Why do people hate Liberals?

[Foxfyre]

Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept. If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity. And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.

The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal. And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.

I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.

If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.

What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me

If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it? Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?

You refrenced Enron. Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron? (Hint: it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.) But this link provides a pretty good history:
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.

Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset. True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life. True American conservatives understand that. The modern American liberals do not.

I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity. Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes or what liberalism is not. Tell me what liberalism is to you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept. If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity. And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.

The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal. And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.

I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.

If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.

What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me

If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it? Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?

You refrenced Enron. Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron? (Hint: it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.) But this link provides a pretty good history:
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.

Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset. True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life. True American conservatives understand that. The modern American liberals do not.

I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity. Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes or what liberalism is not. Tell me what liberalism is to you.

They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.

It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.

I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.


"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 could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

 

[thanatos144]

I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.

If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.

What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me

If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it? Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?

You refrenced Enron. Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron? (Hint: it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.) But this link provides a pretty good history:
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.

Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset. True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life. True American conservatives understand that. The modern American liberals do not.

I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity. Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes or what liberalism is not. Tell me what liberalism is to you.

They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.

It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.

I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.


"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 could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did

 

[Foxfyre]

JFK's words from Bfgn's post:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

Sorry Bfgn, but JFK said absolutely nothing in that quote other than a lot of warm fuzzy feeling words. What does that mean? What does a liberal see as the role of government? What is liberty? What is dignity? What is compassion? What is the national purpose in real terms?

I'll give you my short definition of modern American conservatism aka Classical Liberalism one more time:

Modern American conservatism or classical liberalism is the concept that the role of the federal government is to secure our unalienable rights and enact just enough laws to allow the various states to function as one nation without doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other. The federal government will then leave the people alone to live their lives as they choose and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have which is the definition of freedom. Unalienable rights are those that require no contribution or participation by any other and they are enumerated as including but not limited to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Such human goals as liberty, dignity, compassion, purpose et al are for the people to work out themselves and not for any monarch, pope, dictator, or other central authority to dictate.

Now then, can you write something similar and specific for the liberal definition? Note that I referenced no person, political party, entity, or any past history or activities. If so, you would be the very first among your liberal brethren that demonstrated a capability to do that.

 

[Bfgrn]

If liberals are so opposed to crony capitalism, then why haven't they stopped it when they had the votes to do it? Why has $48 billion, that billion with a B, been poured into failing energy companies the last few years, all of which were big donors to Barack Obama's campaigns?

You refrenced Enron. Do you know which Administration was most instrumental in doling out millions in corporate welfare and manipulating regulation to benefit Enron? (Hint: it wasn't Bush 41 or Bush 43 despite the leftwing media's attempt to put the blame there.) But this link provides a pretty good history:
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists | CNS News.

Enemies of the Constitution are those who wish to interpret it for their own pesonal goals and that would be mostly the liberal mindset. True champions of liberty value the words of the dead who gave the Constitution and its intent life. True American conservatives understand that. The modern American liberals do not.

I'm still waiting for a paragraph describing your definition of what liberalism is that does not reference or blame or accuse or trash any person, political party, group, or entity. Don't tell me what somebody else is or what somebody else has done or believes or what liberalism is not. Tell me what liberalism is to you.

They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.

It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.

I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.


"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 could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did

Really?

Can you name another President that would say this?

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

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[dblack]

Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.

Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.

Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.

Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody. It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do. Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT. And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all. If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.

Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.

Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody. It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do. Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT. And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all. If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

The Gilded Age was a period of horrific labor violence, as industralists and workers literaly fought over control of the work place. What were working conditions like? Factory work was very difficult, and many injuries and deaths occurred.

It was hard to blame or hold factory owners responsible because there were no safety rules or regulations. Saw dust and toxic fumes were in the air and breathed in by the workers. Some factories had fatalities daily due to poor working conditions.

Child labor was very common and nearly 1/3 of school age children worked full time jobs. In the gilded age, workers worked 60 hours a week for a salary of 10 cents an hour. Courts were not sympathetic to work claims, so hardly any injured people or deaths recovered on claims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations.

Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.

Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody. It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do. Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT. And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all. If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

Incorrect.

Since the Foundation Era it was the original intent of the Framers that the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Moreover, the Federal government is the creation of all the people, representing all the people, and by the consent of the people exercises its authority over all the people and the states:

It does not at all follow…that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual character of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of the United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of, though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.

If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.

.

Actually our current system of government is perfectly suited for the 21st Century, provided fearful reactionaries don’t attempt to undermine it.

And yes, it is madness to advocate returning to Pre-Lochner jurisprudence, not that it’s even possible to begin with.

 

[thanatos144]

They did try to stop it with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. And conservatives have fought tooth and nail to stop it, castrate it or water it down.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT crony capitalism. It IS deeply embedded in their DNA. Conservatives ALWAYS protect the big guy over the little guy. IT is the whole philosophy of Reaganomics.

It has ALWAYS been what conservatives do and always WILL do. You can whine and say whatever you wish. There is NO liberal DNA in conservatives, you are just too ashamed of how conservatives have destroyed our country. You need to own up.

I rarely have an urge to defend Bill Clinton. IMO he would be an acceptable President as a Republican, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Obama. The last liberal President was my favorite, John F. Kennedy. And the Kennedy family to me is the epitome of liberalism. The Kennedys have never been 'For Sale' That is probably why Jack and Bobby were assassinated. Jack, Bobby, Ted, Eunice and her husband Sarge, Joe Jr, RFK Jr, Maria Shriver, and the rest of the clan have dedicated their public lives to helping little people.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from JFK. It defines who and what a President, and a government should and MUST be.


"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 could paraphrase JFK, but he says it more eloquently than I could.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did

Really?

Can you name another President that would say this?

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

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

JFK as a senator who was voted down Civil Rights was nothing more than the 1960's George W Bush

 

[CandySlice]

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Emphasis mine. The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.

/s

 

[JimBowie1958]

Okay, I have had the same experience. What better way to learn to dislike someone than to read some of the swill I've read here coming from the mouths of liberals. Are they all such hateful people?? I don't really see republicans stooping to that level, at least not as often. Sorry libs, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Emphasis mine. The most unintentionally funny post I've read on this board.

Speaking as someone who is not conservative (but only in contrast to the wacko-left of today does anyone think me conservative) the liberals of yesterday are far more tolerant than any conservative, but perhaps too tolerant.

The 'Liberals' of our time are mostly fascists who attack anyone that disagrees with them. I cant count how many times I have seen libtards post on other sites that they hate people that disagree with them, and the anger that so many of them have toward Christians is an example.

Libtards are not liberals, really, they are thugs who want to beat the world into submission to their ideology.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JFK was full of s*** and half of the things he said had nothing to do with what he did

Really?

Can you name another President that would say this?

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

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

JFK as a senator who was voted down Civil Rights was nothing more than the 1960's George W Bush

Similar, yes, but both were better than Bush the Elder, and nether were conservative.

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.

/s

Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

 

[dblack]

Agreed. But such regulations must reside at a higher, ie Constitutional, level. Anything subject to modification through votes, and thus subject to vote-buying, will be rapidly corrupted. We need (or already have depending on your reading) Constitutional restrictions on government's ability to pass crony laws.

Prior to Teddy Roosevelt, even though they slipped up now and then on a very limited basis, all U.S. presidents and U.S. congresses saw no constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody. It was not the prerogative of the U.S. government to dispense charity, to pick winners or losers, or otherwise engage in crony capitalism or use the people's money in any other capacity to 'buy votes'.

In other words, the federal government was restricted from doing or mandating anything that the Constitution did not specifically allow it to do. Everything else was for the states and local communities to do.

Teddy Roosevelt turned that on its head when he pronounced that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not specifically PROHIBIT. And that opened the barn doors wide and they have never been closed since.

He started a tiny snowball rolling that was given a huge push in the FDR administration and it has been gathering size and momentum ever since until now it threatens to crush us all.

The ONLY remedy is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the federal government at ANY level from using the people's money to benefit any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all and that prohibits the federal government from passing any legislation that benefits any person, entity, organization, or group that does not equally benefit all. If we would do that, there would be no more crony capitalism, no more entitlement mentality at the federal level, and we will wipe out 95% of the all the graft and corruption in government and among the recipients of government largesse.

That is the conservative remedy.

I'm sure the liberals will be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

So your remedy is to return to the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons, where a worker was cheaper to replace than protect. A worker's life meant less than squeezing every penny out of workers. I would hope EVERYONE would be absolutely horrified to even think of such a thing.

I'd hope otherwise. Fear is a horrible motivation for policy and leads to the worst sorts of government. Instead, I'd hope people would recognize these sorts of strawmen for what they are (you forgot Somalia!!!) and think about the issues with the courage to face them honestly. The goal isn't to 'return' to anything, but to correct our mistakes. And to ensure we don't repeat them.

What about the actual issue I raised? Crony capitalism is implemented via regulation, so it's hard to see how more of the same is going to solve the problem. "Hair of the dog" might make sense to a drunk as a cure for a hangover, but sober folks recognize it as merely prolonging the problem.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

Right that is why when you look at the economies of red states and free market nations in Europe, like Poland, their economies are so much worse than New York, the UK, France, and Spain.

/s

Do you have anything to back that up other than an emotional outburst?

Red States Are Welfare Queens

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.

 

[Dragonlady]

That is complete bullshit because the libtards that did the stats count as "federal spending" defense spending, federally funded research, and unearned tax credits, etc as federal receipts, and that is NOT WELFARE, dumbass.

Well defense spending is bloated, much of it simply pork barrelling, and federally funded research money is absolutely subject to cronyism and pork barrelling, so yes, it is appropriate to include those items in those figures.