Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No.. it really does not...
You have tried this argument before, and failed...
The government does not just get to grant itself power willy nilly.. that is why we have the amendment process that is purposely HARD.. so that the fed cannot easily gain more power
Judicial review is constitutional. Period.
....as long as a judicial decision is connected to the language of the Constitution.
The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.
Bwahahahahahah
So consumption of domestic consumer goods by the private public at large INCREASED during WWII?
If leftists ever took, and passed, an introductory economics course.....
Harrison Bergeron is a fantastic science fiction short story that does a great job of mocking what equality for all could mean. That said, it doesn't reflect the cartoon version of what right wing nuts think the left believe.
1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term “equality.” Here is misunderstanding writ large:
“I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?”
Actually.....no.....they can't.
a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.
b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalism’s “philosophy has rarely been clear cut,” but “that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.”
Jo Ann Boydston, “John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953,” p. 284-285.
2. . By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.
3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Left’s campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut….
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961…The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.”
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.”
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb
b. “Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
c. The government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds “to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron.”
4. So…is this view of “equality” funny? Perhaps…but it reminds me more of Lord Byron’s words: “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.”
First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.
And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.
And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.
Second off..if you don't understand Vonnegut, you really shouldn't quote him.
"..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives."
Totally false.
The modern 'Liberals' didn't exist until Dewey changed the name of the Socialists to Liberals.
Classical liberalism...known today as conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp
b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
The government spent massive amounts of money on the war which translated into increased demand for goods and services which boosted the US economy.
1. Interesting because it represents the fulcrum between Liberal and Conservative viewponts, is the term equality. Here is misunderstanding writ large:
I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,
when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.
...the two can't exist together?
Actually.....no.....they can't.
a. For the Left, equality extends beyond the view of the Founders, which is equality before the law. The concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the egalitarian impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory.
b. Dewey noted in 1936 that liberalisms philosophy has rarely been clear cut, but that government should regularly intervene to help equalize conditions between the wealthy and the poor, between the overprivileged and the underprivileged.
Jo Ann Boydston, John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, p. 284-285.
2. . By the 20th century, the new equality became a threat to freedom. FDRs New Deal and Trumans Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJs Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
a. It seems to me, self-evident that immobilizing the producers with regulations and confiscatory taxation proves that a nation can have prosperity or equality in all aspects of living- but not both.
3. Perhaps the best way to reveal the inanity of the Lefts campaign for their view of equality is to revisit the satirical exposition of equality, written in 1961 by Kurt Vonnegut .
"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961 The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.
Harrison Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." This is the premise of the Showtime film adaption of Kurt Vonnegut's futuristic short story Harrison Bergeron. The film centers around a young man (Harrison) who is smarter than his peers, and is not affected by the usual "Handicapping" which is used to train all Americans so everyone is of equal intelligence.
Harrison Bergeron (TV 1995) - IMDb
b. Kurt Vonnegut begins Harrison Bergeron this way: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was quicker or stronger than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
c. The government forced each individual to wear handicaps to offset any advantage they had, so that everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks, the strong had to wear weights, the graceful had to wear bags of birdshot, and those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron.
4. So is this view of equality funny? Perhaps but it reminds me more of Lord Byrons words: And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.
First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.
And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.
And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.
dude,power and status are what? what on earth are you referring to?
and -
a) why aren't you at work?
and b) hand your laptop to the bartender-
hey bartender dude, cut this guy off!!!!!
Sallow should get back to work. The stock exchange is closed. It's time for him to sweep the floor.
One thing I actually can agree with Shallow on... that us IT people (whether it be NOC, engineering, management, junior executive, etc) have strange hours depending on what is going on and can just as easily post during normal business hours as we can during the night
Probably the only thing we agree on though
One thing I actually can agree with Shallow on... that us IT people (whether it be NOC, engineering, management, junior executive, etc) have strange hours depending on what is going on and can just as easily post during normal business hours as we can during the night
Probably the only thing we agree on though
My company just bought one of these..
Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches - Products & Services - Cisco Systems
It's going to be our new core..
One thing I actually can agree with Shallow on... that us IT people (whether it be NOC, engineering, management, junior executive, etc) have strange hours depending on what is going on and can just as easily post during normal business hours as we can during the night
Probably the only thing we agree on though
My company just bought one of these..
Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches - Products & Services - Cisco Systems
It's going to be our new core..
I am securing the Palo Alto 5020 (pair) to replace 6 current Cisco and Netscreen FW's.. you want power, ease, and better security, check the Palo Altos out...
First off..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives.
And while it is true the idea of "equality" has changed a great deal in several hundred years, because the founders definitely did not view blacks or women as equal, the fundamental idea still remains.
And that idea is this: The Conservative viewpoint is that power and status are "gifts" from a deity or a birthright. And that people who do not have power and status should proclaim fealty to those who do. That's the notion that the Founders rebelled against.
Second off..if you don't understand Vonnegut, you really shouldn't quote him.
"..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives."
Totally false.
The modern 'Liberals' didn't exist until Dewey changed the name of the Socialists to Liberals.
Classical liberalism...known today as conservatism.
a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp
b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism, which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
Classical Liberalism is a myth. It's also an Oxymoronic Diatribe told by Conservatives to other conservatives that to illustrate they indeed had something to do with the formation of this country.
They didn't. Had they..we'd still be English Subjects.
And not one word about you completely misunderstanding Vonnegut, eh?
"..the Declaration was a document written by Liberals, not conservatives."
Totally false.
The modern 'Liberals' didn't exist until Dewey changed the name of the Socialists to Liberals.
Classical liberalism...known today as conservatism.
a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp
b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism, which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=
Classical Liberalism is a myth. It's also an Oxymoronic Diatribe told by Conservatives to other conservatives that to illustrate they indeed had something to do with the formation of this country.
They didn't. Had they..we'd still be English Subjects.
And not one word about you completely misunderstanding Vonnegut, eh?
So very many errors in such a short post....you've outdone yourself.
BTW....
Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?
Classical Liberalism is a myth. It's also an Oxymoronic Diatribe told by Conservatives to other conservatives that to illustrate they indeed had something to do with the formation of this country.
They didn't. Had they..we'd still be English Subjects.
And not one word about you completely misunderstanding Vonnegut, eh?
So very many errors in such a short post....you've outdone yourself.
BTW....
Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?
The errors are all yours, sweetie.
You are wrong about the declaration
And you are wrong about Vonnegut.
And if you are close enough to read signs near my ear..at least take me to dinner first..
Sheesh.
Classical Liberalism is a myth. It's also an Oxymoronic Diatribe told by Conservatives to other conservatives that to illustrate they indeed had something to do with the formation of this country.
So very many errors in such a short post....you've outdone yourself.
BTW....
Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?
The errors are all yours, sweetie.
You are wrong about the declaration
And you are wrong about Vonnegut.
And if you are close enough to read signs near my ear..at least take me to dinner first..
Sheesh.
"at least take me to dinner first.."
I thought you just came from the dumpster?
Every single word I've posted is correct. You can read the links....that's why they're their.
Your bloviation is meaningless.
As usual, you are Brobdingnagianly incorrect!
Harrison Bergeron is a fantastic science fiction short story that does a great job of mocking what equality for all could mean. That said, it doesn't reflect the cartoon version of what right wing nuts think the left believe.
I didn't read the short story..but I have read Vonnegut. He was never about mocking "equality".
Harrison Bergeron is a fantastic science fiction short story that does a great job of mocking what equality for all could mean. That said, it doesn't reflect the cartoon version of what right wing nuts think the left believe.
Yet you reflect that cartoon version exactly.
Funny dat.....
