Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

I claim the Democratic Party has moved to the right. My evidence...the biggest and most significant piece of legislation in 45 years, the ACA, passed by ONLY Democrats, is a carbon copy of the bill proposed by Republicans and authored by the Heritage Foundation.

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

These people are extremist left wingers and a liberal to the left of center looks like a conservative to them and a moderate democrat looks like a RW fanatic to them. One of them got huffy with me because I answered his insult in kind. What a jerk!

 

[Listening]

I claim the Democratic Party has moved to the right. My evidence...the biggest and most significant piece of legislation in 45 years, the ACA, passed by ONLY Democrats, is a carbon copy of the bill proposed by Republicans and authored by the Heritage Foundation.

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

These people are extremist left wingers and a liberal to the left of center looks like a conservative to them and a moderate democrat looks like a RW fanatic to them. One of them got huffy with me because I answered his insult in kind. What a jerk!

He and Schillian have always been turds in the punchbowl. This guy is particularly funny to read. He's a self righteous ass.

 

[dnsmith35]

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

These people are extremist left wingers and a liberal to the left of center looks like a conservative to them and a moderate democrat looks like a RW fanatic to them. One of them got huffy with me because I answered his insult in kind. What a jerk!

He and Schillian have always been turds in the punchbowl. This guy is particularly funny to read. He's a self righteous ass.

I find them very arrogant in their rhetoric. I actually support most liberal goals socially, but not to the extreme. But you can't go half way with people like them.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. Didn't Obama kill the Pontiac?
2. You just thought he did,...lol!
3. Poor American's go i, Poor ole,.........


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Bfgrn]

I claim the Democratic Party has moved to the right. My evidence...the biggest and most significant piece of legislation in 45 years, the ACA, passed by ONLY Democrats, is a carbon copy of the bill proposed by Republicans and authored by the Heritage Foundation.

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

Another Twilight Zone episode...the non sequitur time traveler.

Context?

The ACA was passed in 2009/10 by ONLY Democrats. That is the ONLY 'context' of the ACA.

In 2009/10, 'scholars' at the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank, were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

 

[Bfgrn]

When someone says they are glad someone DIED, it deserves the scorn of everyone. But not a PEEP from right wingers like you.

I didn't say that I was GLAD he died. I am glad Hitler died, so your premise is wrong, as usual. When you call someone scum, you are scum.

The history of mankind does not support your claims of human nature. Liberals believe all men are equal. Conservatives believe in an aristocracy.

I know many real liberals and conservatives, and again, you are full of crap.Yep! That is what I have done.Most liberals and most conservatives have done that. Some conservatives and some liberals have not.

The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Your absolutes are crap.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

You are confused...I did not make any comments about jobs going off shore...

I am confused about nothing. I introduced that into the discussion, so it shows your confusion suggesting I believe you addressed the issue.

I introduced the issue so as to ask your position on offshoring jobs. I doubt you will answer because you know it will betray your pseudo liberal stance.

BTW, your sock puppet is not as convincing as your primary.

You are not only confused, you are TOTALLY confused. You don't even know who said what. I was calling out the scum bag who said this:

So long Ted...glad you're dead.

Is your name Listening?

I am against off shoring of jobs. It is not a liberal creation, it is the malfeasance of the Reagan era.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
Seymour Essrog

You are welcome to whatever beliefs float your boat. But they were not the beliefs of our founding fathers or John F. Kennedy.


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

Unfortunate for you, F.A. Hayek would call you a conservative.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[dnsmith35]

When someone says they are glad someone DIED, it deserves the scorn of everyone. But not a PEEP from right wingers like you.

I didn't say that I was GLAD he died. I am glad Hitler died, so your premise is wrong, as usual. When you call someone scum, you are scum.I know many real liberals and conservatives, and again, you are full of crap.Yep! That is what I have done.Most liberals and most conservatives have done that. Some conservatives and some liberals have not. Your absolutes are crap.I am confused about nothing. I introduced that into the discussion, so it shows your confusion suggesting I believe you addressed the issue.

I introduced the issue so as to ask your position on offshoring jobs. I doubt you will answer because you know it will betray your pseudo liberal stance.

BTW, your sock puppet is not as convincing as your primary.

You are not only confused, you are TOTALLY confused. You don't even know who said what. I was calling out the scum bag who said this:

So long Ted...glad you're dead.

Is your name Listening?

So why did you bring it up to me? Just like to fish for insults?

I am against off shoring of jobs. It is not a liberal creation, it is the malfeasance of the Reagan era.

If you are against offshoring of jobs, you are no liberal. A true liberal, like me, is concerned that there is equality, not just civilly but as much as possible, economically. You are a bigot. You could care less of poor Indians or Africans starve to death, so long as your elitist labor thugs in the US get all they want. I expected you to say that. It proves your colors, and bfgrn, there is no way you can spin your say out of this. Especially since for every job offshored at least one is created in the US according to studies, so found as many as 1.7 new jobs created, and generally jobs requiring more skills. Now if your left wing nut buddies had not thrown so much money at education trying to get people who were not college oriented into skill training, our unemployment would be down to.

You are a fraud. All you want is your left wing power structure to continue to destroy our country.

Thanks for playing....you lose.... pitifully! Bye now, go crawl back under your rock and play with yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

President Kennedy's "support of the rights of captains of industry"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q]President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962) - YouTube[/ame]


News Conference 30 (April 11, 1962)

President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, April 11, 1962, 3:30 p.m.

Official White House Transcript

THE PRESIDENT: "Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.

The simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives -- and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam -- and asking union members to hold down their wage requests, at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

...a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."

 

[dnsmith35]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

Unfortunate for you, F.A. Hayek would call you a conservative.

And fortunately for me, Hayek does not know anything about me, and your ignorance on the subject is manifest.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Then why do you make so many quacking noises?

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

I agree! "The chief evil is unlimited government," that which has been pushed by the extreme left wing of the Democrat party.The small elite group of left wing extremists are destroying our country. And you bfgrn are a fraud. You call yourself a liberal, yet you could care less about the less fortunate people of the world. You have no empathy for humanity. That's where my liberalism takes you to task. As a liberal humanist with moderate political leanings, I care about the equality and quality of life of all humans, not just your elitist thugs.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

Unfortunate for you, F.A. Hayek would call you a conservative.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Then why do you make so many quacking noises?

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

I agree! "The chief evil is unlimited government," that which has been pushed by the extreme left wing of the Democrat party.The small elite group of left wing extremists are destroying our country. And you bfgrn are a fraud. You call yourself a liberal, yet you could care less about the less fortunate people of the world. You have no empathy for humanity. That's where my liberalism takes you to task. As a liberal humanist with moderate political leanings, I care about the equality and quality of life of all humans, not just your elitist thugs.

Liberals believe all men are equal. Conservatives believe in an aristocracy.

dnsmith35...liberal humanist, slave trader and right wing turd...

The Rich Class and Offshore Worlds

Warren Buffett, sometimes described as the twentieth century’s most successful investor, recently maintained: ‘There is class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning’. This article describes how this rich class did indeed wage class war through deploying the striking new strategy of offshoring. The ‘rich class’ refers to high net worth individuals and families, the owners/managers of major corporations and professional service companies, many thinktanks, and leading policy-makers.

How did the rich class develop such a strategy? We know that all societies entail the movements of peoples and objects, but capitalist societies seem to elevate the scale and impact of such movement to dramatically new levels. Many analysts believe there is a massive ratcheting up of this borderlessness from the 1980s onwards, and that this is a key part of the neo-liberal redrawing of almost all societies around the world.

This movement of money, people, ideas, images, information and objects had been thought of as economically, politically and culturally beneficial. Most aspects of contemporary societies were believed to be positively transformed through increased cosmopolitanism and borderlessness. The world was increasingly open especially if one lived, worked and consumed near the centre of this world of greater opportunity and choice.

But this 1990s decade did not turn out to be the harbinger of a long term, optimistic and borderless future. Many texts especially in the new century reveal the dark side to borderlessness. Flowing across borders are not just consumer goods and new services, but terrorists, environmental risks, trafficked women, drug runners, international criminals, outsourced work, slave traders, asylum seekers, property speculators, smuggled workers, waste, financial risks and especially untaxed income. So rather than there being a general process of increased open movement, a borderless world presupposes borders and secrets. New borders are regularly being created, policed and surveilled.

A borderless world is one of ‘secret worlds’ and this is to be seen in many domains, of the offshoring of manufacturing work, of waste, especially e-waste, of energy, of torture, of leisure and pleasure, of CO2 emissions and of taxation. Offshoring involves moving resources, practices, peoples and monies from one national territory to another but hiding them within secrecy jurisdictions as they move through routes wholly or partly hidden from view. Offshoring involves evading rules, laws, taxes, regulations or norms. It is all about rule-breaking, getting around rules in ways that are illegal, or go against the spirit of the law, or which use laws in one jurisdiction to undermine laws in another. Offshore worlds are full of secrets and lies.

These offshore worlds have been made possible by the enhanced development of various new sociotechnical mobility-systems, of container-based cargo shipping; aeromobility; the internet and new virtual worlds; car and lorry traffic; new electronic money transfer systems; the growth of taxation, legal and financial expertise oriented to avoiding national regulations; and the proliferation of ‘mobile lives’ with frequent legal and illegal movement across borders.

Such an offshoring world is dynamic, reorganising economic, social, political and material relations between societies and within them, as populations and states find that more and more resources, practices, peoples and monies are made or kept secret. The global order is the very opposite of a simply open world – it is one of concealment, of very many secret gardens mainly orchestrated in and for the rich class.

Indeed since the development of neo-liberalism in the later 1980s there has been an astonishing growth in the movement of finance and wealth to and through the world’s sixty to seventy tax havens which make up over one-quarter of contemporary societies. These tax havens, or ‘treas*ure islands’, include Switzerland, Jersey, Manhattan, Cayman Islands, Monaco, Panama, Dubai, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, City of London and Delaware. The development of ‘secrecy jurisdictions’, or in France what are known as ‘paradis fiscal’, are core to this neo-liberalisation of the world economy from around 1980 and the ending of many exchange controls. To be offshore is to be in paradise, by contrast with the high-state-high-tax life experienced onshore. Tax havens are places of escape and freedom, a paradise of low taxes, wealth management, deregulation, secrecy and often nice beaches.

This rich class is the beneficiary of these tax havens. Almost all major companies have offshore accounts/subsidiar*ies (83 per cent), more than half of world trade passes through them, almost all high net worth individuals possess offshore accounts enabling tax ‘planning’, and ninety-nine of Europe’s hundred largest com*panies use offshore subsidiaries. As a consequence one-quarter to one-third of all global wealth is held ‘offshore’. And the scale of offshored money makes the world much more unequal than researchers previously imagined.

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

 

[Bfgrn]

Modern Day Slave Trade: America's Offshore Industrial Sweat Shops | Global Research

 

[Bfgrn]

I didn't say that I was GLAD he died. I am glad Hitler died, so your premise is wrong, as usual. When you call someone scum, you are scum.I know many real liberals and conservatives, and again, you are full of crap.Yep! That is what I have done.Most liberals and most conservatives have done that. Some conservatives and some liberals have not. Your absolutes are crap.I am confused about nothing. I introduced that into the discussion, so it shows your confusion suggesting I believe you addressed the issue.

I introduced the issue so as to ask your position on offshoring jobs. I doubt you will answer because you know it will betray your pseudo liberal stance.

BTW, your sock puppet is not as convincing as your primary.

You are not only confused, you are TOTALLY confused. You don't even know who said what. I was calling out the scum bag who said this:



Is your name Listening?

1)So why did you bring it up to me? Just like to fish for insults?

I am against off shoring of jobs. It is not a liberal creation, it is the malfeasance of the Reagan era.

2) If you are against offshoring of jobs, you are no liberal. A true liberal, like me, is concerned that there is equality, not just civilly but as much as possible, economically. You are a bigot. You could care less of poor Indians or Africans starve to death, so long as your elitist labor thugs in the US get all they want. I expected you to say that. It proves your colors, and bfgrn, there is no way you can spin your say out of this. Especially since for every job offshored at least one is created in the US according to studies, so found as many as 1.7 new jobs created, and generally jobs requiring more skills. Now if your left wing nut buddies had not thrown so much money at education trying to get people who were not college oriented into skill training, our unemployment would be down to.

You are a fraud. All you want is your left wing power structure to continue to destroy our country.

Thanks for playing....you lose.... pitifully! Bye now, go crawl back under your rock and play with yourself.

1) I brought it up because you decided to defend Listening, instead of criticizing his horrible comment.

2) The irony is thick...

Offshoring happens because foreign nations are poor - their wages and standard of living is so low that it makes their labor much cheaper than American labor. To put it another way, the only way American jobs can go overseas is if the Chinese, Brazilians, Mexicans and East Indians remain poor. Every cheap garment or DVD player you buy is cheap because they're poor. Your access to cheap DVD players depends on them staying poor. When their standard of living catches up with yours, it will be impossible for your DVD player to remain as cheap, because foreign labor costs will go up with their standard of living and that will drive up the price of your DVD player. So, basically, if you want to continue to have access to cheap DVD players those Chinese, Mexican and East Indian workers must stay poor. Now how is that NOT racism and exploitation?

 

[chikenwing]

Got a Letter in the mail,stating what the Dems cried long and hard would never happen. My doctor had to get permission from the insurance company to perform a CT scan,normally they would have just ordered it and go on with treatment,not that way anymore. Insurance My doctor never had to ask for permission to do common diagnostics,no he does.

 

[dnsmith35]

the only way American jobs can go overseas is if the Chinese, Brazilians, Mexicans and East Indians remain poor[/URL]. Every cheap garment or DVD player you buy is cheap because they're poor. Your access to cheap DVD players depends on them staying poor. When their standard of living catches up with yours, it will be impossible for your DVD player to remain as cheap, because foreign labor costs will go up with their standard of living and that will drive up the price of your DVD player. So, basically, if you want to continue to have access to cheap DVD players those Chinese, Mexican and East Indian workers must stay poor. Now how is that NOT racism and exploitation?

To answer your question simply, it is not racism or exploitation because the wages paid for their labor is equivalent to their specific place on the labor evolution time line. Those who get the jobs emerge as the new "middle class" of their particular economic system. In India specially (of which I am personally aware) because of off shoring since the late 70s, there is a thriving middle class of over 300 million people, comparative to our entire population. That group would still be in relative poverty had we not exported jobs there. That group is growing because they are now consumers creating other jobs within their society. You have swallowed the left wing extremist rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and now you are trying to spread "the lie."

Second, our industry does not want them to remain poor, another left wing lie, because the new Indian middle class is starting to consume American goods and services and will continue to do so into the future, eventually becoming a huge new market for the west as we are now a huge market for them.

It is obvious that you are not only confused about offshore jobs, you are completely ignorant of the fact that studies show offshoring those jobs creates new jobs here in the US, so it is a win, win, situation.

The left wing extremists, (of which you are one) like to poo, poo, the whole concept of globalism either out of fear and ignorance or because of racism and bigotry, in the hopes of keeping the labor situation in the US in the 1960s strong unionist status. You could care less about other human lives in the world so long as your pet labor is an elite and over paid force.

Being a liberal is more than just being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education. It is about doing what it takes to see to it those goals are reached to the utmost possibility. Your concept of liberalism doesn't extend beyond the tip of your nose, if that far. Your "liberalism" is elitism, protecting your turf, narrowness of view; progress.....but only for those you consider "deserving" of your altruism.

This ignorance is partly caused by your never getting out of your "box" and trying to understand and empathize with the people in the rest of the world. You haven't been there, you haven't studied their sociology, and you don't really give a damn.

BTW, I did not defend Listening, I made my own points about that drunk, murdering, blob of fat you call "a great senator," a person I would walk out on if he came to spew his extremist filth in my home town. I don't wish him dead, I just wish he was reduced in power to what he really is, an enemy of humanity. You could care less what he is, so long as he is good for your left wing extremist power structure.

 

[Bfgrn]

the only way American jobs can go overseas is if the Chinese, Brazilians, Mexicans and East Indians remain poor[/URL]. Every cheap garment or DVD player you buy is cheap because they're poor. Your access to cheap DVD players depends on them staying poor. When their standard of living catches up with yours, it will be impossible for your DVD player to remain as cheap, because foreign labor costs will go up with their standard of living and that will drive up the price of your DVD player. So, basically, if you want to continue to have access to cheap DVD players those Chinese, Mexican and East Indian workers must stay poor. Now how is that NOT racism and exploitation?

To answer your question simply, it is not racism or exploitation because the wages paid for their labor is equivalent to their specific place on the labor evolution time line. Those who get the jobs emerge as the new "middle class" of their particular economic system. In India specially (of which I am personally aware) because of off shoring since the late 70s, there is a thriving middle class of over 300 million people, comparative to our entire population. That group would still be in relative poverty had we not exported jobs there. That group is growing because they are now consumers creating other jobs within their society. You have swallowed the left wing extremist rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and now you are trying to spread "the lie."

Second, our industry does not want them to remain poor, another left wing lie, because the new Indian middle class is starting to consume American goods and services and will continue to do so into the future, eventually becoming a huge new market for the west as we are now a huge market for them.

It is obvious that you are not only confused about offshore jobs, you are completely ignorant of the fact that studies show offshoring those jobs creates new jobs here in the US, so it is a win, win, situation.

The left wing extremists, (of which you are one) like to poo, poo, the whole concept of globalism either out of fear and ignorance or because of racism and bigotry, in the hopes of keeping the labor situation in the US in the 1960s strong unionist status. You could care less about other human lives in the world so long as your pet labor is an elite and over paid force.

Being a liberal is more than just being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education. It is about doing what it takes to see to it those goals are reached to the utmost possibility. Your concept of liberalism doesn't extend beyond the tip of your nose, if that far. Your "liberalism" is elitism, protecting your turf, narrowness of view; progress.....but only for those you consider "deserving" of your altruism.

This ignorance is partly caused by your never getting out of your "box" and trying to understand and empathize with the people in the rest of the world. You haven't been there, you haven't studied their sociology, and you don't really give a damn.

BTW, I did not defend Listening, I made my own points about that drunk, murdering, blob of fat you call "a great senator," a person I would walk out on if he came to spew his extremist filth in my home town. I don't wish him dead, I just wish he was reduced in power to what he really is, an enemy of humanity. You could care less what he is, so long as he is good for your left wing extremist power structure.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

The irony has become so thick from you that I really don't know where to start.

Your post is unbridled right wing propaganda. It IS the words of a unintelligent parrot defending an aristocracy that has exploited cheap labor, no regulations, no environmental protections, no safe workplace policies and no regard for human life; the very CORE of conservatism. It is NOT the words of a liberal.

Being a liberal is ALL ABOUT being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education...FOR ALL.

Liberals have always fought for those rights not only for Americans, but for ALL human beings. That means that the worker in India, China and other countries have the basic human right to safe working conditions, fair wages and a safe environment to raise their families in.

Once those basic rights come to be in outsource countries, your beloved elites will pull up stakes and move on to exploit new markets to exploit.

It was made VERY clear by one of the icons of the corporate elites who now control this nation. Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions.

GE: Every Plant on a Barge

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

the only way American jobs can go overseas is if the Chinese, Brazilians, Mexicans and East Indians remain poor. Every cheap garment or DVD player you buy is cheap because they're poor. Your access to cheap DVD players depends on them staying poor. When their standard of living catches up with yours, it will be impossible for your DVD player to remain as cheap, because foreign labor costs will go up with their standard of living and that will drive up the price of your DVD player. So, basically, if you want to continue to have access to cheap DVD players those Chinese, Mexican and East Indian workers must stay poor. Now how is that NOT racism and exploitation?

To answer your question simply, it is not racism or exploitation because the wages paid for their labor is equivalent to their specific place on the labor evolution time line. Those who get the jobs emerge as the new "middle class" of their particular economic system. In India specially (of which I am personally aware) because of off shoring since the late 70s, there is a thriving middle class of over 300 million people, comparative to our entire population. That group would still be in relative poverty had we not exported jobs there. That group is growing because they are now consumers creating other jobs within their society. You have swallowed the left wing extremist rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and now you are trying to spread "the lie."

Second, our industry does not want them to remain poor, another left wing lie, because the new Indian middle class is starting to consume American goods and services and will continue to do so into the future, eventually becoming a huge new market for the west as we are now a huge market for them.

It is obvious that you are not only confused about offshore jobs, you are completely ignorant of the fact that studies show offshoring those jobs creates new jobs here in the US, so it is a win, win, situation.

The left wing extremists, (of which you are one) like to poo, poo, the whole concept of globalism either out of fear and ignorance or because of racism and bigotry, in the hopes of keeping the labor situation in the US in the 1960s strong unionist status. You could care less about other human lives in the world so long as your pet labor is an elite and over paid force.

Being a liberal is more than just being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education. It is about doing what it takes to see to it those goals are reached to the utmost possibility. Your concept of liberalism doesn't extend beyond the tip of your nose, if that far. Your "liberalism" is elitism, protecting your turf, narrowness of view; progress.....but only for those you consider "deserving" of your altruism.

This ignorance is partly caused by your never getting out of your "box" and trying to understand and empathize with the people in the rest of the world. You haven't been there, you haven't studied their sociology, and you don't really give a damn.

BTW, I did not defend Listening, I made my own points about that drunk, murdering, blob of fat you call "a great senator," a person I would walk out on if he came to spew his extremist filth in my home town. I don't wish him dead, I just wish he was reduced in power to what he really is, an enemy of humanity. You could care less what he is, so long as he is good for your left wing extremist power structure.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

I so whole heartedly agree with them.

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Absolutely correct.

The irony has become so thick from you that I really don't know where to start.

That is easy! Start practicing what you preach and at least try to care for humanity.

Your post is unbridled right wing propaganda. It IS the words of a unintelligent parrot defending an aristocracy that has exploited cheap labor, no regulations, no environmental protections, no safe workplace policies and no regard for human life; the very CORE of conservatism. It is NOT the words of a liberal.

Expecting 3rd world countries to have perfected their economic and labor system before allowing jobs is nothing but a cover for Elitism. You are saying one thing and meaning another. I am the one preaching to help the people, not localize the wealthy to an elite few. I have never wanted cheap labor for the sake of cheap labor, that is your imagination. You are ranting at some unknown force, not me. I am not for no regulation or environmental protections. Again, that is your imagination. I am certainly for a safe work place and from what you are saying right now I absolutely care more for human life than you. My beliefs are the core of the true liberal, not some, "I don't care about the rest of the world" liberal like you.

Being a liberal is ALL ABOUT being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education...FOR ALL.

YES, now try to live that.

Liberals have always fought for those rights not only for Americans, but for ALL human beings. That means that the worker in India, China and other countries have the basic human right to safe working conditions, fair wages and a safe environment to raise their families in.

Positively, absolutely, and always.

Once those basic rights come to be in outsource countries, your beloved elites will pull up stakes and move on to exploit new markets to exploit.

Before those basic rights can come to outsource countries THEY MUST HAVE JOBS which allow them to have their own labor evolution. You would withhold those jobs such that they can never achieve the ideal to which you give mouth service but to which you are really not interested.

It was made VERY clear by one of the icons of the corporate elites who now control this nation. Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions.

GE: Every Plant on a Barge

And somehow you have taken my concern for the value of every life to equate my thinking to Jack Welch?

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Absolutely, but not an ELITE group, but all of labor.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

You seem to worship Grover Norquist. I don't, I worship fair labor relationships in all countries, not just in the US. Your stated opinions (and I hope you are just describing your opinions poorly) are counter what you say you believe. You seem to have no concern for the people of the world. It appears from what you say you want the workers of the world (the majority) to live in squalor, so long as our elite labor force in the US can prosper.

Pardon me Bgrn, but I can't live that selfishly. I can't condemn the labor of the rest of the world to second class lives. I believe in being uplifting for our world labor force, not in relegating the third world labor to slave conditions.

It is possible that our industry may make some profits in the practice of offshoring. That is not in and of itself evil. Because it is aiding the workers of the world to raise their standards of living and joining the 1st world of economic security, personal liberty, good safety standards and standards of living.

To reiterate JFK's comment:

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”​

Which means, we cannot force our solutions on others. They must have their own labor revolution, economic evolution, with better standards of living and safety. BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT JOBS, AND IF WE DENY THEM JOBS WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING THEM BACK. Yet in the process we still create from 1 to 1.7 new jobs in the US for every one we export.

You are so ate up with your left wing extremist rhetoric you don't realize it is you pushing for isolationism, for holding the people of the world back, at the expense of some imaginary elite labor force in the US.

I think your problem is, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TRUE LIBERALISM IS. True liberalism is wanting reasonable prosperity FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. You harbor some "we have to get ours in the US and to hell with the rest of the world." The more pity for you and your narrow minded elitism.

Talking about pseudo intellectualism, you are ate up with the dumb butt stick. Nationalism such as you espouse tends to be the mantra of the Right Wing.

 

[dnsmith35]

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas including those of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on an understanding of human behavior, individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the champions of progress. Social liberals supported the rights of unions, and also supported the rights of minorities Classical liberals favor limited government and social liberals believe government intervention is necessary to provide equal protection and opportunity for all citizens.

Neither liberals nor conservatives full follow classical liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberties, rather than the control of society.

Thomas Jefferson wanted independence for the citizens of our country because he believed dependency cripples, causing many people to fail to think for themselves, are confined to conditions of existence resembling an endless struggle for survival, are incapable of carrying out plans for the future, and will never achieve basic human dignity. The self dependent life is therefore the best life. We have the ability to realize being the masters of our own destiny. It is my opinion that the part of modern liberalism which most harms our society is the tendency to create dependency, and though we should assist those in need, we must always endeavor to do so without creating such dependency. (we have failed miserably in that respect)

The fundamental ideas of liberalism are: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. To that end, our founding fathers were right on target by creating a republican form of government maintaining a strong state rights ideology while limiting the federal government to those functions authorized by our constitution. A Republican form of government was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny as despotic as a dictatorship. Without eliminating the "tyranny of the majority" there can be no civil equality. These ideas are commonly accepted widely by those who are considered both liberal and conservative today; whereas, the extremes of both liberalism and conservatism have blurred the lines of reason to one extent or another.

Those are the tenets by which I live my life and function politically.

President Kennedy's "support of the rights of captains of industry"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q]President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962) - YouTube[/ame]


News Conference 30 (April 11, 1962)

President John F. Kennedy
State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, April 11, 1962, 3:30 p.m.

Official White House Transcript

THE PRESIDENT: "Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.

The simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives -- and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam -- and asking union members to hold down their wage requests, at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

...a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."

Well whoop de do. Are you suggesting I disagree with any of that? In what way? That was then, this is now. As a bona fide liberal I respect all of those things AND I also respect the rights and liberties of people all over the world.

Don't you think it is time for you to stop being an elitist liberal and be for progressive rights for all people everywhere instead of being a "liberal with borders"?

 

[Listening]

I claim the Democratic Party has moved to the right. My evidence...the biggest and most significant piece of legislation in 45 years, the ACA, passed by ONLY Democrats, is a carbon copy of the bill proposed by Republicans and authored by the Heritage Foundation.

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

Another Twilight Zone episode...the non sequitur time traveler.

Context?

The ACA was passed in 2009/10 by ONLY Democrats. That is the ONLY 'context' of the ACA.

In 2009/10, 'scholars' at the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank, were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Here that whooshing sound as most everything that is posted in your direction goes over your head ?