Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The answer is you're a twisted plagiarizer too stupid to use your own words...
Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
He meant "You didn't build that!"
Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.
The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
This is typical Ayn Rand social Darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the War on Poverty, what Sargent Shriver was faced with were the TRUE facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. WHY is that FF? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the War on Poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...
There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref
The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
qftthe primary difference between the modern american liberal and the modern american conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "l") is that the liberal would require us to accept public responsible that they design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.
Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.
this is typical ayn rand social darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the war on poverty, what sargent shriver was faced with were the true facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. Why is that ff? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the war on poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
The war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
The war on poverty, what it is and isn't...
There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, i refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'war on poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
When jfk's brother-in law sargent shriver accepted lbj's challenge and took on the 'war on poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a huge segment of the poor fit the true definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...sargent shriver. But i hate to disappoint you. Sargent shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'war on poverty' was called the office of economic opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as vista, job corps, community action program, and head start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up, not a hand out. Even when johnson effectively pulled the plug on the war on poverty to fund the war in vietnam, shriver fought on and won. During the shriver years more americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (the clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)ref
the war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. but right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
i can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?
He meant "You didn't build that!"
Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be. Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism. I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there. Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV. Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake. Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill. Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism". Pffft.
Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively. They're not new, but they are transparent.
As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others? Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right. But I don't do that.
I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members. I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor. (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use: Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct. (I still use them all however.)
But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill. Doesn't mean that now does it?
"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
"Awful" once meant full of awe.
"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen. Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy. It has a much different connotation these days.
Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity. We think of something much different now.
I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever. Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous. And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV. Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake. Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill. Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism". Pffft.
Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively. They're not new, but they are transparent.
As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others? Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right. But I don't do that.
I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members. I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor. (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use: Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct. (I still use them all however.)
But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill. Doesn't mean that now does it?
"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
"Awful" once meant full of awe.
"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen. Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy. It has a much different connotation these days.
Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity. We think of something much different now.
I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever. Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous. And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
-- and you're doing it again, Foxy. You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you. That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that you use") to eliminate one's (<<"one's", not "your") adversary. You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media. But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
So stop reducing this to the personal. It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
Every time there is a post about liberals on this board, the right-wingers come out of the woodwork to tell us what liberals are, what we think, and how we react to everything. Then other right-wingers come on this board and agree with them, and then the slag-fest begins.
Conservatives are clueless when it comes to what liberals and what we stand for but that doesn't stop them from deciding what we do and do not believe, or what type of government we like.
Foxy says that forcing people to buy health insurance is infringing on your freedom. In my opinion, the fact that I have government funded health care, INCREASES my freedom. I don't have to worry about how to pay for medical care when (not if, when) I get sick. If I am faced with catastrophic illness, it won't bankrupt me or my family. That is freedom that Americans cannot know.
I am free to choose my doctor, my hospital, where I go for treatment, and many other things, but I am forced to buy into my government health care. I am old enough to remember when there was no Canada Health Act, and what that meant when my aunt got cancer. My "lack of freedom" on health insurance is a boon, not a loss of freedom.
As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others? Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right. But I don't do that.
I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members. I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor. (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use: Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct. (I still use them all however.)
But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill. Doesn't mean that now does it?
"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
"Awful" once meant full of awe.
"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen. Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy. It has a much different connotation these days.
Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity. We think of something much different now.
I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever. Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous. And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
-- and you're doing it again, Foxy. You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you. That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that you use") to eliminate one's (<<"one's", not "your") adversary. You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media. But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
So stop reducing this to the personal. It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
You started it. You accused me of using an Orwellian 'cheap rhetorical trick' with the implication that I manufactured the term 'classical liberal' and refuse to acknowledge my argument defending my point of view as well as the term 'classical liberal.' Just as you earlier refused to even look at the very scholarly and competent definitions I provided from excellent sources for what 'classical liberalism' is and why it is the correct term in modern vernacular. You even insinuated that I don't value people thinking for themselves and earlier implied that I needed more education in poliical science. And now you accuse me of making it personal and deny that you did? Typical liberalism at its best. And why it is in such disfavor.
-- and you're doing it again, Foxy. You took a general observation about a philosophical manipulation of language and transformed it into the personal, as if I'm accusing you. That fallacy --the practice of transforming the general into the personal-- is the only thing I posted that referred specifically to you. I don't know why this distinction has to be so elusive.
The rest was about this psycho-manipulative trap of language which is used ("which is used", not "that you use") to eliminate one's (<<"one's", not "your") adversary. You didn't build that; it comes originally out of the Joe McCarthy era and it's fed by pandering politicians and gadfly talking heads on electronic media. But it's a pattern too many fall into, and when they do, there goes discourse.
So stop reducing this to the personal. It's a rhetorical fallacy that we can choose to run with, or choose to ignore.
You started it. You accused me of using an Orwellian 'cheap rhetorical trick' with the implication that I manufactured the term 'classical liberal' and refuse to acknowledge my argument defending my point of view as well as the term 'classical liberal.' Just as you earlier refused to even look at the very scholarly and competent definitions I provided from excellent sources for what 'classical liberalism' is and why it is the correct term in modern vernacular. You even insinuated that I don't value people thinking for themselves and earlier implied that I needed more education in poliical science. And now you accuse me of making it personal and deny that you did? Typical liberalism at its best. And why it is in such disfavor.
And once again my point either sails over your head or, more likely, you're ducking out of its way. If you're going to continue to play dumb I'm wasting my time.
If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.
And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be. Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism. I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there. Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.
I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV. Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.
And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake. Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill. Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.
Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism". Pffft.
Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively. They're not new, but they are transparent.
As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others? Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right. But I don't do that.
I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members. I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor. (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)
But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.
We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use: Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct. (I still use them all however.)
But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill. Doesn't mean that now does it?
"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.
"Awful" once meant full of awe.
"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.
"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen. Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.
Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy. It has a much different connotation these days.
Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity. We think of something much different now.
I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever. Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.
There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.
That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous. And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.
qftthis is typical ayn rand social darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the war on poverty, what sargent shriver was faced with were the true facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.
But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. Why is that ff? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?
Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the war on poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.
The war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
The war on poverty, what it is and isn't...
There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, i refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'war on poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.
When jfk's brother-in law sargent shriver accepted lbj's challenge and took on the 'war on poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a huge segment of the poor fit the true definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...sargent shriver. But i hate to disappoint you. Sargent shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'war on poverty' was called the office of economic opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as vista, job corps, community action program, and head start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up, not a hand out. Even when johnson effectively pulled the plug on the war on poverty to fund the war in vietnam, shriver fought on and won. During the shriver years more americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (the clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)ref
the war on poverty was a program that any conservative should support. but right wing turds just talk about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.
i can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
... the least among us.
You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't want to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.
Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.
Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.
I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.
Liberals did not author the PPACA. Liberals and progressives were shut out on the health care bill. Do we have single payer? Do we have a public option?? Do we have Medicare for all???
What you are saying is if you are in the Democratic Party you MUST be labeled a 'liberal'. That is bullshit.
You REALLY don't comprehend what Charles Krauthammer is saying. I will re-post it: “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
That conservative ascendancy is not limited to the Republican party. BOTH parties have shifted to the right over the last 30 years. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a Republican Senator who was proud to be a liberal Republican. Matter of fact, LBJ and J Edgar Hoover kept him off the Warren Commission because he was TOO liberal.
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
qfti can't think of a better example that the op speaks to than what you just posted above ( my emphasis) .
It's the truth. I really wish it weren't. But I will never back down from defending the least among us. You right wing turds have NO problem telling liberals what they think, do and say, or pigeonholing them to fit your agenda to create an aristocracy. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been called a libtard or Marxist.
uhm yes, ok then.... tissue?
He meant "You didn't build that!"
Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]
Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive? Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure? Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?
That his intent was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?
And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.
Look at how liberals, who keep insisting they're so smart and independent all drink down the Obama koolaid
