If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[code1211]

It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.

Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??

What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.

The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.


What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?

 

[Bfgrn]

Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??

What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.

The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.


What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?

First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Third: When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.



Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

 

[code1211]

What's ironic, if conservatives ever gain enough power, America will be an environmental waste land like Russia and China. But, communism is conservative, not liberal.

The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.


What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?

First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Third: When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.



Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this. I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.

You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system. Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives. Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.

In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road. We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.

In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.

Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be. Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.

Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation. Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.

Those are economic systems.

Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy. In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied. This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur. We need to have referees.

In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required. The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government. If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.

To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government. In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government. Monarchy is the next step away from this state.

I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.

Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash. Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.

 

[Dragon]

Neither liberals nor conservatives in America are identical to Communists from the Soviet era. Which ones are MORE like Communists depends on the lens through which one views matters. Both liberals and conservatives object strongly to Communism, but for different reasons. The Soviet Union implemented many authoritarian, highly illiberal policies: a one-party state, government-controlled media, repression of peaceful dissent, secret police, political imprisonment or execution. The Soviet Union also implemented policies that worked (ostensibly) towards economic equality: guaranteed employment, free education, full health-care coverage for everyone. (In reality, these policies failed because they were not accompanied by political democracy, and the concentration of political power in the hands of the Party elite corrupted the system's socialist ideals, but that's another topic.)

Liberals find the political authoritarianism of Communism anathema. We find the economic egalitarianism admirable, and think it sad that it didn't work (most likely BECAUSE of the political authoritarianism).

Conservatives find the political authoritarianism of Communism excessive (most of them anyway), but it's the economic egalitarianism that truly upsets them. (In the course of fighting Communism, conservatives had no qualms about allying with dictatorships that were just as oppressive or worse.)

The features of Communism that liberals abhor, conservatives treat with a shrug. The features of Communism that conservatives abhor, liberals actually like, with the caveat that they weren't implemented well.

Liberals see conservatives as more like Communists because they are focused on Communist authoritarianism as its essential bad feature, and conservatives are authoritarian in similar (if less extreme) ways. Conservatives see liberals as more like Communists because they are focused on Communist economic egalitarianism as its bad feature, and liberals are egalitarian in similar (if less extreme) ways.

It's all a matter of perspective and focus.

 

[Bfgrn]

In what ways are the views of the political right in America more like Communism than the views of the political left?

First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Third: When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.



Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this. I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.

You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system. Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives. Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.

In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road. We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.

In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.

Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be. Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.

Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation. Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.

Those are economic systems.

Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy. In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied. This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur. We need to have referees.

In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required. The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government. If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.

To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government. In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government. Monarchy is the next step away from this state.

I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.

Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash. Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.

But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.

 

[code1211]

First of all: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Second: Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Third: When the ‘tea partiers’ say “we want our country back”, what do they mean by ‘our’?

What polls show us about the ‘tea party’ is that they are a fringe group diametrically opposed to mainstream America. Among all Americans, George W. Bush has a 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among the ‘tea party’ he's viewed favorably, 57/27. An almost perfect diametrical difference.

Is there any precedent in history of today’s the ‘tea party’?

The answer is YES…a parallel to the 'Tea Party" occurred in Russia in the late 1980's. Russian conservatives, the Stalinists, wanted 'their' country back. It was an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups and nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

And like today’s ‘tea partiers’, they wanted their authoritarian government back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1989

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

MOSCOW, Feb. 26— Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.



Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this. I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.

You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system. Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives. Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.

In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road. We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.

In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.

Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be. Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.

Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation. Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.

Those are economic systems.

Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy. In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied. This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur. We need to have referees.

In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required. The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government. If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.

To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government. In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government. Monarchy is the next step away from this state.

I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.

Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash. Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.

But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties. Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.

You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.

Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual. I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.

The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation. The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.

You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them... This is anathema to the Democrat Party today. The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing. That is control.

I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices. Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?

I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.

i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.

I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.

Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.

I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives. Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?

 

[Dragon]

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.

Conservatives and liberals exist in the Democratic party. At this point, I don't think there are any liberal Republicans left, and precious few conservative Republicans. Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.

 

[code1211]

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties.

Conservatives and liberals exist in the Democratic party. At this point, I don't think there are any liberal Republicans left, and precious few conservative Republicans. Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.

If you consider the centralization of power to the Federal level a trait of Liberalism, and the legislators that you cited as liberals certainly do, or the expansion of federal spending, I would argue that there are several Liberals in the Republican party.

The talking point is to reduce Federal spending, but the reluctance to actually do so reveals plenty.

Please note that the drive is not to eliminate the spending, but to bring that spending closer to home.

 

[Dragon]

If you consider the centralization of power to the Federal level a trait of Liberalism

I don't.

 

[Bfgrn]

First let me say that I appreciate your logical approach to this. I disagree with your interpretation of what the terms mean.

You say that Socialism is a social system and that Communism is an economic system. Then you say that Authoritarianism is the governing style of Conservatives. Historically, as the definition of the terms change, any of these things alone or in concert with the others could be true.

In today's world in this country in specific, we are looking at two branches of the same road. We are married to a social contract between government and the individual even at the Federal Level and the two choices we have is to expand the involvement and control of the Federal Government into the lives of the individuals or to either stop the intrusion of the involvement where it is or draw it back slightly to a less intrusive stage of the recent past.

In today's terms, Liberals want to expand this intrusion and Conservatives want to limit it.

Your references to Socialism and to Communism are not what I understand the definitions to be. Socialism is the willing participation of the re-distribution of wealth between those in any defined social group while Communism is sharing of all wealth with no specific ownership by the individual ever recognized eliminating the need to redistribute since all have equal claim to all things in the defined social group.

Communism is the economic system, apparently, in use by the folks in the very evolved society in Star Trek the Next Generation. Communism and WARP Drive both work just fine in Science Fiction.

Those are economic systems.

Government systems are things like democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, authoritarian or anarchy. In a perfect form of Communism, Anarchy would work just fine since this exists in a place where there is no greed, no property in a legal sense and no need that is not satisfied. This won't work in the real world since people are people and disagreements occur. We need to have referees.

In any economic system that demands that wealth be transferred from any party to another, a government is required. The greater the amount of transfer, the greater must be the power of the government. If all wealth is transferred, as in real world Communism, then all power must be centralized to that government.

To the degree that less wealth is transferred, less power is required to be reserved to the government. In an anarchy, where only the strong survive, all wealth is reserved to the strong so there is no need for government. Monarchy is the next step away from this state.

I think it's important to not confuse the distinctions between economic and governmental systems.

Saying that all Conservatives are Authoritarian is simply hogwash. Especially by the standards of today in the USA, Conservatives are asking the power be diffused and devolved to less central concentrations which is the antithesis of Authoritarianism.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.

But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties. Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.

You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.

Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual. I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.

The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation. The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.

You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them... This is anathema to the Democrat Party today. The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing. That is control.

I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices. Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?

I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.

i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.

I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.

Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.

I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives. Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?

There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.

John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.

And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most Republicans at this point are right-wing radicals.

that is, most Republicans at this point have the same limited government philosophy as Jefferson and the founders. A liberal with be too stupid to know it though.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.

Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??[/QUOTE]

What's ironic,

who cares about irony. You said deregulation was evil when it just saved 30-50 from liberal starvation. Doesn't that make you stupid?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The far right teabaggers are the cousin of the Stalinists.

actually dear it was the big government liberals who spied for big government Stalin and were hung in some cases?? When McCarthy asked them if they were Stalinist communists thay all took the 5th. Does the liberal know what that means???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Show me the section in the Constitution in which they outlawed Corporations.?

liberals are always and everywhere anti-business even with 20 million unemployed. Accordingly, we have the worst economy since the Depression, and BO is set to become a one term president with his signature anti-business achievement( regulation of health care) declared illegal in a free country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

This perfectly shows abject liberal ignorance. There is only one issue: freedom versus government. The founders knew liberal government monopolies were inefficient and corrupt at best, and genocidal on average. That is why they gave us freedom and why we became the greatest country by far in all of human history.

The liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand it and should be made illegal as our founders intended with the Constitution..

 

[Bfgrn]

It is not an excuse to DE-regulate corporations, eviscerate consumer protections or castrate environmental laws.

Red China just deregulated and instantly saved 30-50 million from liberal en masse starvation. How is that for consumer protection??

Link up there simp...

Red China just became the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

China’s green energy is expected to generate 290 GW power (wind 52 per cent, nuclear 24 per cent, bio-energy 10 per cent, solar and others 7 per cent each) in 2020. This would be equivalent to 17 per cent of China’s total generation capacity and 15 per cent of the country’s total energy consumption.

China’s rapid growth in green energy has been driven by two key factors. First, green energy development in government policies has been promoted as a strategy of providing energy security for the country’s rapidly-expanding economy in the future. Energy prices have gone up rapidly in recent decades. It would be a challenging task to fuel the Chinese economy which overtook the Japanese economy in 2010 and is expected to surpass the American economy within a decade. Competition for energy will be fierce as resources in the world are disappearing quickly and in the meantime, another Asian giant, India is rising too.

Second, as the world’s largest carbon emitter, China has been under tremendous pressure to reduce emissions and show leadership in fighting global climate change. Domestically a rapidly-rising middle class also demands for the improvement in environmental quality. In response to these pressures, two goals are set in the proposed green energy strategy, that is, to reduce carbon emission and the use of fossil fuels.

According to the proposed development strategy, by 2020 China’s carbon emission per unit of GDP will fall by 40-45 per cent relative to the level in 2005. To reach this target, the Chinese government has launched many energy efficiency programs and industrial restructuring projects in addition to the ambitious green energy development strategy.

Globally green energy development provides a $2.3 trillion business opportunity during 2011-2020 according to the Pew Charitable Trusts report. Chinese government policies are well supported by the country’s private sector which is being rewarded with hefty profits from an early entry into the market.

China’s major white good producers such as Meidi, Haier and Geli have been active in developing green energy products such as solar-powered refrigerators, televisions and air conditioners. To promote its businesses, for example, in 2010 Changhong, a large TV producer, donated over 20,000 solar-powered digital TVs to herdsmen on the Tibetan plateau.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Red China just became the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

dear, our subject was not irony or green energy, rather that China saved 30 million lives by deregulating!!!!! You lack the IQ to even know you are changing the subject when you have no reply!!

You fool yourself but no one else.

 

[Bfgrn]

Red China just became the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

dear, our subject was not irony or green energy, rather that China saved 30 million lives by deregulating!!!!! You lack the IQ to even know you are changing the subject when you have no reply!!

You fool yourself but no one else.

Where is your link?

 

[code1211]

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Please explain when conservatives have ever limited government intrusion into people's lives? The only government action conservatives consider 'intrusion' is the rightful regulation of corporations, the essential protection of consumers and the environment.

But if you are a woman, a teacher or an unemployed citizen, conservatives LOVE to intrude into your uterus and bedroom, your workplace and test your bodily fluids.

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties. Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.

You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.

Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual. I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.

The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation. The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.

You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them... This is anathema to the Democrat Party today. The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing. That is control.

I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices. Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?

I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.

i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.

I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.

Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.

I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives. Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?

There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.

John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.

And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions. He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy. The liberals of today fight hard to stop this.

He was a proponent of individual effort, achievement and reward. Again, these are not things supported by toddy's Liberalism.

The EPA was not founded by Kennedy. It was founded by Nixon. Presumably, if Kennedy supported your feeling that this is best regulated from afar, he would have founded it then.

Protecting our food supply? Economy? Health Care? The economy was nearly wrecked by the poorly improvised and bribe driven regulation of the lending industry. The food supply is rightly regulated by the feds as it deals with interstate commerce in many cases.

Health care? That's such a can of worms that it's hard to know where to start. Why does it require an extra decade to approve a drug as it does in Europe? Why is the doctor's cost of avoiding a law suit to perform extra tests? Why does the regulation of the health care industry encourage higher costs and not reward more efficient treatments?

If the government was a benevolent and caring agent that worked on the behalf of justice, what you say is probably very true.

If the government is a teeming mass of corrupt and greedy thieves seeking nothing more than the benefit of their own bankrolls and party, then not so much.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize a corrupted system that exists to benefit the thieves and that is what we have.

Limiting the scope and control of this cess pool is a good idea.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives and Liberals exist in both parties. Granted it is more difficult for either to thrive in the opposition political party due to the way money is raised and distributed, but they are still there.

You are confusing the terms Democrat and Republican and Conservative and Liberal.

Nixon and Bush were both Republicans and both worked mightily to expand the scope and power of the Federal Government into the lives of the individual. I would rate neither of these as Conservative in the legal sense.

The religious right makes allot of noise about their righteousness and so forth but existing case law has pretty solidly limited their impact on any real Federal legislation. The political Left keeps holding this up as the great boogie man to scare people into voting for those who want to rob them blind.

You make a reference to Ted Sorenson who worked for the man who exhorted all Americans to ask not what their country could do for them... This is anathema to the Democrat Party today. The Big 0 exhorts us to employ government to take from the rich and give to the poor, support them for two years of unemployment and revile those who actually pay taxes.

What's wrong with this picture?

Any time we give the government the power to provide anything, we are also giving them the power to tell us how and when to use that thing. That is control.

I refuse to recognize the authority of the government to make me pray or to take or use birth control devices or to pay for other people to take or use birth control devices. Why is the freedom to do anything predicated on the concept that someone else needs to pay to provide that freedom?

I also don't see the wisdom or the legitimacy of the government not allowing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in South Carolina or to shut down Gibson Guitar.

i don't care if the unreasonable demand of government comes from the poetical right or the political left, the need for the government to take care of me by doing things to me or others is a Liberal intrusion into society and it needs to stop.

I know that there are examples in which this intrusion has resulted in good outcomes, but those same outcomes can usually be accomplished by more local governments and by the enforcement of existing laws fairly applied to all.

Any time that government limits its reach into any life, that is a conservative approach to governance.

I think that more appropriately, your question should be turned around to ask when Liberals have ever limited the intrusion of government into people's lives. Beyond that, why does government intrude into people's lives and is any intrusion justified by either Liberals or Conservatives?

There are things that are best left to local and state government. And there are things that are not. Environmental protection, protection of our economy, protecting the safety of our food supply and our health care are NOT best handled without federal laws and agencies.

John F. Kennedy was the President who rallied this nation to put a man on the moon. The greatest technological achievement in human history. The space program created so many new industries, spinoffs and inventions, it changed the way we live, thrust America to the top of the heap and created trillions in American wealth.

And John F. Kennedy also gave the best description of what a liberal is and isn't.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Kennedy was not a liberal by today's definitions. He campaigned to cut taxes to help the economy. The liberals of today fight hard to stop this.

He was a proponent of individual effort, achievement and reward. Again, these are not things supported by toddy's Liberalism.

The EPA was not founded by Kennedy. It was founded by Nixon. Presumably, if Kennedy supported your feeling that this is best regulated from afar, he would have founded it then.

Protecting our food supply? Economy? Health Care? The economy was nearly wrecked by the poorly improvised and bribe driven regulation of the lending industry. The food supply is rightly regulated by the feds as it deals with interstate commerce in many cases.

Health care? That's such a can of worms that it's hard to know where to start. Why does it require an extra decade to approve a drug as it does in Europe? Why is the doctor's cost of avoiding a law suit to perform extra tests? Why does the regulation of the health care industry encourage higher costs and not reward more efficient treatments?

If the government was a benevolent and caring agent that worked on the behalf of justice, what you say is probably very true.

If the government is a teeming mass of corrupt and greedy thieves seeking nothing more than the benefit of their own bankrolls and party, then not so much.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize a corrupted system that exists to benefit the thieves and that is what we have.

Limiting the scope and control of this cess pool is a good idea.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal by any standards. Here is a quiz for you.

Whose idea was Medicare?
Whose idea was the War in Poverty?
Who proposed the Civil Rights Act?

Kennedy faced a SURPLUS. The top marginal tax rate in 1963 was 91%. It was lowered to 77% in 1964 after Kennedy was assassinated.

Also, Kennedy proposed a demand side tax cut, not a supply side. Walter Heller was the man behind it and had to sell it to Kennedy.

Now, let's get to your fallacy (an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid)

IF the lending industry wrecked the economy, are you saying they would have been good little boys and girls and done the right thing if it wasn't for mean old government? You really need to think about how stupid that is.