You want to know the real reason people don't want to be liberals?

[rightwinger]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

JFK was despised by his conservative contemporaries,

for his liberalism.

The more things change, the more they remain the same

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

The above comports well with the modern liberal and progressive!

The efforts by the right/conservatives to repeal the PPACA, eliminate the FDA, the Depts of Education, HUD and the EPA, outlaw same-sex marriage, suppress voting rights, and the most recent effort to put the lives of immigrants into an anxiety driven state of flux have no nexus to the words of President Kennedy.

Now it's your turn, go ahead and spin the talking points you've been indoctrinated to spew, place the blame for everything the crazy new right overtly and covertly supports on a liberal/progressive agenda.

No one but the fools who repeat this absurdity and pander this far right ideological propaganda believe it - but it's your tour de force, in fact it's all you have.

Blah blah blah.. yeah cause we can't have "public education" at the local levels unless we have a FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. ROFL... Stupid is as stupid does. You can spew in a hundred different directions if you like but that just points to the fact that your political views are authoritarian, and your straw-men have no legs to stand on.

 

[squeeze berry]

It is kinda funny and consistent with the American conservative that they are totally useless except when it comes to pointing fingers. If we were all conservatives we'd still be living in caves assuming we got out of the trees. Day in day out right wing American conservative media blames anything at all on liberals, meanwhile the fox is stealing their country as they wallow in fear and self pity. My old question remains unanswered.And see their education in my signature.

Question for Conservatives

I have asked this question many times and have never received a substantive answer. Answers usually take the form of name changing or taking responsibility for something that isn't in the conservative playbook. I'll give a hint where I am coming from, I see American conservatives as people who look to a past that never was, who feel deep down a sense of loss or impending loss, someone somewhere is taking something that is rightfully theirs, and who feel if only they were granted more power all would be wonderful. This sense of the world for is a psychological mindset rather than something based in reality. This question applies to libertarians too with the difference, libertarians look to a future that never will be. So my question is, please tell me / us what a conservative or conservatism has accomplished that is good for the nation and all its people? Since most libertarians resemble conservatives you can give it try too. Please remember one thing, this is about 'conservatism' and not about other ideologies or political parties. Oppositional replies are irrelevant. Please stick to the topic question.

Of course then a second question haunts American civilization, what will the Conservative American do in the future.Here's one, block immigration reform in a land of immigrants. Too funny.

"....If conservatism is the ideology of freedom, how come they’re the ones who are always trying to take that freedom away from us, especially women and minorities? Why did they fight against the effort to end slavery, or to give women and minorities the vote, or to protect them from discrimination? Why are they still supporting efforts to disenfranchise minorities?" The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

the reason you are not getting an answer is b/c your position is based on lies

 

[RKMBrown]

Most of which was formed by their study of the liberal paradigm, and the following quote best summarizes their view as well as that of the vast majority of contemporary liberals and progressives, diametrically opposed to the ethos of contemporary libertarians and callous conservatives or want of a better and longer definition:

"Where did the treatment of the self-interested pursuit of wealth as a virtue come from? Influential books that idealize self-interest and have had a significant influence on political activism since the 1980s include Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”, and “Atlas Shrugged”, George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty”, and Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”. What is philosophically significant about the treatment of the pursuit of self-interest as a virtue is that it turns Thrasymachus’ position on its head. While Plato was resistant to Thrasymachus’ claim that the few either do or should call all the shots, many American activists believe passionately that this is morally good. Let all good citizens be clear: the treatment of self-interest as a virtue is a radical departure from the Western as well as American tradition, and no mainstream political philosopher suggests that seeking one’s self-interest is a moral virtue. There is a significant difference between praising hard work and effort, on the one hand, and praising the self-interested pursuit of profit, on the other. Anyone who does not understand the difference has no business being involved in public policy debates."

Emphasis added.

Link to full article:

The Breakdown of the Classical Liberal Paradigm in the Age of Globalization Practical Philosophy

As an undergrad my major was political philosophy, your suggestion that I read only the aforementioned documents and not their antecedents is telling. Start with the Magna Carta, and work your way up through five centuries of political thought and maybe then you will have some business being involved in public policy discussions.

Start here:

Featured Document The Magna Carta

.....not to mention Gordon Gekko.

I don't think RKMBrown is at all interested in learning anything about political philosophy, however, especially inasmuch as the limits of his ability to understand is such that he responds to anybody who HAS studied political philosophy to any degree by calling them a "moron".

The Heritage foundation is especially influential in creating this notion that greed is good, though, especially as it provided so much of the framework for helping to transfer these notions into policy and popularize them among the general public during the Reagan administration. Cripple the Unions, eliminate the fairness doctrine, control the message on the airwaves and voila' -- the creation of a new brand of culture warrior working against their own economic self-interest.

On the left side of the spectrum, the biggest change I have seen since the sixties is the rise in multiculturalism to replace liberalism as the guiding principle. Will Kymlika and other multiculturalists have been effective in providing a philosophical basis on the left that has effectively replaced the notion that rights should be universal and applied to everybody equally with a brand of cultural relativism that ascribes them to a group, instead.

You are making an incorrect assumption that I'm not familiar with these various political philosophies that are being forced on the people of this country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

The above comports well with the modern liberal and progressive!

The efforts by the right/conservatives to repeal the PPACA, eliminate the FDA, the Depts of Education, HUD and the EPA, outlaw same-sex marriage, suppress voting rights, and the most recent effort to put the lives of immigrants into an anxiety driven state of flux have no nexus to the words of President Kennedy.

Now it's your turn, go ahead and spin the talking points you've been indoctrinated to spew, place the blame for everything the crazy new right overtly and covertly supports on a liberal/progressive agenda.

No one but the fools who repeat this absurdity and pander this far right ideological propaganda believe it - but it's your tour de force, in fact it's all you have.

BTW, The DUTCH East India Trading Company wasn't an American corporation, as the name clearly state, the greed you so cavalierly claim is corporate, was in fact Mercantilism.

 

[konradv]

There are NAZIS in the democrat party too. That does not mean the democrat party is the NAZI party.

There are many more in the Tea Party and Republic Party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most of which was formed by their study of the liberal paradigm, and the following quote best summarizes their view as well as that of the vast majority of contemporary liberals and progressives, diametrically opposed to the ethos of contemporary libertarians and callous conservatives or want of a better and longer definition:

"Where did the treatment of the self-interested pursuit of wealth as a virtue come from? Influential books that idealize self-interest and have had a significant influence on political activism since the 1980s include Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”, and “Atlas Shrugged”, George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty”, and Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”. What is philosophically significant about the treatment of the pursuit of self-interest as a virtue is that it turns Thrasymachus’ position on its head. While Plato was resistant to Thrasymachus’ claim that the few either do or should call all the shots, many American activists believe passionately that this is morally good. Let all good citizens be clear: the treatment of self-interest as a virtue is a radical departure from the Western as well as American tradition, and no mainstream political philosopher suggests that seeking one’s self-interest is a moral virtue. There is a significant difference between praising hard work and effort, on the one hand, and praising the self-interested pursuit of profit, on the other. Anyone who does not understand the difference has no business being involved in public policy debates."

Emphasis added.

Link to full article:

The Breakdown of the Classical Liberal Paradigm in the Age of Globalization Practical Philosophy

As an undergrad my major was political philosophy, your suggestion that I read only the aforementioned documents and not their antecedents is telling. Start with the Magna Carta, and work your way up through five centuries of political thought and maybe then you will have some business being involved in public policy discussions.

Start here:

Featured Document The Magna Carta

.....not to mention Gordon Gekko.

I don't think RKMBrown is at all interested in learning anything about political philosophy, however, especially inasmuch as the limits of his ability to understand is such that he responds to anybody who HAS studied political philosophy to any degree by calling them a "moron".

The Heritage foundation is especially influential in creating this notion that greed is good, though, especially as it provided so much of the framework for helping to transfer these notions into policy and popularize them among the general public during the Reagan administration. Cripple the Unions, eliminate the fairness doctrine, control the message on the airwaves and voila' -- the creation of a new brand of culture warrior working against their own economic self-interest.

On the left side of the spectrum, the biggest change I have seen since the sixties is the rise in multiculturalism to replace liberalism as the guiding principle. Will Kymlika and other multiculturalists have been effective in providing a philosophical basis on the left that has effectively replaced the notion that rights should be universal and applied to everybody equally with a brand of cultural relativism that ascribes them to a group, instead.

You are making an incorrect assumption that I'm not familiar with these various political philosophies that are being forced on the people of this country.

I'm making an assertion that you are in fact a far right extremist who will spin anything and everything - no matter how absurd or callous - to try (and fail) to justify and ideology which has no support except that within a small self interested minority. Now, bow before the Brothers Koch, and donate to their 'charities'.

Remember:

Plutocracy is Freedom

 

[RKMBrown]

Why can't conservatives be content and proud of their conservatism? Recently they have started a campaign to change political labels and parties, making Jefferson into a conservative and Truman into a Republican? Is the new campaign an attempt to confuse people or they are ashamed of being conservative?
The labels of conservative and liberal have been defined many times and college book stores all carry little booklets defining the terms. In the meantime the label-theft program seems to be a new and serious strategy for conservatives.
Perhaps conservatives would be content with being called liberal-conservatives and liberals, liberal-liberals?

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

I think JFKs definition of a liberal is spot on
As relevant today as it was 50 years ago

Now, lets hear what Truman had to say about Republicans 60 years ago

Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

Quote by Harry S. Truman Republicans approve of the American farmer but...

Some things never change

On many topics of importance to me, JFK was more "conservative" than the last two republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney. This is my point... which is I would be more likely to vote for JFK or Clinton than McCain or Romney. You can call me "liberal" for that view if you like, but I would point out that it merely means JFK stood for freedom more than these republicans.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are NAZIS in the democrat party too. That does not mean the democrat party is the NAZI party.

There are many more in the Tea Party and Republic Party.

National Socialist Party = NAZI Party, you know like GM being run by a government Czar cause it was too big to fail.

 

[RKMBrown]

Most of which was formed by their study of the liberal paradigm, and the following quote best summarizes their view as well as that of the vast majority of contemporary liberals and progressives, diametrically opposed to the ethos of contemporary libertarians and callous conservatives or want of a better and longer definition:

"Where did the treatment of the self-interested pursuit of wealth as a virtue come from? Influential books that idealize self-interest and have had a significant influence on political activism since the 1980s include Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”, and “Atlas Shrugged”, George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty”, and Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism”. What is philosophically significant about the treatment of the pursuit of self-interest as a virtue is that it turns Thrasymachus’ position on its head. While Plato was resistant to Thrasymachus’ claim that the few either do or should call all the shots, many American activists believe passionately that this is morally good. Let all good citizens be clear: the treatment of self-interest as a virtue is a radical departure from the Western as well as American tradition, and no mainstream political philosopher suggests that seeking one’s self-interest is a moral virtue. There is a significant difference between praising hard work and effort, on the one hand, and praising the self-interested pursuit of profit, on the other. Anyone who does not understand the difference has no business being involved in public policy debates."

Emphasis added.

Link to full article:

The Breakdown of the Classical Liberal Paradigm in the Age of Globalization Practical Philosophy

As an undergrad my major was political philosophy, your suggestion that I read only the aforementioned documents and not their antecedents is telling. Start with the Magna Carta, and work your way up through five centuries of political thought and maybe then you will have some business being involved in public policy discussions.

Start here:

Featured Document The Magna Carta

.....not to mention Gordon Gekko.

I don't think RKMBrown is at all interested in learning anything about political philosophy, however, especially inasmuch as the limits of his ability to understand is such that he responds to anybody who HAS studied political philosophy to any degree by calling them a "moron".

The Heritage foundation is especially influential in creating this notion that greed is good, though, especially as it provided so much of the framework for helping to transfer these notions into policy and popularize them among the general public during the Reagan administration. Cripple the Unions, eliminate the fairness doctrine, control the message on the airwaves and voila' -- the creation of a new brand of culture warrior working against their own economic self-interest.

On the left side of the spectrum, the biggest change I have seen since the sixties is the rise in multiculturalism to replace liberalism as the guiding principle. Will Kymlika and other multiculturalists have been effective in providing a philosophical basis on the left that has effectively replaced the notion that rights should be universal and applied to everybody equally with a brand of cultural relativism that ascribes them to a group, instead.

You are making an incorrect assumption that I'm not familiar with these various political philosophies that are being forced on the people of this country.

I'm making an assertion that you are in fact a far right extremist who will spin anything and everything - no matter how absurd or callous - to try (and fail) to justify and ideology which has no support except that within a small self interested minority. Now, bow before the Brothers Koch, and donate to their 'charities'.

Remember:

Plutocracy is Freedom

Huh? Your assertion is a straw-man with no legs. I'm conservative libertarian, my views align with the party planks. I'm not an anarchist or a corporatist or an authoritarian right christian crusader. Quite the opposite. If you have a question about my views, ask it. I'll ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, or I'll just resume calling you a moron, and a POS liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

BTW, The DUTCH East India Trading Company wasn't an American corporation, as the name clearly state, the greed you so cavalierly claim is corporate, was in fact Mercantilism.

Let me guess, you think I was supposed to provide a list of Corporations that were charted by the United States of America... before there was a United States of America. ROFL

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

The above comports well with the modern liberal and progressive!

The efforts by the right/conservatives to repeal the PPACA, eliminate the FDA, the Depts of Education, HUD and the EPA, outlaw same-sex marriage, suppress voting rights, and the most recent effort to put the lives of immigrants into an anxiety driven state of flux have no nexus to the words of President Kennedy.

Now it's your turn, go ahead and spin the talking points you've been indoctrinated to spew, place the blame for everything the crazy new right overtly and covertly supports on a liberal/progressive agenda.

No one but the fools who repeat this absurdity and pander this far right ideological propaganda believe it - but it's your tour de force, in fact it's all you have.

Blah blah blah.. yeah cause we can't have "public education" at the local levels unless we have a FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. ROFL... Stupid is as stupid does. You can spew in a hundred different directions if you like but that just points to the fact that your political views are authoritarian, and your straw-men have no legs to stand on.

Public education was the first move the social conservative/far right moved on, in their efforts to put God into a secular education. Why, because organized religion, much like political parties, needs new blood.

I remember saying the Pledge of Allegation every morning, then one day the teacher lead us in a new pledge, one which now included the phrase "under God". Since that day, we have seen efforts to put prayer into the classroom and efforts to pack local school boards with partisan whose first cause was to put religion into the secular classroom, and make Christianity the only religion in a diverse nation; efforts to subsidize private schools, charter schools who are beyond the reach of pubic institutions in terms of past Supreme Court rulings.

Of course not to be put off, the GOP with the aid of the magic christians, has worked to pack the Supreme Court and unless some balance is restored, the Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts team will one day set secular education on its head.

Local control, state's rights are euphemisms, they are the goals set to restore segregation, separate but equal education and indoctrination not education into our schools, and into the hearts and minds of those too young to ask why.

Authoritarian? You bet and are our pass to the future. The Hitler Youth and the current crop of religious terrorists received such training.

 

[rightwinger]

I know.....they try to claim both JFK and Martin Luther King as conservatives now

JFK was a non-liberal democrat. MLK was a conservative republican. Both JFK and MLK wanted something better for the people of this country. They both pressed the people to rise up and do great things. Both JFK and MLK were great men, even if JFK was a bit of a miscreant when it comes to treating women as sex toys.

Today's democrat leaders... yeah not so much, they want the people to sit back, relax, and vote for collecting free shit taken by force from dumb asses that work for a living.

JFK was a non-liberal democrat?

JFK’s Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
“…if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
September 14, 1960

It all comes down to how you define liberal... I meant non-liberal from my definition of liberal. JFK's definition of liberal would not be accepted by today's modern liberal, would it?

I think JFKs definition of a liberal is spot on
As relevant today as it was 50 years ago

Now, lets hear what Truman had to say about Republicans 60 years ago

Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

Quote by Harry S. Truman Republicans approve of the American farmer but...

Some things never change

On many topics of importance to me, JFK was more "conservative" than the last two republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney. This is my point... which is I would be more likely to vote for JFK or Clinton than McCain or Romney. You can call me "liberal" for that view if you like, but I would point out that it merely means JFK stood for freedom more than these republicans.

Which topics?

 

[ClosedCaption]

BTW, The DUTCH East India Trading Company wasn't an American corporation, as the name clearly state, the greed you so cavalierly claim is corporate, was in fact Mercantilism.

Let me guess, you think I was supposed to provide a list of Corporations that were charted by the United States of America... before there was a United States of America. ROFL

ROFL... why should I do the research to give you a list of known companies at the time of the framing of our country? ROFL I'll give you one: The Dutch East India Trading Company.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, The DUTCH East India Trading Company wasn't an American corporation, as the name clearly state, the greed you so cavalierly claim is corporate, was in fact Mercantilism.

Let me guess, you think I was supposed to provide a list of Corporations that were charted by the United States of America... before there was a United States of America. ROFL

Read your own posts and stop being such an ass. Focus on this, "the greed you so cavalierly claim is corporate, was in fact Mercantilism" unless the nexus is too difficult for you to grasp. So, what 'corporations' existed in the 1790's which so alarmed the founders?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The American Experience, something else the crazy right wing and callous conservatives hope to extinguish.

Find something you know nothing about (that should be easy RKMBrown) and learn something.

All Films . American Experience . WGBH PBS

 

[danielpalos]

Having a clue and a Cause may require repugnance to existing dogma.

 

[konradv]

National Socialist Party = NAZI Party,.

Everyday it becomes more and more evident that National Socialist Party = Republic Party. Both entities want to take away workers' rights.

 

[rdean]

Jesus was a liberal

Jesus was a conservative, aka classical liberal. Modern liberals have bastardized the term liberal.

Right wingers:
Feed the poor and they will breed in spite of the fact most poor are right wingers.
Education is for snobs.
Bow down before the banks and the "job creators".
Die quickly.

Meet the new conservative.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Jesus was a liberal

Jesus was non political