America Before the Entitlement State

[daveman]

If leftists had facts and logic, they'd use those.

But all they have is emotion.

LOL.

Quoted without comment for the sheer beautiful irony.

It wasn't ironic until you replied to it.

 

[daveman]

Add in no middle class, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, massive ghettoes, child labor, work camps, Hoovervilles..heck..a virtual conservative paradise!

Fear-monger much?

We might as well accuse Democrats of rape, mass murder, child molesting, slavery and necrophilia. It would be more credible than the crap they accuse Republicans of.

Remember, these are the people who believe in "fake but accurate".

If they want it to be true, it's true. Reality need not apply.

 

[daveman]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

 

[daveman]

The only time I ever had a 'free ride' was when I was very young. I did chores at home when I was old enough. I had a couple paper routes through my early teens, and had my first job lined up before my 16th birthday when I was old enough for working papers. I worked my whole life, was the sole provider so my wife could stay home to raise our children.

how and what enabled the motivation to pull this off ?

The same motivation most people have. But to you right wing turds, all people must be loathed.

Like you loathe conservatives?

 

[The T]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

They're either on the dole, or in a position to be enablers for thier power over others.

 

[editec]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

Because that is NOT what the MASTERS calling themselves conservative actually do or support.

When I read some self proclaiming CONS here suggesting that is what THEY believe, I do believe they are sincere.

 

[Bfgrn]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

Because that is NOT what the MASTERS calling themselves conservative actually do or support.

When I read some self proclaiming CONS here suggesting that is what THEY believe, I do believe they are sincere.

And extremely naive...they are Utopians...

If the mean old government would just leave the poor credit card companies alone, they would eliminate the 30 page applications written by teams of corporate lawyers.

If the mean old EPA would just leave the poor polluters alone, they would stop killing human, fish and foul.

The only reason any of these corporations do these things is because mean old government is just TOO mean.

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

 

[Sky Dancer]

daveman

If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.

I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.

Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.

 

[Foxfyre]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

I think it was last year that Rasmussen completed an exhaustive poll on this and compiled it into a book (available on Amazon) In Search of Self Governance. Boiled down to the simplest terms, the results showed that most Americans, by a fairly wide margin and unique among people of the world, do not want to be governed but rather value freedom to govern themselves. That was the great American experiment after all. The Founders intended for the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have.

The statists/political class/modern American liberals look to government to order the sort of society they think they want and think in terms of the 'collective' and 'entitlement' in conjunction with that.

And that is the greatest tension in American politics today. Whether we will retain our representative Republic and a nation providing the most freedom any people have ever known or whether we move ever more to a more authoritarian government at the cost of our personal liberties and unalienable rights.

That in a nutshell is what most of the discussions/debates/arguments/food fights on USMB are about. And that is what the next election may likely decide.

 

[OODA_Loop]

daveman

If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.

America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.

no the robust political debate, "viable" philisophical alternatives and options took us from:

"the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible"

you want to talk about and comprimise how to get back to that

all ears

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell provided an interesting essay this week. (I'm also including an excerpt in my "What Leftism Does to People" thread.

Excerpt:

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices "as a country" cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made "as a country" -- which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland."

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people's lives, such as banning circumcision -- and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.
Alice in Liberal Land - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Bfgrn]

Thomas Sowell provided an interesting essay this week. (I'm also including an excerpt in my "What Leftism Does to People" thread.

Excerpt:

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices "as a country" cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made "as a country" -- which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland."

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people's lives, such as banning circumcision -- and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.
Alice in Liberal Land - HUMAN EVENTS

Why do you folks on the right continue to perpetrate such lies?

Obamacare the ultimate nanny state monstrosity? The Affordable Health Care Act is exactly what Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

Liberals and progressives were shut out...not single payer, no public option.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell provided an interesting essay this week. (I'm also including an excerpt in my "What Leftism Does to People" thread.

Excerpt:

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices "as a country" cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made "as a country" -- which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in "Alice in Wonderland."

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people's lives, such as banning circumcision -- and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.
Alice in Liberal Land - HUMAN EVENTS

Why do you folks on the right continue to perpetrate such lies?

Obamacare the ultimate nanny state monstrosity? The Affordable Health Care Act is exactly what Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

Liberals and progressives were shut out...not single payer, no public option.

Doesn't it bother you at all to be that ignorant of history. To apparently repeat the idiocy you read on ignorant leftwing sites? You do know that in 1993 the healthcare overhaul was spearheaded by Hillary Clinton backed up with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and with Bill Clinton in the White House? And it was sooooo awful, that even the Democrats wouldn't vote to pass it? Soooooooo awful that it cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 1994. The GOP couldn't get a bill out of committee during that time, much less something out on the floor to debate. Every amendment offered was summarily immediately voted down.

You really ought to read up before you type sometimes.

 

[daveman]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

They're either on the dole, or in a position to be enablers for thier power over others.

The left claims conservative exploit people...while they do it themselves.

 

[daveman]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

Because that is NOT what the MASTERS calling themselves conservative actually do or support.

When I read some self proclaiming CONS here suggesting that is what THEY believe, I do believe they are sincere.

"CONS"? Your shit is childish and tiresome. Go be stupid somewhere else.

And that is sincere.

 

[daveman]

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

Nothing except the all-powerful oppressive government you want.

 

[daveman]

daveman

If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.

I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.

Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.

If you claim conservatives aren't offering workable solutions, you're simply not paying attention.

 

[daveman]

And you are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Your entire view of conservatism is based on lies.

Conservatism is the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people think that's so horrible.

I think it was last year that Rasmussen completed an exhaustive poll on this and compiled it into a book (available on Amazon) In Search of Self Governance. Boiled down to the simplest terms, the results showed that most Americans, by a fairly wide margin and unique among people of the world, do not want to be governed but rather value freedom to govern themselves. That was the great American experiment after all. The Founders intended for the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have.

The statists/political class/modern American liberals look to government to order the sort of society they think they want and think in terms of the 'collective' and 'entitlement' in conjunction with that.

And that is the greatest tension in American politics today. Whether we will retain our representative Republic and a nation providing the most freedom any people have ever known or whether we move ever more to a more authoritarian government at the cost of our personal liberties and unalienable rights.

That in a nutshell is what most of the discussions/debates/arguments/food fights on USMB are about. And that is what the next election may likely decide.

Very well said.

 

[Sky Dancer]

daveman

If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.

America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.

no the robust political debate, "viable" philisophical alternatives and options took us from:

"the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible"

you want to talk about and comprimise how to get back to that

all ears

Yes?

 

[Bfgrn]

Thomas Sowell provided an interesting essay this week. (I'm also including an excerpt in my "What Leftism Does to People" thread.

Excerpt:

Why do you folks on the right continue to perpetrate such lies?

Obamacare the ultimate nanny state monstrosity? The Affordable Health Care Act is exactly what Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

Liberals and progressives were shut out...not single payer, no public option.

Doesn't it bother you at all to be that ignorant of history. To apparently repeat the idiocy you read on ignorant leftwing sites? You do know that in 1993 the healthcare overhaul was spearheaded by Hillary Clinton backed up with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and with Bill Clinton in the White House? And it was sooooo awful, that even the Democrats wouldn't vote to pass it? Soooooooo awful that it cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 1994. The GOP couldn't get a bill out of committee during that time, much less something out on the floor to debate. Every amendment offered was summarily immediately voted down.

You really ought to read up before you type sometimes.

WHEN will you stop lying?

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.