Obamas "Jobs Bill" is DOA as it should be!!!!!!! Unfu***** believeable

[daveman]

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

The long history of mankind is one of mostly oppression brought about by monarchies, aristocracies, plutocracies and other forms of privilege for the few. The few have ALWAYS been the land owners, and the serfs and oppressed have had no rights because of their lack of property.

The seminal achievement and ideals that made our founding fathers stand out through the clouds of human oppression were HUMAN rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

There are no caveats or qualifications attached to those rights. If you own a thousand acres or just the clothes on your back, you are EQUAL.

But I fully understand the history of conservatism.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Notice how I put emphasis on the word: "pursuit of happiness" The founders never said it would be guaranteed, or that it was the job of the government to supply it. The "freedom" that is spoken here, is the ability of the individual to have no limits in persuing their own goals and thereby effect their own lifestyle. You have the choice to work FOR a corporation, just as much as you have the right (and ability) to educate, build through hard work, invest, and establish a business of your own. It's the power of the "individual" to persue their own goals and effect their own way of life that was the hope of the Founding Fathers in this country. It's not the role of government, however, to interfere and penalize the hard work and successes of others. I haven't found anything in the Constitution that would support ANY level of government, determining which "group" should succeed and which should be penalized for it.

Thank you for verifying my premise. You have supplied one of the standard parroting points used by conservatives to build their aristocracy.

If you want to selectively parse words, Thomas Jefferson placed 'life' and 'liberty' ahead of 'the pursuit of happiness', so the fact that 'life' itself cannot be possible without your health; Thomas Jefferson supports universal health care coverage for all Americans. Health care for all citizens is a right, not a privilege.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Radicals can't be The Man, man.

Was Stalin a radical? Was hitler a radical?

Yes.

Well then , a radical can be the man.

 

[naturegirl]

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

The long history of mankind is one of mostly oppression brought about by monarchies, aristocracies, plutocracies and other forms of privilege for the few. The few have ALWAYS been the land owners, and the serfs and oppressed have had no rights because of their lack of property.

The seminal achievement and ideals that made our founding fathers stand out through the clouds of human oppression were HUMAN rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

There are no caveats or qualifications attached to those rights. If you own a thousand acres or just the clothes on your back, you are EQUAL.

But I fully understand the history of conservatism.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Notice how I put emphasis on the word: "pursuit of happiness" The founders never said it would be guaranteed, or that it was the job of the government to supply it. The "freedom" that is spoken here, is the ability of the individual to have no limits in persuing their own goals and thereby effect their own lifestyle. You have the choice to work FOR a corporation, just as much as you have the right (and ability) to educate, build through hard work, invest, and establish a business of your own. It's the power of the "individual" to persue their own goals and effect their own way of life that was the hope of the Founding Fathers in this country. It's not the role of government, however, to interfere and penalize the hard work and successes of others. I haven't found anything in the Constitution that would support ANY level of government, determining which "group" should succeed and which should be penalized for it.

Thank you for verifying my premise. You have supplied one of the standard parroting points used by conservatives to build their aristocracy.

If you want to selectively parse words, Thomas Jefferson placed 'life' and 'liberty' ahead of 'the pursuit of happiness', so the fact that 'life' itself cannot be possible without your health; Thomas Jefferson supports universal health care coverage for all Americans. Health care for all citizens is a right, not a privilege.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

Are you really serious?? If the founding fathers wanted universal health care don't you think they would have made a provision for such?? Or are you saying health care didn't exist then??

Talk about "selectively" parsing words, you sir have taken a word [life], applied your own meaning and expect us to believe your interpretation.

If what's true for every member of society, collectively or individually, it should include Unions and Members of Congress, right? Why don't they have the same health care being mandated for those of us that aren't members?? That would be more in line with collective members of society. Everyone, including elected officials should have the same level of care.

Everyone has the right to better themselves, everyone has the right to start a business thereby meeting their own needs, set at their own level of expectation. Collectively everyone can do this, individually some choose not to. It's not the entrepreneur's responsibility to take care of the guy that thinks he's owed something just because he's alive.

 

[editec]

As it regards this Jobs BILL?

The devil is in the details.

Does it put people to work?

I haven't the patience to wade through 155 pages (most of which reference something else) to see if it is well designed.


Has anyone got a link to an overview of where the money is supposed to go?

 

[Full-Auto]

No, Pub dupes, Pub obstruction, brainwashed- that about covers pub voters...

GOP 2012: "Repeal the 20th century"- Well read the book. And my signature...I also have a book, just self published....

you havent gotten any smarter with this moniker, perhaps you should go back to the old one.

 

[naturegirl]

As it regards this Jobs BILL?

The devil is in the details.

Does it put people to work?

I haven't the patience to wade through 155 pages (most of which reference something else) to see if it is well designed.


Has anyone got a link to an overview of where the money is supposed to go?

It's another stimulus, ready to fail. They banned the word stimulus and renamed it. A rose is a rose, even if you want to call it a tulip.

 

[francoHFW]

Great book. Too bad you dupes missed it, like everything but pub BS.

Sucky book. Too bad the dims loved it, like everything, it's Dim BS

No, great book. "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!". You know, HISTORY , before it became Liberal, along every other knowledge it seems. "Science", dittohead dimwit.

 

[francoHFW]

Let's watch as the whole moronic pub propaganda machine gears up against doing ANYTHING to produce jobs.What used to be Republican is now "Marxist"...

I liked Clinton's quote, "Democrats wants want to fall in love, Republicans want to fall in line."

Greenspan last Friday: "If you have to raise the deficit to produce jobs, DO IT!" The debt has been fear mongered incredibly...

UK Budget Director: "The biggest danger to the world economy is fanatic RWers in the US congress..."

 

[Bfgrn]

Notice how I put emphasis on the word: "pursuit of happiness" The founders never said it would be guaranteed, or that it was the job of the government to supply it. The "freedom" that is spoken here, is the ability of the individual to have no limits in persuing their own goals and thereby effect their own lifestyle. You have the choice to work FOR a corporation, just as much as you have the right (and ability) to educate, build through hard work, invest, and establish a business of your own. It's the power of the "individual" to persue their own goals and effect their own way of life that was the hope of the Founding Fathers in this country. It's not the role of government, however, to interfere and penalize the hard work and successes of others. I haven't found anything in the Constitution that would support ANY level of government, determining which "group" should succeed and which should be penalized for it.

Thank you for verifying my premise. You have supplied one of the standard parroting points used by conservatives to build their aristocracy.

If you want to selectively parse words, Thomas Jefferson placed 'life' and 'liberty' ahead of 'the pursuit of happiness', so the fact that 'life' itself cannot be possible without your health; Thomas Jefferson supports universal health care coverage for all Americans. Health care for all citizens is a right, not a privilege.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

Are you really serious?? If the founding fathers wanted universal health care don't you think they would have made a provision for such?? Or are you saying health care didn't exist then??

Talk about "selectively" parsing words, you sir have taken a word [life], applied your own meaning and expect us to believe your interpretation.

If what's true for every member of society, collectively or individually, it should include Unions and Members of Congress, right? Why don't they have the same health care being mandated for those of us that aren't members?? That would be more in line with collective members of society. Everyone, including elected officials should have the same level of care.

Everyone has the right to better themselves, everyone has the right to start a business thereby meeting their own needs, set at their own level of expectation. Collectively everyone can do this, individually some choose not to. It's not the entrepreneur's responsibility to take care of the guy that thinks he's owed something just because he's alive.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Thank you naturegirl for proving my premise. You right wingers are so easy...

SO...our founding fathers DIDN'T view life, liberty or happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, JUST pursuit?

BTW, Republicans want to provide the exact healthcare of our founding fathers for all Americans. Republicans have decided to consult American history and the demise of the father of this country to solve our current healthcare and economic crisis...

Bloodletting, bowel evacuation, died beetles on our throats and ramming toxic compound up our asses.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


RIP General Washington...and RIP America.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[Full-Auto]

Let's watch as the whole moronic pub propaganda machine gears up against doing ANYTHING to produce jobs.What used to be Republican is now "Marxist"...

I liked Clinton's quote, "Democrats wants want to fall in love, Republicans want to fall in line."

Greenspan last Friday: "If you have to raise the deficit to produce jobs, DO IT!" The debt has been fear mongered incredibly...

UK Budget Director: "The biggest danger to the world economy is fanatic RWers in the US congress..."

That was from the same guy that said all we have to do is print money........................

Try to pay attention..................

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[daveman]

Was Stalin a radical? Was hitler a radical?

Yes.

Well then , a radical can be the man.

Funny how The Radical Man is still fighting The Man, though, innit?

 

[daveman]

As it regards this Jobs BILL?

The devil is in the details.

Does it put people to work?

I haven't the patience to wade through 155 pages (most of which reference something else) to see if it is well designed.


Has anyone got a link to an overview of where the money is supposed to go?

It's another stimulus, ready to fail. They banned the word stimulus and renamed it. A rose is a rose, even if you want to call it a tulip.

A horse by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[daveman]

Great book. Too bad you dupes missed it, like everything but pub BS.

Sucky book. Too bad the dims loved it, like everything, it's Dim BS

No, great book. "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!". You know, HISTORY , before it became Liberal, along every other knowledge it seems. "Science", dittohead dimwit.

Let me guess: You've read -- and agreed with -- Howard Zinn's "histories", haven't you?

 

[naturegirl]

Thank you for verifying my premise. You have supplied one of the standard parroting points used by conservatives to build their aristocracy.

If you want to selectively parse words, Thomas Jefferson placed 'life' and 'liberty' ahead of 'the pursuit of happiness', so the fact that 'life' itself cannot be possible without your health; Thomas Jefferson supports universal health care coverage for all Americans. Health care for all citizens is a right, not a privilege.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

Are you really serious?? If the founding fathers wanted universal health care don't you think they would have made a provision for such?? Or are you saying health care didn't exist then??

Talk about "selectively" parsing words, you sir have taken a word [life], applied your own meaning and expect us to believe your interpretation.

If what's true for every member of society, collectively or individually, it should include Unions and Members of Congress, right? Why don't they have the same health care being mandated for those of us that aren't members?? That would be more in line with collective members of society. Everyone, including elected officials should have the same level of care.

Everyone has the right to better themselves, everyone has the right to start a business thereby meeting their own needs, set at their own level of expectation. Collectively everyone can do this, individually some choose not to. It's not the entrepreneur's responsibility to take care of the guy that thinks he's owed something just because he's alive.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Thank you naturegirl for proving my premise. You right wingers are so easy...

SO...our founding fathers DIDN'T view life, liberty or happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, JUST pursuit?

BTW, Republicans want to provide the exact healthcare of our founding fathers for all Americans. Republicans have decided to consult American history and the demise of the father of this country to solve our current healthcare and economic crisis...

Bloodletting, bowel evacuation, died beetles on our throats and ramming toxic compound up our asses.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


RIP General Washington...and RIP America.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I do believe you may be a little confused. Conservatism is a sentiment and a philosophy. Aristocracy is a philosophy, a system of government. Conservatism has a skeptical view of man’s abilities. Aristocracy has an aspirational view of man’s abilities. But both conservatism and Aristocratic philosophy acknowledge the difference in ability between humans and that inequality is persistent, permanent, and obvious.

You're too easy and predictable, much like other liberals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Are you really serious?? If the founding fathers wanted universal health care don't you think they would have made a provision for such?? Or are you saying health care didn't exist then??

Talk about "selectively" parsing words, you sir have taken a word [life], applied your own meaning and expect us to believe your interpretation.

If what's true for every member of society, collectively or individually, it should include Unions and Members of Congress, right? Why don't they have the same health care being mandated for those of us that aren't members?? That would be more in line with collective members of society. Everyone, including elected officials should have the same level of care.

Everyone has the right to better themselves, everyone has the right to start a business thereby meeting their own needs, set at their own level of expectation. Collectively everyone can do this, individually some choose not to. It's not the entrepreneur's responsibility to take care of the guy that thinks he's owed something just because he's alive.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Thank you naturegirl for proving my premise. You right wingers are so easy...

SO...our founding fathers DIDN'T view life, liberty or happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, JUST pursuit?

BTW, Republicans want to provide the exact healthcare of our founding fathers for all Americans. Republicans have decided to consult American history and the demise of the father of this country to solve our current healthcare and economic crisis...

Bloodletting, bowel evacuation, died beetles on our throats and ramming toxic compound up our asses.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


RIP General Washington...and RIP America.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I do believe you may be a little confused. Conservatism is a sentiment and a philosophy. Aristocracy is a philosophy, a system of government. Conservatism has a skeptical view of man’s abilities. Aristocracy has an aspirational view of man’s abilities. But both conservatism and Aristocratic philosophy acknowledge the difference in ability between humans and that inequality is persistent, permanent, and obvious.

You're too easy and predictable, much like other liberals.

I couldn't have confirmed the interchangeability between aristocracy and conservatism any better than you just did...

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

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone has good inside them, all they need a fair opportunity to succeed.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but you don't get to decide the debate outcome.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[editec]

Sucky book. Too bad the dims loved it, like everything, it's Dim BS

No, great book. "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!". You know, HISTORY , before it became Liberal, along every other knowledge it seems. "Science", dittohead dimwit.

Let me guess: You've read -- and agreed with -- Howard Zinn's "histories", haven't you?

Zinn's most famous Book " A People's History of the United States" isn't really a history in the classical sense of the word.

It's more like a historical polemic.

I agree with Zinn more than I disagree, but I don't have much respect for him as an historian.

 

[Jarhead]

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Thank you naturegirl for proving my premise. You right wingers are so easy...

SO...our founding fathers DIDN'T view life, liberty or happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, JUST pursuit?

BTW, Republicans want to provide the exact healthcare of our founding fathers for all Americans. Republicans have decided to consult American history and the demise of the father of this country to solve our current healthcare and economic crisis...

Bloodletting, bowel evacuation, died beetles on our throats and ramming toxic compound up our asses.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


RIP General Washington...and RIP America.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I do believe you may be a little confused. Conservatism is a sentiment and a philosophy. Aristocracy is a philosophy, a system of government. Conservatism has a skeptical view of man’s abilities. Aristocracy has an aspirational view of man’s abilities. But both conservatism and Aristocratic philosophy acknowledge the difference in ability between humans and that inequality is persistent, permanent, and obvious.

You're too easy and predictable, much like other liberals.

I couldn't have confirmed the interchangeability between aristocracy and conservatism any better than you just did...

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

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone has good inside them, all they need a fair opportunity to succeed.
So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but you don't get to decide the debate outcome.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

I am responding as it pertains to American Liberalism and Conservatism.

in bold and black lettering:

To the contrary, conservatism believes everyone is responsible for themselves and does not take into consideration whether a person is evil of not. And the only people that are excluded are those that do not wish to take responsibility for themselves.

in bold and red lettering:

To the contrary, liberalism shows LACK of faith in human beings and lack of faith in the human spirit as it pushes for government as a medium to ensure those that need are cared for...out of concern that humans, in themselves, wont do it themselves. Liberalism in the US seems to believe that no one will do good unless prompted to...and as it pertains to trust in fellow Americans...it seems liberals are very much wrapped up in how the actions of others affects them.

 

[saveliberty]

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

Thank you naturegirl for proving my premise. You right wingers are so easy...

SO...our founding fathers DIDN'T view life, liberty or happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, JUST pursuit?

Interesting that conservatives want people to be free from government regulation other oppressions by government, while liberals wish to dictate down to the last detail how we live our lives. Which is more oppressive again?

 

[daveman]

BTW, Republicans want to provide the exact healthcare of our founding fathers for all Americans. Republicans have decided to consult American history and the demise of the father of this country to solve our current healthcare and economic crisis...

Idiot.

 

[daveman]

No, great book. "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!". You know, HISTORY , before it became Liberal, along every other knowledge it seems. "Science", dittohead dimwit.

Let me guess: You've read -- and agreed with -- Howard Zinn's "histories", haven't you?

Zinn's most famous Book " A People's History of the United States" isn't really a history in the classical sense of the word.

It's more like a historical polemic.

I agree with Zinn more than I disagree, but I don't have much respect for him as an historian.

It's a pile of leftist horseshit. The best possible use for it is to level a couch with a broken leg.