men, tolerance of diversity, social inclusion, the promotion of private enterprise and of opportunities for employment. We believe that civil society and constitutional democracy provide the most just and stable basis for political order. We see civil society as constituted by free citizens, living within a framework of established law, with individual rights guaranteed, with the powers of government limited and subject to democratic accountability.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

I have yet to see one single solitary thing about Obama that you could describe as classical liberalism.

I think he sort of employs anti-corporatist rhetoric, which might be part of classical liberalism, if classical liberals are for free markets.

[acptulsa]

I could see Microsoft, for example, donating almost all the money they'd save from the repeal of the 16the amendment to things like NASA.

Don't hold your breath. I think the fact that capitalism is based on greed is a great strength to it, like having a foundation under your house that you know you can depend on. As we have seen of late, it also is its greatest weakness, because once a psycho has bought influence, capitalism is in mortal danger.

That said, there are things that only government can do. In this day and age, for example, national defense seems to me to fill that bill.

[muh_roads]

( skip the Neocon stuff ;) ).<IMHO>

So buy a whole book and skip almost the entire thing except for maybe 10 pages? lol

10 pages might be too generous.

[Kade]

Would you please explain what you mean by a "mixed economy"?

Thanks.

I believe in state run education as long as competing markets are allowed. Cooperative and participatory economic models. Employee protesting, and unions. The mail system. Transportation network. I also believe the internet should be state property. Local government waste services. Airports as state property. Amtrak, and some colleges.. I like the idea of competing economic models as well as competing markets... the colleges for instance has been fruitful.

[LibertyEagle]

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Liberal-You-Must/dp/1400054184/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215546947&sr=1-4

Should be required reading for the Revolution ( skip the Neocon stuff ;) ).<IMHO>

Nice to know you support Ann Coulter, TW. Explains a lot. :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

I think he sort of employs anti-corporatist rhetoric, which might be part of classical liberalism, if classical liberals are for free markets.

It might be a part of classical liberalism. I fear he has led me to take the cynical view of him--I suspect blatant pandering.

[Kade]

Kade,

I excerpted this from the link you provided. What part of this do these folks expect to be forced by big government? Because if that is what they believe, it is very different than what the classical liberals desired.

They don't specify. It is about accountability. Liberals believe all forms of authority ought to have checks and balances.

[Kade]

It might be a part of classical liberalism. I fear he has led me to take the cynical view of him--I suspect blatant pandering.

I too, because of recent developments, have leaned more towards Obama as a panderer.

[muh_roads]

Don't hold your breath. I think the fact that capitalism is based on greed is a great strength to it, like having a foundation under your house that you know you can depend on. As we have seen of late, it also is its greatest weakness, because once a psycho has bought influence, capitalism is in mortal danger.

That said, there are things that only government can do. In this day and age, for example, national defense seems to me to fill that bill.

I refuse to believe we are even capitalist anymore so I won't speak ill of it. All I see is corporatism. I still believe America is the most giving nation in the world. The problem is a lot of us don't have much to give anymore.

[LibertyEagle]

I believe in state run education as long as competing markets are allowed. Cooperative and participatory economic models. Employee protesting, and unions. The mail system. Transportation network. I also believe the internet should be state property. Local government waste services. Airports as state property. Amtrak, and some colleges.. I like the idea of competing economic models as well as competing markets... the colleges for instance has been fruitful.

Kade, I'm sorry, but this is not classical liberalism. Classical liberals did not argue for government control. They simply did not.

But, thanks for explaining what you meant though. :)

[Kade]

I refuse to believe we are even capitalist anymore so I won't speak ill of it. All I see is corporatism. I still believe America is the most giving nation in the world. The problem is not a lot of us have much to give anymore.

The reason we do not have much to give, in my opinion, is that we have destroyed the value of the dollar, and we have squandered our wealth on foreign wars, and we have stifled innovation by bailing out failing business models, and we have taxed the shit out of our poor.

[acptulsa]

I refuse to believe we are even capitalist anymore so I won't speak ill of it. All I see is corporatism. I still believe America is the most giving nation in the world. The problem is not a lot of us have much to give anymore.

[Bittersweet smile]

[Kade]

Kade, I'm sorry, but this is not classical liberalism. Classical liberals did not argue for government control. They simply did not.

But, thanks for explaining what you meant though. :)

I said I was liberal, and I said that in a VERY clear manner... you guys keep referring to me as a classical liberal, and I am not. I am a LIBERAL. Nowhere did I say I was a classical liberal, this entire thread was an attempt to fix the problem here with understanding what it is to be a liberal.

[IRO-bot]

I also believe the internet should be state property.

Yuk. You trust to much.

Is that access to the internet? Or is it the storage of data on the internet?
That can lead for severe restrictions on freedom.

[LibertyEagle]

They don't specify. It is about accountability. Liberals believe all forms of authority ought to have checks and balances.

Hhmm.... the classical liberals I have studied, argued against having much government "authority" at all. But yes, that which exists, much be constrained and held accountable.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

I too, because of recent developments, have leaned more towards Obama as a panderer.


It might be a part of classical liberalism. I fear he has led me to take the cynical view of him--I suspect blatant pandering.

It is sad that what you hear at the beginning of campaigns varies so widely with what you end up with, from presidential candidates. Politicians tend to change along the trail. If I were in an early primary state, I would constantly feel duped.

[LibertyEagle]

I said I was liberal, and I said that in a VERY clear manner... you guys keep referring to me as a classical liberal, and I am not. I am a LIBERAL. Nowhere did I say I was a classical liberal, this entire thread was an attempt to fix the problem here with understanding what it is to be a liberal.

My fault, Kade. I had thought in the thread we were conversing in yesterday, that you described yourself as such.

[muh_roads]

I too, because of recent developments, have leaned more towards Obama as a panderer.

This is why I just don't care who wins, McCain or Obama.

I actually want Obama to win in the hopes that maybe republicans have a traditional conservative cause to rally behind once again. If we invade Pakistan, it'll be funny to hear Hannity spout how wrong it is that we are in nation building just like he attacked Clinton on Kosovo in 1999. Hypocrite.

Republicans are united if a dem is in the white house. If McCain wins republicans make excuses for him and become sheeple.

I let the chips fall where they may and just continue to buy gold & silver. Both paths are on a ruin for disaster...especially if we let the military industrial complex continue doing what it is doing when the baby boomers start sucking on the teat of SS and medicare.

[muh_roads]

The reason we do not have much to give, in my opinion, is that we have destroyed the value of the dollar, and we have squandered our wealth on foreign wars, and we have stifled innovation by bailing out failing business models, and we have taxed the shit out of our poor.

+1

[Kade]

Yuk. You trust to much.

Is that access to the internet? Or is it the storage of data on the internet?
That can lead for severe restrictions on freedom.

Local governments owning the pipes...

There is no other way of keeping it neutral. I don't trust anyone except the hackers with the internet... and the only way to give it to them is to make it public.

The ISPs can go about their business... the lines should stay out of corporate hands.

[Truth Warrior]

So buy a whole book and skip almost the entire thing except for maybe 10 pages? lol

10 pages might be too generous.
As evidenced by this thread, a WHOLE lot of folks really need those 10 pages. :D

[Kade]

It is sad that what you hear at the beginning of campaigns varies so widely with what you end up with, from presidential candidates. Politicians tend to change along the trail. If I were in an early primary state, I would constantly feel duped.

I feel duped already. Obama has stabbed the passionate netroots that has gotten him to where he is today...

Even Dailykos is turning on him.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes but even the good programs still require you to "take from one and give to another" in order for them to work. If there was no IRS people would have more money than they know what to do with. These things would still get funding thru donations.

In some cases the "good government programs" might get more funding than they normally would if we let government divvy things up. I could see Microsoft, for example, donating almost all the money they'd save from the repeal of the 16th amendment to things like NASA. Them and their employees already give a lot to things like Space-X, etc.

Well, for one, the only way Microsoft, Inc has more money with a reppealed 16th Amenment would be to pay a lower wage. Not exactly the intended consequence I think. And second, I imagine that the only way to really fund something like NASA privately, you would have to divvy out the resulting technology from the program on a license-to-donor ratio, in order to make donations profitable for those donating. Such a scenario, obviously, is prone to all kinds of abuse.

The one major benefit to having NASA as a gov't program is that internally produced tech falls under more of an open-source type license much like the GPL. This would seem to me to be of a more general benefit than a tech-licence-by-donor concept. Now, being unsure of the current constitutionality of a program such as NASA, yet knowing the immense public benefit of such a program, I'd be in favor of stumping for a Constitutional Amendment permitting Congress the function of "Frontiers Exploration" along with the rest of the powers delineated in Article 1 Section 8. This would clear up the strict constructionist question, while allowing for a much clearer mandate than NASA currently has.

[AmericaFyeah92]

I said I was liberal, and I said that in a VERY clear manner... you guys keep referring to me as a classical liberal, and I am not. I am a LIBERAL. Nowhere did I say I was a classical liberal, this entire thread was an attempt to fix the problem here with understanding what it is to be a liberal.

if ur not a classical liberal, the only other variety would be the modern liberals, which are statists and collectivists like Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and ur favorite, Obama.

Or is there some third faction u've conjured up just for urself?

[acptulsa]

Well, I could argue that government control of the internet scares me, especially when I see Bill Moyers hounded and NPR sliding into statism. And I could argue that Amtrak was unnecessary and is a large part of the reason this obvious answer to our cost of energy troubles is the fact that the government is mismanaging it in a way that the private sector would probably never do. But all that is fodder for another thread.

And this turned into a damned good thread.

As for flame wars vs. winning converts, old Fred Harvey of Santa Fe dining car fame (heard of Harvey Houses?) once addressed one of his waiters for blowing up at a customer:

"He's a crank," said the waiter.

"Of course he's a crank," answered Harvey, "but we must please him. It is our duty to please cranks, as anyone can please a gentleman."

The republic doesn't care if we want to learn to please cranks or not. It just knows that cranks are needed to help save it...

[Kade]

if ur not a classical liberal, the only other variety would be the modern liberals, which are statists and collectivists like Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and ur favorite, Obama.

Or is there some third faction u've conjured up just for urself?

I'm going to listen to GunnyFreedom here and try to remain calm. Please go back and read this fucking thread. Thank you.

[Kade]

Well, I could argue that government control of the internet scares me, especially when I see Bill Moyers hounded and NPR sliding into statism. And I could argue that Amtrak was unnecessary and is a large part of the reason this obvious answer to our cost of energy troubles is the fact that the government is mismanaging it in a way that the private sector would probably never do. But all that is fodder for another thread.

And this turned into a damned good thread.

As for flame wars vs. winning converts, old Fred Harvey of Santa Fe dining car fame (heard of Harvey Houses?) once addressed one of his waiters for blowing up at a customer:

"He's a crank," said the waiter.

"Of course he's a crank," answered Harvey, "but we must please him. It is our duty to please cranks, as anyone can please a gentleman."

The republic doesn't care if we want to learn to please cranks or not. It just knows that cranks are needed to help save it...

NPR has remained one of the only remaining bastions of liberty. I would ask that anyone hear me out about this... we have forgotten what it means in America to have "state" property... it is not the same version of Soviet or Cuban State Property...

In America, when the government, especially the local government "owns" something, as long as it is free from the restraints that should be reserved for the ruling class, it is the people's property, for example National Parks.

I, for obvious reasons, believe that this "ownership" should be heavily limited... but I do not believe in anarchy. I prefer open society and democracy.

[muh_roads]

Well, for one, the only way Microsoft, Inc has more money with a reppealed 16th Amenment would be to pay a lower wage. Not exactly the intended consequence I think. And second, I imagine that the only way to really fund something like NASA privately, you would have to divvy out the resulting technology from the program on a license-to-donor ratio, in order to make donations profitable for those donating. Such a scenario, obviously, is prone to all kinds of abuse.

The one major benefit to having NASA as a gov't program is that internally produced tech falls under more of an open-source type license much like the GPL. This would seem to me to be of a more general benefit than a tech-licence-by-donor concept. Now, being unsure of the current constitutionality of a program such as NASA, yet knowing the immense public benefit of such a program, I'd be in favor of stumping for a Constitutional Amendment permitting Congress the function of "Frontiers Exploration" along with the rest of the powers delineated in Article 1 Section 8. This would clear up the strict constructionist question, while allowing for a much clearer mandate than NASA currently has.

I just think back to what Ron Paul said. Technology and new ideas don't need government hand outs to work.

Our Tang orange drinks and Microwaves would just have a NASA logo on them instead of "Kenmoore" & "Kool-Aid". Actually the lock on the patents would probably have expired long ago.

[acptulsa]

In America, when the government, especially the local government "owns" something, as long as it is free from the restraints that should be reserved for the ruling class, it is the people's property, for example National Parks.

Not that even Teddy's parks have gone completely unmolested...

Does liberalism that has its heart in the right place require more or less popular diligence than libertarianism?

[AmericaFyeah92]

I'm going to listen to GunnyFreedom here and try to remain calm. Please go back and read this fucking thread. Thank you.

i read the whole thing.

but you are not specifying what kind of "liberal" u are. If ur not the classical type, or the modern type, what are you?

P.S. don't get ur panties in a wad when u come to a Ron Paul forum and proclaim urself a liberal and Obama supporter, and then get hammered for it. What do u expect from people who have actually read the constitution?

[Kade]

i read the whole thing.

but you are not specifying what kind of "liberal" u are. If ur not the classical type, or the modern type, what are you?

P.S. don't get ur panties in a wad when u come to a Ron Paul forum and proclaim urself a liberal and Obama supporter, and then get hammered for it. What do u expect from people who have actually read the constitution?

In this thread, several times, I have made it VERY clear.

I am a liberal. You are not reading the thread.. I defined it for you, so I wouldn't get stupid questions.

[muh_roads]

Well, for one, the only way Microsoft, Inc has more money with a reppealed 16th Amenment would be to pay a lower wage. Not exactly the intended consequence I think. And second, I imagine that the only way to really fund something like NASA privately, you would have to divvy out the resulting technology from the program on a license-to-donor ratio, in order to make donations profitable for those donating. Such a scenario, obviously, is prone to all kinds of abuse.

The one major benefit to having NASA as a gov't program is that internally produced tech falls under more of an open-source type license much like the GPL. This would seem to me to be of a more general benefit than a tech-licence-by-donor concept. Now, being unsure of the current constitutionality of a program such as NASA, yet knowing the immense public benefit of such a program, I'd be in favor of stumping for a Constitutional Amendment permitting Congress the function of "Frontiers Exploration" along with the rest of the powers delineated in Article 1 Section 8. This would clear up the strict constructionist question, while allowing for a much clearer mandate than NASA currently has.

As for Microsoft, I meant the executives and other employees taking a salary who voluntarily allow contributions from their paychecks.

But back to what you're talking about...the people who are for government funding of stem-cell research, I've seen make the same "open-source" argument. If left to the private sector it would be more expensive to utilize the cures stem cells might create.

Just stating what I heard. Not really taking a side on this one.

[Kade]

Not that even Teddy's parks have gone completely unmolested...

Does liberalism that has its heart in the right place require more or less popular diligence than libertarianism?

No it doesn't. But corporate money is more powerful than the people. Better to shift just a little back... no?

[GunnyFreedom]

Local governments owning the pipes...

There is no other way of keeping it neutral. I don't trust anyone except the hackers with the internet... and the only way to give it to them is to make it public.

The ISPs can go about their business... the lines should stay out of corporate hands.

I can understand where you are coming from with this. I loathe the fact that my infrastructure from the router to the NOC is owned by Time Warner. Though, Instead of municipal control I would rather see them owned by a co-op where everyone who uses them 'buys in' and becomes part owner; with a full voice at the table when it comes to runing the co-op in direct proportion to their investment.

In other words, a non-profit co-op where all end users are de-facto shareholders, and where share proportion establishes local bandwidth on the pipes, and as shareholders, we get to vote, and hold the board accountable. I think this would have the direct benefit of making the infrastructure handlers more responsive to solving problems (they would be working for a 'boss' not a 'customer') plus it would upen up ISP competition and revoke the monopoly status from companies such as Roadrunner. It would also have the side benefit of opening more bandwith for a lower price; given that the majority of the bottleneck is in the infrastructure between the ISP and the end user.

Just making the point that there are private market solutions to the same problem.

[Kade]

I can understand where you are coming from with this. I loathe the fact that my infrastructure from the router to the NOC is owned by Time Warner. Though, Instead of municipal control I would rather see them owned by a co-op where everyone who uses them 'buys in' and becomes part owner; with a full voice at the table when it comes to runing the co-op in direct proportion to their investment.

In other words, a non-profit co-op where all end users are de-facto shareholders, and where share proportion establishes local bandwidth on the pipes, and as shareholders, we get to vote, and hold the board accountable. I think this would have the direct benefit of making the infrastructure handlers more responsive to solving problems (they would be working for a 'boss' not a 'customer') plus it would upen up ISP competition and revoke the monopoly status from companies such as Roadrunner. It would also have the side benefit of opening more bandwith for a lower price; given that the majority of the bottleneck is in the infrastructure between the ISP and the end user.

Just making the point that there are private market solutions to the same problem.

I like that idea. A co-op would require government intervention, otherwise what else would prevent a company from purchasing them?

But this kind of dialogue is what I prefer! I am open to specifics of anything... and will always side with a market solution if it is a rational one.

[acptulsa]

but you are not specifying what kind of "liberal" u are. If ur not the classical type, or the modern type, what are you?

Besides a free thinker? Yes, I think Kade applies labels to himself too often. He's not that easy to pin down.

Has anyone else noticed that the Ds say the Rs are destroying the country with bad ol' evil greedy capitalism and the Rs say the Ds are destroying the country with nanny enabling and overspending, and in fact what is destroying the country has more to do with their own counterproductive, crooked, utterly identical shenanigans than any of that?

I'm for classical conservatism. Nonetheless, I'll gladly join with a liberal whose heart is in the right place now and hash the rest out after we've given this nation back to the people!

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

i read the whole thing.

but you are not specifying what kind of "liberal" u are. If ur not the classical type, or the modern type, what are you?


In other words, under the liberal, (not classical liberal), philosophy, what are the functions which the federal government must not do?

[GunnyFreedom]

i read the whole thing.

but you are not specifying what kind of "liberal" u are. If ur not the classical type, or the modern type, what are you?

P.S. don't get ur panties in a wad when u come to a Ron Paul forum and proclaim urself a liberal and Obama supporter, and then get hammered for it. What do u expect from people who have actually read the constitution?

Clearly you have not read 'the whole thing' as you claim, or you would have known that he is not an Obama supporter. Integrity can be hard sometimes, but it is very important, if it do ye.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Clearly you have not read 'the whole thing' as you claim, or you would have known that he is not an Obama supporter. Integrity can be hard sometimes, but it is very important, if it do ye.

? if he has decided not to vote for Obama, i apolagize.

But i don't think he ever said that.....so.......

BTW, Kade, Jefferson did not fall under ur "liberal" category. He was a classical liberal

[Kade]

I am political flotsam. I am have more power now, it feels, being floating debris, with no party affiliation and no demands on my time. I have an aggravated and infuriated base of passionate free-thinkers behind me to make considerable noise in any one direction, if we so desire.

Word is out that I will not be supporting Obama... not with the AU, the SSA, or the AAI, and not personally.

He crossed the line with the proposed expansion of the faith-based initiatives, something that the Executive Branch has near endless and unlimited power in... with the General Appropriations Funds.

I have nothing, and thus, my groups will probably splinter all over the place... Obama has lost the vote of the secularists, not that he really needs us anymore.

You read the whole thread, did ya?

[GunnyFreedom]

As for Microsoft, I meant the executives and other employees taking a salary who voluntarily allow contributions from their paychecks.

But back to what you're talking about...the people who are for government funding of stem-cell research, I've seen make the same "open-source" argument. If left to the private sector it would be more expensive to utilize the cures stem cells might create.

Just stating what I heard. Not really taking a side on this one.

Humm. I am far less in favor of publically funded stem cell research than I am of NASA. To me, NASA would seem to have more of a municipal finction going forward...i.e. 100 years from now maybe America's 51st state will be a lunar territory. Such a thing doesn't really apply to stem cell research to the same degree.

In other words, the argument for continued public funding of NASA is about a lot more than ONLY the resultant tech, which is why I'd push the proposed Amendment in the direction of 'Frontiers Exploration" more-so than simply NASA funding as a program.

[Kade]

? if he has decided not to vote for Obama, i apolagize.

But i don't think he ever said that.....so.......

BTW, Kade, Jefferson did not fall under ur "liberal" category. He was a classical liberal

http://www.terrymichael.net/Htm_SiteArticles/LibDemManifestoJuly4_2006.htm

He most certainly did.

Jefferson's emphasis was on the "end" product... not the method in getting there.... as a strident scholar and admirer of Jefferson, I would ask that you close out the tabs of Jefferson websites that claim otherwise and pick up some of the man's own writing. The man was a leftist radical bent on free thought and expression. He was a revolutionist. Today he would be mocked as something entirely different.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

He is no longer in Obama supporter and was saying how even DailyKos may be turning against Obama.

[acptulsa]

He is no longer in Obama supporter and was saying how even DailyKos may be turning against Obama.

First announced it a week or more ago. It was a tough day for him. He wanted someone worth supporting in the race, just like all of us. A person doesn't have to agree with this or that opinion to be a principled patriot...

[AmericaFyeah92]

You read the whole thread, did ya?

alright, i didn't read the whole thread :p

(play "curb your enthusiasm" theme music now)

[Truth Warrior]

Nice to know you support Ann Coulter, TW. Explains a lot. :rolleyes: Nope, she just makes me laugh. I cut my teeth on the collectivists through Ayn Rand and several others. ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

I like that idea. A co-op would require government intervention, otherwise what else would prevent a company from purchasing them?

But this kind of dialogue is what I prefer! I am open to specifics of anything... and will always side with a market solution if it is a rational one.

I think much of the issue with corporations buying up shares in an attempt to control the co-op could be solved with bylaws. For instance, a bylaw stating that infrastructure bandwidth ACCESS (as opposed to buyin shares) can not be resold to a third party under any circumstance would seem to prevent such a takeover attempt.

Mind you, there would be the potential for a proxy fight to change the bylaws if a given corporation were allowed to buy up a plurality share; but given the enormous population that would be invested in such a co-op that sort of fight would be terribly expensive, and would not guarantee a positive outcome for the company trying to take over.

Figure 10 million subscribers in a given state; with share buyins at $50, $100, and $200 (plus resudual maintenance costs) for low, medium and high bandwidth pipes. Assuming an even distribution of 33% all, you then have a statewide "share-pot" of $1,166,666,550 counting ONLY residential users, and not even considering the commercial end-users bying into T1, T3, and OC3 lines.

A company attempting a takeover on such a magnitude would NOT displace existing shareholders (due to the bylaw preventing resale of access) and would therefore have to make a 70% investment in the existing share-pool to the tune of $816,666,585 JUST to control 41% of the then-existing $1,983,333,135 overall holdings.

In order to control 51% of the shares, they would have to invest $1,236,666,543 -- or $1.2 BILLION dollars.

I know I know, I have way oversimplified to make the illustration; but the point is that with a careful consideration of the bylaws, such a takeover/buyback can be effectively prevented without government intervention.

[Truth Warrior]

Who sanctions the corporations? The STATE! Amendment XIV. Eventually, in time.

Corporate person hood, there's a very big part of the current problems with the corporations.<IMHO>

[LibertyEagle]

No it doesn't. But corporate money is more powerful than the people. Better to shift just a little back... no?

You shift it back by getting the federal government out of it, Kade. Corporatism is the collusion of government with big corporations. If you return to a constitutional government, voila, no more collusion, thus no more corporatism.

Other than this collusion, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with people starting a company, being successful and making money. It is only when they get special favor from the government, that causes the problem.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.terrymichael.net/Htm_SiteArticles/LibDemManifestoJuly4_2006.htm

He most certainly did.

Jefferson's emphasis was on the "end" product... not the method in getting there.... as a strident scholar and admirer of Jefferson, I would ask that you close out the tabs of Jefferson websites that claim otherwise and pick up some of the man's own writing. The man was a leftist radical bent on free thought and expression. He was a revolutionist. Today he would be mocked as something entirely different.

You're leaving off the part about Jefferson being against big government and strongly for states rights. I don't agree with you at all that he was a "leftist", btw, as from what I've seen, leftists are predominantly for a huge and controlling federal government and Jefferson was expressly against that.

[Truth Warrior]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff100991.html)

[Truth Warrior]

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

[pdavis]

In much the same way, the original term 'conservative' meant to 'conserve' the fundamental principles of freedom, liberty, and individual sovreignty laid out int he Declaration and Constitution; whereas with the neo-cons coopting the term they are trying to pust the definition more in the way of 'conserving power into the hands of those who run the country, and conserving our empire abroad.'

Neither of which in any way, shape, or form resemble the ORIGINAL meaning of the words 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

This is not the original denotation of conservativism. The original meaning of the term conservatism, which goes back to around the French Revolution, was to conserve the power of the state and the merchant or privileged class (monarchy, militarism, nationalism, mercantilism).


Neo-liberalism: Strictly economic liberalism. Very strongly anarcho-capitalist. Consider all other freedoms paled in comparison with economic freedom. Examples include Friedman and Hayek.

Neoliberalism is an anti-concept, a term that functions to obscure our understanding; and a package deal, a term whose meaning conceals a presupposition that certain things go together when in actuality do not. An example of this being that when you use the term neoliberal(ism) your understanding of it is the way you just defined, but I define and understand neoliberal(ism) as someone who is an apologist for the state and big business.


I believe in state run education as long as competing markets are allowed. Cooperative and participatory economic models. Employee protesting, and unions. The mail system. Transportation network. I also believe the internet should be state property. Local government waste services. Airports as state property. Amtrak, and some colleges.. I like the idea of competing economic models as well as competing markets... the colleges for instance has been fruitful.

If your against corporatism and big government, why are calling for the state to run and "own" certain industries. The main reasons why many large, multi-national corporations are as big as they are today is due to the fact they externalize a lot of their costs to the tax payer, such as transportation and communications.


NPR has remained one of the only remaining bastions of liberty. I would ask that anyone hear me out about this... we have forgotten what it means in America to have "state" property... it is not the same version of Soviet or Cuban State Property...

In America, when the government, especially the local government "owns" something, as long as it is free from the restraints that should be reserved for the ruling class, it is the people's property, for example National Parks.

I, for obvious reasons, believe that this "ownership" should be heavily limited... but I do not believe in anarchy. I prefer open society and democracy.

The state cannot own property, it can only steal property. There can be public property within a free market based on the homesteading principle. Read Roderick T. Long's essay, A Plea for Public Property (http://libertariannation.org/a/f53l1.html).


I can understand where you are coming from with this. I loathe the fact that my infrastructure from the router to the NOC is owned by Time Warner. Though, Instead of municipal control I would rather see them owned by a co-op where everyone who uses them 'buys in' and becomes part owner; with a full voice at the table when it comes to runing the co-op in direct proportion to their investment.

In other words, a non-profit co-op where all end users are de-facto shareholders, and where share proportion establishes local bandwidth on the pipes, and as shareholders, we get to vote, and hold the board accountable. I think this would have the direct benefit of making the infrastructure handlers more responsive to solving problems (they would be working for a 'boss' not a 'customer') plus it would upen up ISP competition and revoke the monopoly status from companies such as Roadrunner. It would also have the side benefit of opening more bandwith for a lower price; given that the majority of the bottleneck is in the infrastructure between the ISP and the end user.

Just making the point that there are private market solutions to the same problem.


I like that idea. A co-op would require government intervention, otherwise what else would prevent a company from purchasing them?

But this kind of dialogue is what I prefer! I am open to specifics of anything... and will always side with a market solution if it is a rational one.

I agree with Kade and GunnyFreedom. Since the government uses tax money to subsidize the cost of telecommunications, the government, nor the corporations are the legitimate owners of the communications infrastructure, but the homesteaders (users within the area) are the owners. Restrictions on not allowing competition of communications (infrastructure and service providers) should be done away with as well allowing for competition.


You're leaving off the part about Jefferson being against big government and strongly for states rights. I don't agree with you at all that he was a "leftist", btw, as from what I've seen, leftists are predominantly for a huge and controlling federal government and Jefferson was expressly against that.

Jefferson was a leftist. The Left- Right political spectrum goes back to the French Revolution. In the French Legislative Assembly, assemblymen who sat on the right were conservatives (people who supported and wanted to conserve the power of the state, or the monarchy, the privileged class, militarism, mercantilism, and nationalism); those who sat on the left were radical revolutionaries and deeply opposed to the monarchy, the privileged class, and militarism. Many on the left were either classical liberals (Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal), individualist anarchists, social anarchists, and state socialists.

[Truth Warrior]

Some Thomas Jefferson Quotes
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

[AmericaFyeah92]

Jefferson was a leftist. The Left- Right political spectrum goes back to the French Revolution. In the French Legislative Assembly, assemblymen who sat on the right were conservatives (people who supported and wanted to conserve the power of the state, or the monarchy, the privileged class, militarism, mercantilism, and nationalism); those who sat on the left were radical revolutionaries and deeply opposed to the monarchy, the privileged class, and militarism. Many on the left were either classical liberals (Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal), individualist anarchists, social anarchists, and state socialists.

He was not a leftist by today's standards. He would be a constitutionalist/libertarian

[Kade]

He was not a leftist by today's standards. He would be a constitutionalist/libertarian

After 200+ years? It is not a measure of comparability... it is about what he was at the time.

He stood for religious freedom when it wasn't popular. He stood for freedom of thought in the midst of Divine Right... the man was a radical.

Today, he would be another radical academic, most likely in the fold of Chomsky.

[LittleLightShining]

Did you just call "people who are not guilty of the offence which you accuse them of, but who become offended at your prejudicial treatment of them" "deservedly backwater trash receptacles" ???

As I said, again, you are doing this to yourself. You are creating the very animosity which you then feed off of. It's like a bizarre form of Munchausen by Proxy. You run around thwapping innocent people on the head until they become pissed at you, so you can then point to them and whine about how much everyone hates liberals.

It's your own choice whether or not you apply critical thinking to your own self here, but I'm just saying don't expect anybody to pity you when you are obviously creating the problem in the first place.I see the same thing and that's partly why I chose to share this article, imperfect in its vocabulary as it is.

Case in point:
You simply talk over the top of your accusers; blaming them for feeling the way you do.


I'm not surprised about the way this discussion blew up, I have pages and pages yet to read and comment on but I wish I could share this with Mr. Eno. How do we get the neo-cons (maybe not the politicians and pundits but the people who associate with them) to see the truth of this paradigm? I think, Kade, what you don't seem to grasp even though it's been said over and over and over again here is that true conservatives fall into the same pit that true liberals fall into. You seem to have no problem lumping neo-cons and true conservatives together yet you become livid when your true liberal association is defamed in the same way.


Once?! You have been fed propoganda. Can you not just accept that? Only neo-cons and Fox News watchers think Liberal is an insult...Here you go again! Hey, why don't you come visit the socialist Republic of Vermont and tell me how liberalism works? When the far left, socialist Democrats proudly call themselves Liberals you begin to see things a little differently. Come take a look at the state Howard Dean turned into a retirement mecca for rich, old people while jobs are leaving the state in droves because of excessive environmental and regulatory burdens the Democrat controlled legislature has imposed on us since the 60's. The author of the OP lives here and has seen what the self-described Liberals have done.

So how do we get the language back to where it needs to be? Yesterday I took a political/news coverage survey and it asked me if I considered myself liberal, moderate or conservative. How am I supposed to know anymore? What's a moderate these days, anyway?


I'm going to keep reading the rest of the thread now...

[acptulsa]

What's a moderate these days, anyway?

I'm very much afraid that these days a moderate is someone who has given the hell up. The two "major parties" are so damned close together on most subjects (on every issue but the hot button ones they use to distract us) who could fit themselves in the middle? Wasn't it Clinton who said, "There's no there there"?

[Kade]

You seem to have no problem lumping neo-cons and true conservatives together yet you become livid when your true liberal association is defamed in the same way.

No, I do have a problem with that, and only do it to illustrate my point. The difference, as I've made painfully and with great anger here, is that the people who are doing this, are, the people we all have a problem with... people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Stop being like them. Else, what reasons do liberals have to honor that you are the real kind of "Conservative"... even if -EVERYDAY- Hannity opens his program about the merits of Conservatism, the way he sees it...

I do get livid... in every pronouncement of this insanity a shuffle into collectivist totalitarian statism... even the most progressive Democrats are not that bad!

Too far, too much.

[Kade]

I'm very much afraid that these days a moderate is someone who has given the hell up. The two "major parties" are so damned close together on most subjects (on every issue but the hot button ones they use to distract us) who could fit themselves in the middle? Wasn't it Clinton who said, "There's no there there"?

Depends on what your definition of the word "is" is...

[acptulsa]

Depends on what your definition of the word "is" is...

No comment. :D:D

[LittleLightShining]

I like the direction the thread took since I last posted and continued reading.
NPR has remained one of the only remaining bastions of liberty. I would ask that anyone hear me out about this... we have forgotten what it means in America to have "state" property... it is not the same version of Soviet or Cuban State Property...

In America, when the government, especially the local government "owns" something, as long as it is free from the restraints that should be reserved for the ruling class, it is the people's property, for example National Parks.

I, for obvious reasons, believe that this "ownership" should be heavily limited... but I do not believe in anarchy. I prefer open society and democracy.NPR is no bastion of liberty. NPR participated in the blackout of Ron Paul and since then I have lost so much respect for it. I still listen, I do appreciate the presentation of news. The sounds, sometimes I can even smell what I hear the production value is so high. But for all they could have done to preserve freedom and liberty simply by continuing to cover Ron Paul when all the others pulled the shades... They are no less bought and paid for than any other mainstream media outlet.

It's a good thing they have Nina Totenberg (sp), Christiane Amanpour, the World Cafe, Marketplace and The Splendid Table or I'd never listen again.

[Kade]

I like the direction the thread took since I last posted and continued reading. NPR is no bastion of liberty. NPR participated in the blackout of Ron Paul and since then I have lost so much respect for it. I still listen, I do appreciate the presentation of news. The sounds, sometimes I can even smell what I hear the production value is so high. But for all they could have done to preserve freedom and liberty simply by continuing to cover Ron Paul when all the others pulled the shades... They are no less bought and paid for than any other mainstream media outlet.

It's a good thing they have Nina Totenberg (sp), Christiane Amanpour, the World Cafe, Marketplace and The Splendid Table or I'd never listen again.

I heard Ron Paul on NPR many, many times... what are you talking about?

In fact, one of my friends from BRU had an hour long special on the movement... where do you people dig this shit up?! Go somewhere else for your propaganda, I will not support nonsense!

[acptulsa]

I heard Ron Paul on NPR many, many times... what are you talking about?

In fact, one of my friends from BRU had an hour long special on the movement... where do you people dig this shit up?! Go somewhere else for your propaganda, I will not support nonsense!

Easy, now. My advice is don't go flaming this lady. Having us go maternal on you isn't as bad as having us go paternal...

It's much easier for a liberal to appreciate NPR, of course. And while I respectfully disagree with Little Light that it is just as bought and paid for as the others, I couldn't help but lose a lot of respect for them this cycle. Once they were the network that would actually acknowledge that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party existed at all, and that was good. However, I feel there has been a slide, and can't help but feel that Bob Edwards' departure was a sign of it.

Even as they devoted Talk of the Nation episodes to discussion of the unequal and unfair differentiation of airtime among the primary candidates the news division did the exact same thing! And they did it to Kucinich, too.

I have to agree that it ain't what it used to be. And that makes me incredibly, inevitably, incurably sad. Thank God for the 'net!

[Kade]

Easy, now. My advice is don't go flaming this lady. Having us go maternal on you isn't as bad as having us go paternal...

It's much easier for a liberal to appreciate NPR, of course. And while I respectfully disagree with Little Light that it is just as bought and paid for as the others, I couldn't help but lose a lot of respect for them this cycle. Once they were the network that would actually acknowledge that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party existed at all, and that was good. However, I feel there has been a slide, and can't help but feel that Bob Edwards' departure was a sign of it.

Even as they devoted Talk of the Nation episodes to discussion of the unequal and unfair differentiation of airtime among the primary candidates the news division did the exact same thing! And they did it to Kucinich, too.

I have to agree that it ain't what it used to be. And that makes me incredibly, inevitably, incurably sad. Thank God for the 'net!

For shit's sake man, Bob Barr was on for an hour yesterday... On Point...

*sigh*

[LittleLightShining]

Stop being like them. Else, what reasons do liberals have to honor that you are the real kind of "Conservative"... even if -EVERYDAY- Hannity opens his program about the merits of Conservatism, the way he sees it... Am I being like them? I posted an article that, as I've said before, is imperfect in vocabulary and could do without the accusatory name calling at the end but otherwise it pretty much sums up what has become for most people the definition of a liberal. We've concluded that this is not necessarily so, the more appropriate label would be statist.

Realistically, the words have been abused to the point of complete obscurity so that the true definitions don't apply. I do think we're going to have to come up with new words to name our own associations while allowing for the old names to be associated with the new definitions. It's too confusing for most people to process the true meanings of these words when whatever news/punditry they subscribe to keeps blasting them with the new. Let us not redefine rather let us identify ourselves more concisely and accurately. Can we come up with names that aren't so easily distorted from the truth of their meaning?


I do get livid... in every pronouncement of this insanity a shuffle into collectivist totalitarian statism... even the most progressive Democrats are not that bad!
Again, you do not know my home state. You would think otherwise. We have now here Progressives, which have their roots in communism. The Democrats, the "progressive" ones now identify themselves as "liberals". How does an 18cent tax on each plastic bag sound to you? Had they not left the wording so open as to include bags which come in boxes this would be a law today.

[LittleLightShining]

I heard Ron Paul on NPR many, many times... what are you talking about?

In fact, one of my friends from BRU had an hour long special on the movement... where do you people dig this shit up?! Go somewhere else for your propaganda, I will not support nonsense!*Sigh*

Once the newsletter debacle occurred that was the END of Ron Paul on NPR. All Things Considered and Morning Edition began calling it a 2 man race between McCain and Huckabee. I'm not making things up. I called during their spring pledge drive and told them that had they not participated in the blackout they would get a donation. I talked to the lady for some time and she wrote down every word I said to give to the General Manager Mark Vogelzang.

[Kade]

Am I being like them? I posted an article that, as I've said before, is imperfect in vocabulary and could do without the accusatory name calling at the end but otherwise it pretty much sums up what has become for most people the definition of a liberal. We've concluded that this is not necessarily so, the more appropriate label would be statist.

Realistically, the words have been abused to the point of complete obscurity so that the true definitions don't apply. I do think we're going to have to come up with new words to name our own associations while allowing for the old names to be associated with the new definitions. It's too confusing for most people to process the true meanings of these words when whatever news/punditry they subscribe to keeps blasting them with the new. Let us not redefine rather let us identify ourselves more concisely and accurately. Can we come up with names that aren't so easily distorted from the truth of their meaning?

Again, you do not know my home state. You would think otherwise. We have now here Progressives, which have their roots in communism. The Democrats, the "progressive" ones now identify themselves as "liberals". How does an 18cent tax on each plastic bag sound to you? Had they not left the wording so open as to include bags which come in boxes this would be a law today.

I'm sorry, I understand what you are referring to, but I reserve Totalitarianism for the most dangerous and subversive government control there is... I don't think Vermont is a Dictatorial State...

I live in Rhode Island... we are no better. I am one of the VERY few young professionals to move to the State... as most are leaving... This place has become a collection of dying and aged "Great Society" folk, who continue to help Union-backed mob bosses run the government.

When I run for office here, (and I will) I will be mocked by your side, their side, and the RI Conservatives. I will run on a Democratic Libertarian ticket, emphasizing a reduction in these state programs, especially our business restraints that are choking our state into pure poverty...

[acptulsa]

For shit's sake man, Bob Barr was on for an hour yesterday... On Point...

*sigh*

There's APR and MPR and NPR's news division is somewhat seperate, and they aren't all equal. If there is Truth on the Air then NPR and PBS is the place to find it. I suspect I'm older than you, and remember when they really did better.

Maybe they spoiled me, I don't know. But perfection is a place they are moving away from, not toward I'm afraid.

[Kade]

*Sigh*

Once the newsletter debacle occurred that was the END of Ron Paul on NPR. All Things Considered and Morning Edition began calling it a 2 man race between McCain and Huckabee. I'm not making things up. I called during their spring pledge drive and told them that had they not participated in the blackout they would get a donation. I talked to the lady for some time and she wrote down every word I said to give to the General Manager Mark Vogelzang.

That might be the case.... But this is a discussion for another time... we were too blind to criticize Ron Paul for his poor response... and his campaigns severe detachment from the grassroots... Ron Paul DID NOT respond like a politician who cared about clearing up the situation... and it was the culmination of several other mishaps, including the speech he gave celebrating anti-evolution sentiment... The movement was not comprised of backwater rednecks... it thrived on the liberals like me. I invite the debate otherwise.. but I'll give you an example.

An advanced Facebook search of Boolean logic, searching for the supporters of Ron Paul through the linked group, and then searching for "Political Views" --Very Liberal"... exactly 29% of the total of Ron Paul supporters on Facebook were classified as Very Liberal. A total of 75% of the Facebook RP supporters were classified as Liberal. That is not chump change... that was nearly a million supporters, easily.

So yes, leading up to that week, NPR probably did shy away from Ron Paul... but I can't really blame them... I spoke about this several months ago.

The campaign shat on it's grassroots... you saw this when you saw DIGG suddenly turn against him. That is why my signature is relevant.

[LittleLightShining]

That might be the case.... But this is a discussion for another time... we were too blind to criticize Ron Paul for his poor response... and his campaigns severe detachment from the grassroots... Ron Paul DID NOT respond like a politician who cared about clearing up the situation... and it was the culmination of several other mishaps, including the speech he gave celebrating anti-evolution sentiment... The movement was not comprised of backwater rednecks... it thrived on the liberals like me. I invite the debate otherwise.. but I'll give you an example.

An advanced Facebook search of Boolean logic, searching for the supporters of Ron Paul through the linked group, and then searching for "Political Views" --Very Liberal"... exactly 29% of the total of Ron Paul supporters on Facebook were classified as Very Liberal. A total of 75% of the Facebook RP supporters were classified as Liberal. That is not chump change... that was nearly a million supporters, easily.

So yes, leading up to that week, NPR probably did shy away from Ron Paul... but I can't really blame them... I spoke about this several months ago.

The campaign shat on it's grassroots... you saw this when you saw DIGG suddenly turn against him. That is why my signature is relevant.I don't disbelieve you, and I will agree that the campaign was horribly suicidal in its treatment of the grassroots. There is no debate on this. But none of this addresses NPR's collusion in shutting off Ron Paul.

[acptulsa]

It is hard to admit that NPR and PBS is as good as it gets when you're a free marketeer. Is something interfering with supply or is it a problem with the demand--like we need to educate people to the point where they can appreciate the truth?

:confused:

[amy31416]

It is hard to admit that NPR and PBS is as good as it gets when you're a free marketeer. Is something interfering with supply or is it a problem with the demand--like we need to educate people to the point where they can appreciate the truth?

:confused:

It is strange, isn't it? At least NPR and PBS are partially supported by the free market via donations. I used to donate to both of them years ago, but you're right--they have slipped a lot, but it's still the best thing going. I used to watch PBS all the time when I was a kid and they had the best science, nature and educational shows.

When I finally got away from home, I listened to almost nothing but NPR (I grew up in a house where Rush Limbaugh was always on. *shudder*) Back then, NPR almost seemed like a subversive radio station--telling you the dirty truths of the government, of corporate greed and collusion with the government, they'd have interviews with people like George Carlin. Not nearly as much of that now.

I may be wrong, but wasn't there talk of the government pulling funding at one point unless NPR had more right-wing content? (It was actually neocon, if I recall correctly.) That may well coincide with the time they started slipping.

[acptulsa]

I may be wrong, but wasn't there talk of the government pulling funding at one point unless NPR had more right-wing content? (It was actually neocon, if I recall correctly.) That may well coincide with the time they started slipping.

Yes and yes, though it seemed centered on PBS--that was when Bill Moyers disappeared from Now.

[amy31416]

Yes and yes, though it seemed centered on PBS--that was when Bill Moyers disappeared from Now.

That's right, I remember them talking about Big Bird being a right wing puppet, I believe, on the Howard Stern show (I had a long commute in the morning and would switch between the two shows, believe it or not, the HS show was a decent source of alternate news, especially about midget porn and strippers rights. :p)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Liberalism: A Disease which Cannot be Cured with Socialized Medicine
By Glenn Eno

Being a liberal means never having to defend a position. You simply talk over the top of your accusers; blaming them for feeling the way you do. You do not have to justify your position. It’s not your fault. Conservatives are the ones who allow big business to make profits. They don’t have compassion for the poor, the elderly, minorities, illegal immigrants, and the environment and (gasp) the children. You do love the children don’t you?

Academia is teaching our children that to be a good American you need to provide for those less fortunate than you. In earlier times if a family ran upon hard fortunes, members of the community would come together to assist these people. Churches, (yes shhhhh churches) would provide food, clothing and shelter to help community members through their temporary situation. Now people look to the government for long term solutions, ie: welfare. The United States social welfare system has become a career for an increasingly large segment of the population. The problem is now it has become career for politicians and government employees. Liberals have no more concern for poverty than they do for national defense. Liberals must keep citizens in poverty in order to keep enough of a voting block to remain relevant. They must keep blacks and Hispanics uneducated and poor. These minorities represent the largest emerging voting block in the United States. It is criminally insane that politicians would conspire to keep the group of people they champion as slaves and pawns in the continuing struggle for power.

The greed of liberalism is the mirror image of what they portray as the problems with a capitalistic society. If you want see into the soul of a liberal you must first understand that they have none. They are a shape shifter. They just meld into whatever position they must in order to capture the moment. This may mean they have to take a different position than they did the day before. This is not a problem for them. They will relentlessly attack whoever dares to point out any hypocrisy. Liberals are an educated people who must be able metamorphose into the caring, cultured person that will stand up to the greed of capitalism. This is the cornerstone of their true passion; the redistribution of wealth.

As more Americans become wealthy it is imperative to be able to claim more of their hard earned money. Middle income Americans must continue to work harder to prevent being swallowed into the tidal wave of entitlements. Liberals will try to convince you that the middle class in vanishing. There is a reason for this; it’s because this is true. Liberals are the root cause for this. Liberals are raising the bar of poverty to include more Americans. The recent bribe for the vote, also known as the economic stimulus package has drawn a definitive line in the sand between rich and poor. When liberals repeal the tax cuts enacted after the 2008 Presidential election, the definition of rich will be as follows: If you are a single person making 75,000.00 or married and making 150,000.00 you will now be in the bull’s-eye of tax increases. Any citizens below this line will be eligible for the money redistribution. This will be the death of the middle class. You will be either a have or a have not. The mere fact that the new "low class" represents about 75 percent of the registered voters increases the likelihood that the slaves will have to vote for their masters in order to keep receiving the free money from the rich. Republicans, not conservatives, will compromise with liberals in order to keep a seat at the table. The only difference between this and the slavery of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds is the modern day slaves are beholding to a financial master instead of a labor master. As more people are assimilated into this slavery, less Americans working and earning their money will have a say in the electoral process. Liberals will control the majority of voters but this will not be enough by itself. The second front on this war on capitalism comes in the judiciary. Liberals have filibustered conservative judges at every opportunity. If they are allowed to appoint like minded judges then the last defense against a socialistic society will be thwarted. If liberalism cannot be voted out or ruled unconstitutional then the impending civil war between capitalism and liberalism will begin. This will not be a black versus white, man versus woman or right versus left. This will be the battle between right versus wrong.

So many people are dependant on government today. They do not see the cancer growing in Washington. Career politicians with no agenda other than power are selling out the principles of personal freedom. They do not have to pay into Social Security therefore they will not fix it. They do not have to be concerned with term limits. There is nothing to check the advancement of liberalism, except the truth. Congressmen have become far removed from their constituency. There is no accountability because they can spend their way back into office. They spend the tax dollars of working Americans to buy votes from the slaves of politics.

In the 1930’s FDR started the move towards our present nanny state. Americans helping one another has been a staple of our compassion since the creation of our great nation. The New Deal introduced the government into the mix. After all, we had fought wars, created a democracy, freed slaves and expanded the borders of our country. We had done things no nation had ever accomplished. Surely we could provide for the less fortunate better than any country ever had. Through the years more and more people, some citizens, some not, have benefited from what they have seen as entitlements. We have given away money, food, healthcare, housing and heating fuel. Government programs have grown exponentially because the original plan to help the needy became a way of life for entire generations. The entitlement mentality was being passed on from mother to daughter. I’ve heard people say "It’s my tax dollars; I am entitled to get some of it back!" These same people were and are no longer paying income tax into the system. They are living off from the sweat of others. There is no incentive to do otherwise. Taxpayers just above the threshold are giving up their pride and slipping into this governmental formed slavery. I believe the next logical step for the liberals is to expand benefits into an untapped source: Americans should have the right to have a new car and to be able to fill it with fuel. I see the government signing a contract with their union friends to produce automobiles for Americans who cannot afford them. This benefit to liberals is twofold: it will increase the number of people enslaved to the government and it will serve as a bailout to the automotive union workers. Part two of this plan will be to provide gas cards to these people; fuel assistance for gasoline as well as heat. They can fund this through their new best friend, windfall profit taxes on oil companies. None of this will provide one penny of relief to what is left of the middle class. It would probably increase the price of a gallon of gas by 20%. Liberals never conceive a plan that doesn’t force Americans to bend over and grab their ankles. The worse part of this is weak kneed Republicans will quickly form their own give away plan to counter the "generosity" of their liberal partners, I mean counterparts.

My last opinion is to point out the "Liberals Against Progress, Diligently Opposing Growth Stimulus, or LAPDOGS. The LAPDOGS are members of congress who serve no purpose other than to destroy America and capitalism. The rank and file include, in no particular order:

* "UpChuck" Schumer- He must be the single most arrogant piece of crap in Washington. He no more cares about the average citizen than Hitler cared about a Jew. His sole purpose in Washington is to be an obstructionist to idea which is not his own. His condescending manner is only trumped by his total, unwavering IGNORANCE of what America stands for- Freedom and pursuit of happiness. Every time he sees a camera it is an opportunity for him to grandstand for America. He is a worthless, self-serving traitor to the people he claims to represent. He only represents his own sound bite. New York and America will be a better place the day he retires and ceases to undermine democracy. He has no redeeming qualities and in this forum, I cannot use the language needed to properly describe this hypocrite.

* Nancy Pelosi- Same crap, different office. Nancy, how are those illegal migrant workers doing at your winery?

* Bernie Sanders- Bernie has a special place in my heart. He was elected because the former congressman from Vermont lied to gun owners about supporting the second amendment. He has probably done more grandstanding than socialist in Washington. If not for the gaff of Peter Smith he may have never had the opportunity to get red in the face and pound his fist in a speech in the House of Representatives, which, as the camera panned out, was almost empty.

* Patrick Leahy- See: Chuck Schumer. If you could look up the phrase "we need term limits" in an encyclopedia there would be a picture of the senate intelligence committee leak source.

* Howard Dean- He became the governor of Vermont when Richard Snelling died in office. Howard the Coward saw such great events as civil unions and the economic socialist education plan called Act 60 occur on his watch. His "I have a scream" speech is Howie in a nutshell. He is an extremely arrogant, temperamental lit fuse. I’m glad America got to see the real Howard Dean.

* Harry Reid- The little engine who couldn’t. If you give a spineless, ignorant little man the equivalent of "open mike night" and tell him no one can physically assault him he will say anything. He accuses conservatives of corruption while doing his secret land deals. I believe he became irrelevant shortly after he no longer needed diapers- probably about the year 2002.

* Hillary Clinton- My god, she must be the unhappiest woman in America. Oh wait, she’s married to Bill. I don’t believe she has an honest bone in her body. She thinks she has a birth right to power, just like all liberals. She is wrong. The Clintons are what is wrong with politics today. Don’t go away mad, just go away.

* Barack Hussein Obama- I think if he could have waited until 2012 he could have used that time to polish the edges. He has absolutely no clue on how to answer a spontaneous question. His ability to read from a prepared statement is quite impressive. His ignorance of the issues screams every time he opens his mouth in any forum which he does not control. I’m glad we are finding this out before the election. If he had four more years he may have been able to go to the Bill Clinton school of how to avoid a question and never be asked why. His platform is now out in open and his agenda can be brought to light without him crying about the race card. He will play the race card either with Hillary before the convention or with McCain during the election.


Glenn Eno
Catamount Security & Electric Inc.

editorial found here (http://www.truenorthradio.com/editorials/editorial_07_08b_08.shtml)

Introduction

"Liberals are an educated people who must be able [to] metamorphose into the caring, cultured person that will stand up to the greed of capitalism. This is the cornerstone of their true passion; the redistribution of wealth."

Is this conclusion in the third paragraph the piece's thesis statement? I have a tendency to look first for the thesis statement in political jargon because it is the best way to determine whether it is an essay or a parable. The parable won't have a clear thesis statement of course and it doesn't have to. Thesis: Most authors of political jargon get away with having to use rational thought in political jargon because they use the political spectrum as a playing field.

Main Body

Even if the above conclusion is the thesis statement, the rest of the body of the essay makes little sense in that it fails to expound on it. The idea in any essay is to convey a single point over and over. One does it in the title, in the introduction, in the thesis statement, in the body of the essay and, finally, in the conclusion. This essay doesn't convey a single point but pulls up next to the reader, juts up a thumb in a victorious pose, waves a flag and then revs up the engine. The intimidated reader has two choices in that they can either agree rather dickily or just shy away shaking their heads like a liberal vagina.

While the dickily conservative ones will play the political spectrum in this way, so too will those who admit freely to being a liberal vagina. An example here would be African American writers who write novels about prejudice. Do these authors of color really know how to write? If they do not, how does one go about dividing their poor writing skills from the content in their novel? How does a critic avoid looking as if he or she is a racist when reviewing their novel openly? When an author is sporting the political field, they don't have to be rational. Instead they divide and conquer with the dickilies on one side and the vaginas on the other.

The U.S. Founding Fathers did not sport the political spectrum as a playing field. They did not have to manipulate the people in becoming citizens through the use of a political science. They instead used natural law, the metaphysical science of that day, to established a greater power than the corrupt power of tyranny. This power ushers forth from the self evident truths and unalienable rights written on the conscience of every human soul. In this way, Americans are established as being citizens.

Conclusion

When reading political jargon, we should look for the thesis statement first. We should ask ourselves whether the writer is trying to divide us up into conservative dicks and liberal vaginas. Being divided is a necessary part of being conquered after all. As Americans with a superior political system, we should demand rational thought over the sporting of the political spectrum as a playing field.

[Truth Warrior]

And some folks wonder why TYRANNY and LEVIATHAN just go on marching merrily along. :rolleyes:

[Kade]

Introduction

"Liberals are an educated people who must be able [to] metamorphose into the caring, cultured person that will stand up to the greed of capitalism. This is the cornerstone of their true passion; the redistribution of wealth."

Is this conclusion in the third paragraph the piece's thesis statement? I have a tendency to look first for the thesis statement in political jargon because it is the best way to determine whether it is an essay or a parable. The parable won't have a clear thesis statement of course and it doesn't have to. Thesis: Most authors of political jargon get away with having to use rational thought in political jargon because they use the political spectrum as a playing field.

Main Body

Even if the above conclusion is the thesis statement, the rest of the body of the essay makes little sense in that it fails to expound on it. The idea in any essay is to convey a single point over and over. One does it in the title, in the introduction, in the thesis statement, in the body of the essay and, finally, in the conclusion. This essay doesn't convey a single point but pulls up next to the reader, juts up a thumb in a victorious pose, waves a flag and then revs up the engine. The intimidated reader has two choices in that they can either agree rather dickily or just shy away shaking their heads like a liberal vagina.

While the dickily conservative ones will play the political spectrum in this way, so too will those who admit freely to being a liberal vagina. An example here would be African American writers who write novels about prejudice. Do these authors of color really know how to write? If they do not, how does one go about dividing their poor writing skills from the content in their novel? How does a critic avoid looking as if he or she is a racist when reviewing their novel openly? When an author is sporting the political field, they don't have to be rational. Instead they divide and conquer with the dickilies on one side and the vaginas on the other.

The U.S. Founding Fathers did not sport the political spectrum as a playing field. They did not have to manipulate the people in becoming citizens through the use of a political science. They instead used natural law, the metaphysical science of that day, to established a greater power than the corrupt power of tyranny. This power ushers forth from the self evident truths and unalienable rights written on the conscience of every human soul. In this way, Americans are established as being citizens.

Conclusion

When reading political jargon, we should look for the thesis statement first. We should ask ourselves whether the writer is trying to divide us up into conservative dicks and liberal vaginas. Being divided is a necessary part of being conquered after all. As Americans with a superior political system, we should demand rational thought over the sporting of the political spectrum as a playing field.

Good points.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

And some folks wonder why TYRANNY and LEVIATHAN just go on marching merrily along. :rolleyes:

Thumbs up! Red, white and blue! Liberty! "Rev! . . . (rumble rumble rumble) . . . Roar! (squealing rubber and smoke!)

[Truth Warrior]

Thumbs up! Red, white and blue! Liberty! "Rev! . . . (rumble rumble rumble) . . . Roar! (squealing rubber and smoke!)
Great post LENGTH. I almost understand it. ;) Maybe? :rolleyes:

[LittleLightShining]

Great post LENGTH. I almost understand it. ;) Maybe? :rolleyes:I think that was what you call sarcasm.

[Truth Warrior]

I think that was what you call sarcasm. Nope, it's what I call incoherent. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Nope, it's what I call incoherent. :D

Politics doesn't have to be coherent as long as its over an inch long and has a nut sack hanging from it.

[Truth Warrior]

Politics doesn't have to be coherent as long as its over an inch long and has a nut sack hanging from it.
Good! I thought, just maybe I was missing something. Nope! Whew!