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

[daveman]

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?

Hey! No fair using logic!

 

[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?

Hey! No fair using logic!

Guess that just leaves an illogical reply, neg rep or lawsuit.

 

[pgm]

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?

Both parties are pretty guilty of offenses in this regard, though.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

Both parties are pretty guilty of offenses in this regard, though.

The, "he did it too Mommy" defense is not recognized here. I suggest you move out of the basement.

 

[daveman]

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?

Hey! No fair using logic!

Guess that just leaves an illogical reply, neg rep or lawsuit.

You're gonna get reported to ATTACKWATCH!!

 

[saveliberty]

Hey! No fair using logic!

Guess that just leaves an illogical reply, neg rep or lawsuit.

You're gonna get reported to ATTACKWATCH!!

Naw, nothing happens on Thursdays.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey! No fair using logic!

Guess that just leaves an illogical reply, neg rep or lawsuit.

You're gonna get reported to ATTACKWATCH!!

Report me please

 

[pgm]

The, "he did it too Mommy" defense is not recognized here. I suggest you move out of the basement.

I've never lived in a basement. I did live in an attic once because my parents thought I should get my own room. We didn't have air conditioning, though, so the summers were pretty rough. I guess I could have moved to the basement then, but it wasn't finished, so I'd rather have no slept with the rat crap. Or was that an attempt at an insult? What a bizarre ad-hominem attack.

Anyway, I was not defending liberals in that post. You may need to read it again a bit more literally, since you are clearly reading intent into it that isn't there. If you, instead of attacking, asked me which party is worse, I would respond that the liberals are worse than conservatives. But, conservatives are hardly blameless in this regard.

On a side note, what does this "send trackbacks" do?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"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

So to use your argument on "life" being as GREAT an importance as "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you must also stand firm in your belief that the Federal Government needs to ban the practice of abortion. Seeing that the life and (to use your words) health, is of so vital an importance, the life of an unborn child can not be ignored and must be protected. You can't go on about supporting one (Health Care is a right for everyone, and not a privilege) without also supporting the very "RIGHT to exist" of another (the unborn child). Care to go on again and throw the "assumption" that the Founders support a Universal Health Care plan for this country? Again as I've stated before, there is absolutely nothing that's written or implied in the Constitution that shows that it's the Federal Government's role to interfer and determine which group can succeed and which group ought to be penalized for their success. Care to show me where that's written and supported by our Founders?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I am so fucking sick of the polarized arguments of the right. The ALL or NONE, black or white bullshit. NO society has done well with any extreme ideology setting policy. America thrived with a mixed economy. Since Reagan and the shift to a 'free market' only, privatization ideology, our GDP growth has contracted, not expanded. It is FACT that the biggest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

Conservatism equates wealth with virtue. it is the way they are raised.

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So to conservatives, an aristocracy is not only proper, it is moral to them. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

 

[saveliberty]

If the Framers meant life to include babies, they would have included them in the documents. Strange they were aware of stem cells huh? That Ben Franklin, what a scientist.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Foxfyre]

The, "he did it too Mommy" defense is not recognized here. I suggest you move out of the basement.

I've never lived in a basement. I did live in an attic once because my parents thought I should get my own room. We didn't have air conditioning, though, so the summers were pretty rough. I guess I could have moved to the basement then, but it wasn't finished, so I'd rather have no slept with the rat crap. Or was that an attempt at an insult? What a bizarre ad-hominem attack.

Anyway, I was not defending liberals in that post. You may need to read it again a bit more literally, since you are clearly reading intent into it that isn't there. If you, instead of attacking, asked me which party is worse, I would respond that the liberals are worse than conservatives. But, conservatives are hardly blameless in this regard.

On a side note, what does this "send trackbacks" do?

No. Conservatives, as we define conservatives in this modern time, are the classical liberals of the Founders' day. They have not been party to restriction of civil liberties, what should be illegal confiscation of property, irresponsible and should-be unconstitutional waste and misappropriation of the people's money for their own personal benefit, the modern day 'enslavement' of whole groups of people, and the destruction of much of the free market system in America. Where they are not blameless is in their passiveness over too many decades. But they are now paying attention and are no longer passive.

The Tea Party is the resurgence of Modern American Conservatism and it is slowly making a difference. Which is why the current Administration, liberals including liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, and the left leaning media are doing their damndest to ridicule it, accuse it, marginalize it, diminish it, or destroy it.

Do not confuse Republicans with Conservatives or even necessarily Democrats with liberals.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The, "he did it too Mommy" defense is not recognized here. I suggest you move out of the basement.

I've never lived in a basement. I did live in an attic once because my parents thought I should get my own room. We didn't have air conditioning, though, so the summers were pretty rough. I guess I could have moved to the basement then, but it wasn't finished, so I'd rather have no slept with the rat crap. Or was that an attempt at an insult? What a bizarre ad-hominem attack.

Anyway, I was not defending liberals in that post. You may need to read it again a bit more literally, since you are clearly reading intent into it that isn't there. If you, instead of attacking, asked me which party is worse, I would respond that the liberals are worse than conservatives. But, conservatives are hardly blameless in this regard.

On a side note, what does this "send trackbacks" do?

No. Conservatives, as we define conservatives in this modern time, are the classical liberals of the Founders' day. They have not been party to restriction of civil liberties, what should be illegal confiscation of property, irresponsible and should-be unconstitutional waste and misappropriation of the people's money for their own personal benefit, the modern day 'enslavement' of whole groups of people, and the destruction of much of the free market system in America. Where they are not blameless is in their passiveness over too many decades. But they are now paying attention and are no longer passive.

The Tea Party is the resurgence of Modern American Conservatism and it is slowly making a difference. Which is why the current Administration, liberals including liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, and the left leaning media are doing their damndest to ridicule it, accuse it, marginalize it, diminish it, or destroy it.

Do not confuse Republicans with Conservatives or even necessarily Democrats with liberals.

UH yes the alinsky playbook.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZpWej8pF4]I Don't Understand with Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

I am so fucking sick of the polarized arguments of the right.

Wait for it...

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Flaming hypocrite.

 

[naturegirl]

I'm going home and drinking myself to death!! ROTFLMBO

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm going home and drinking myself to death!! ROTFLMBO

"But these policies worked in western europe"

"OMG Please call a secret service agent in here to blow my F-ing brains out"

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I am so fucking sick of the polarized arguments of the right. The ALL or NONE, black or white bullshit. NO society has done well with any extreme ideology setting policy. America thrived with a mixed economy. Since Reagan and the shift to a 'free market' only, privatization ideology, our GDP growth has contracted, not expanded. It is FACT that the biggest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

Conservatism equates wealth with virtue. it is the way they are raised.

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So to conservatives, an aristocracy is not only proper, it is moral to them. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

If I recall correctly, it was your post that was the first polarizing post in that little exchange. Funny, how you jump down jarhead's throat here when it was simply in response to your own post and then, right after you criticize him, I'll be damned, you go right back to polarizing!

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I am so fucking sick of the polarized arguments of the right.

Wait for it...

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Flaming hypocrite.

Ooops! Seems you beat me to that.

Immie