American Right-Wingers Are No Longer Conservative -- They're Extremists
Apr 25, 2013 17:02:24 #
Tassine, the discussion between you and Chardo (page 4) is very informative. He couldn't understand your reference to stealing.
Chardo wouldn't go around his neighborhood demanding that his neighbors contribute to his health insurance, Social Security, etc. But he would vote for someone to go to Washington to do that for him. You see a moral equivalence there that completely escapes him. There is a difference in world view that makes mutual understanding almost impossible.
Chardo's world view is called "liberal" by some and "progressive" by others. I have a paper on the development of progressivism at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/, but its too long for most people. Here are some high points.
During a 2007 presidential debate Hillary was asked: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word liberal? And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century."
President Obama has never been that forthcoming, but he did at one time say that he is a "pragmatic progressive". It seems like a strange thing for a president to say. In this context the word "pragmatic" does not apply to policy formation, it refers to a technique in philosophy for evaluating the truth of statements. But I digress.
Chardo has stated that he is an "Obama Progressive". He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that he would never question an Obama position. Of course, only racists question Obama.
Lets get back to the progressive era that Hillary referred to. This was the formative period of progressivism. All over the world the writings of Karl Marx and others were being widely read and debated. He had two books of note, Das Kapital and his Communist Manifesto. The first was an economic analysis, the second was his proposal for a government based on his economic principles. When we use the term Marxist we are referring to his economic philosophy only. What is not well understood by many is just how pervasive his ideas became. Universities in Europe and here were teaching his ideas, popular authors like Upton Sinclair wrote novels promoting socialism, socialist political parties were very strong in Europe and had considerable following in the US too.
As one would expect, many who were swayed by his opinions were not in full agreement, and numerous variations of interpretation led to the development of similar philosophies. Progressivism is one of these. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as an early progressive.
Woodrow Wilson's thoughts on the limitations of "democratic" government.
Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.
... 'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208
If you are thinking, "we are a republic, not a democracy", Wilson was referring to America as a democracy.
Several years later John Dewey, an influential progressive philosopher and prolific writer discussed the evolution of liberal thought. Dewey preferred the term "liberal" over "progressive", but the term "liberal" has meant different things at different times. The liberals of the 1700s were proponents of "individual liberty", whereas the "new" liberals (late 1800s to present) were for liberty from concern. Here he is referring to the old liberals like the founders of our Constitution.
The point is that their failure to grasp the historic position of the interpretation of liberty they put forth served later to solidify a social regime that was a chief obstacle to attainment of the ends they professed. ...they had no glimpse of the fact that private control of the new forces of production, forces which affect the life of every one, would operate in the same way as private unchecked control of political liberty. But they failed to perceive that social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.
Then came F.D.R.'s Second Bill of Rights:
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Socialism and even Communism had no particular stigma until after WW II and the start of the Cold War. Prior to that the various liberal factions spoke freely about their political objectives. The Cold War and McCarthyism changed all that. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is more oppenness and aggressiveness.
The liberal position is entirely emotional and based on a desire for a better society. The fact that it has never really worked is not a deterrent. Woodrow Wilson commented on that too:
The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever.
Chardo: [i]Yes I will impose my beliefs on others if I think that it will make for a better world, but that is not religion!It's politics.[i]
Quote:
Do you think it is O.K. to steal Joe's money to pay for insurance for Slim? What is your rationale? {To be honest, I dont get this stealing thing. Please explain to me who is perpetrating this thievery?
Chardo wouldn't go around his neighborhood demanding that his neighbors contribute to his health insurance, Social Security, etc. But he would vote for someone to go to Washington to do that for him. You see a moral equivalence there that completely escapes him. There is a difference in world view that makes mutual understanding almost impossible.
Chardo's world view is called "liberal" by some and "progressive" by others. I have a paper on the development of progressivism at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/, but its too long for most people. Here are some high points.
During a 2007 presidential debate Hillary was asked: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word liberal? And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century."
President Obama has never been that forthcoming, but he did at one time say that he is a "pragmatic progressive". It seems like a strange thing for a president to say. In this context the word "pragmatic" does not apply to policy formation, it refers to a technique in philosophy for evaluating the truth of statements. But I digress.
Chardo has stated that he is an "Obama Progressive". He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that he would never question an Obama position. Of course, only racists question Obama.
Lets get back to the progressive era that Hillary referred to. This was the formative period of progressivism. All over the world the writings of Karl Marx and others were being widely read and debated. He had two books of note, Das Kapital and his Communist Manifesto. The first was an economic analysis, the second was his proposal for a government based on his economic principles. When we use the term Marxist we are referring to his economic philosophy only. What is not well understood by many is just how pervasive his ideas became. Universities in Europe and here were teaching his ideas, popular authors like Upton Sinclair wrote novels promoting socialism, socialist political parties were very strong in Europe and had considerable following in the US too.
As one would expect, many who were swayed by his opinions were not in full agreement, and numerous variations of interpretation led to the development of similar philosophies. Progressivism is one of these. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as an early progressive.
Woodrow Wilson's thoughts on the limitations of "democratic" government.
Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.
... 'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208
If you are thinking, "we are a republic, not a democracy", Wilson was referring to America as a democracy.
Several years later John Dewey, an influential progressive philosopher and prolific writer discussed the evolution of liberal thought. Dewey preferred the term "liberal" over "progressive", but the term "liberal" has meant different things at different times. The liberals of the 1700s were proponents of "individual liberty", whereas the "new" liberals (late 1800s to present) were for liberty from concern. Here he is referring to the old liberals like the founders of our Constitution.
The point is that their failure to grasp the historic position of the interpretation of liberty they put forth served later to solidify a social regime that was a chief obstacle to attainment of the ends they professed. ...they had no glimpse of the fact that private control of the new forces of production, forces which affect the life of every one, would operate in the same way as private unchecked control of political liberty. But they failed to perceive that social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.
Then came F.D.R.'s Second Bill of Rights:
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Socialism and even Communism had no particular stigma until after WW II and the start of the Cold War. Prior to that the various liberal factions spoke freely about their political objectives. The Cold War and McCarthyism changed all that. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is more oppenness and aggressiveness.
The liberal position is entirely emotional and based on a desire for a better society. The fact that it has never really worked is not a deterrent. Woodrow Wilson commented on that too:
The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever.
Chardo: [i]Yes I will impose my beliefs on others if I think that it will make for a better world, but that is not religion!It's politics.[i]
Apr 25, 2013 19:39:27 #
TheChardo wrote:
The chines, Italians, and Jews are not the ones who want to kill all Infidels like you and me. Sooner than later we will be having riots and demonstration like they do in France and England..So what!?? You don't have to live there. We also have China Towns, Little Italy and Orthodox Jewish communities. Why are we not complaining about those?
Apr 25, 2013 20:36:12 #
Is it extremist to defend one's country? If so then that is what I AM!
Remember the 300 Spartans
Apr 26, 2013 07:26:16 #
ABBAsFernando wrote:
Is it extremist to defend one's country? If so then that is what I AM!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ditto! Ditto!
In gratitude and in agreement
Apr 26, 2013 08:13:47 #
[quote=Cedarstrip]Tassine, the discussion between you and Chardo (page 4) is very informative. He couldn't understand your reference to stealing.
Chardo wouldn't go around his neighborhood demanding that his neighbors contribute to his health insurance, Social Security, etc. But he would vote for someone to go to Washington to do that for him. You see a moral equivalence there that completely escapes him. There is a difference in world view that makes mutual understanding almost impossible.
Chardo's world view is called "liberal" by some and "progressive" by others. I have a paper on the development of progressivism at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/, but its too long for most people. Here are some high points.
During a 2007 presidential debate Hillary was asked: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word liberal? And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century."
President Obama has never been that forthcoming, but he did at one time say that he is a "pragmatic progressive". It seems like a strange thing for a president to say. In this context the word "pragmatic" does not apply to policy formation, it refers to a technique in philosophy for evaluating the truth of statements. But I digress.
Chardo has stated that he is an "Obama Progressive". He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that he would never question an Obama position. Of course, only racists question Obama.
Lets get back to the progressive era that Hillary referred to. This was the formative period of progressivism. All over the world the writings of Karl Marx and others were being widely read and debated. He had two books of note, Das Kapital and his Communist Manifesto. The first was an economic analysis, the second was his proposal for a government based on his economic principles. When we use the term Marxist we are referring to his economic philosophy only. What is not well understood by many is just how pervasive his ideas became. Universities in Europe and here were teaching his ideas, popular authors like Upton Sinclair wrote novels promoting socialism, socialist political parties were very strong in Europe and had considerable following in the US too.
As one would expect, many who were swayed by his opinions were not in full agreement, and numerous variations of interpretation led to the development of similar philosophies. Progressivism is one of these. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as an early progressive.
Woodrow Wilson's thoughts on the limitations of "democratic" government.
Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.
... 'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208
If you are thinking, "we are a republic, not a democracy", Wilson was referring to America as a democracy.
Several years later John Dewey, an influential progressive philosopher and prolific writer discussed the evolution of liberal thought. Dewey preferred the term "liberal" over "progressive", but the term "liberal" has meant different things at different times. The liberals of the 1700s were proponents of "individual liberty", whereas the "new" liberals (late 1800s to present) were for liberty from concern. Here he is referring to the old liberals like the founders of our Constitution.
The point is that their failure to grasp the historic position of the interpretation of liberty they put forth served later to solidify a social regime that was a chief obstacle to attainment of the ends they professed. ...they had no glimpse of the fact that private control of the new forces of production, forces which affect the life of every one, would operate in the same way as private unchecked control of political liberty. But they failed to perceive that social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.
Then came F.D.R.'s Second Bill of Rights:
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Socialism and even Communism had no particular stigma until after WW II and the start of the Cold War. Prior to that the various liberal factions spoke freely about their political objectives. The Cold War and McCarthyism changed all that. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is more oppenness and aggressiveness.
The liberal position is entirely emotional and based on a desire for a better society. The fact that it has never really worked is not a deterrent. Woodrow Wilson commented on that too:
The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever.
Chardo: [i]Yes I will impose my beliefs on others if I think that it will make for a better world, but that is not religion!It's politics.[i][/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your comment was a most informative one. I am not a student of political thought, though I have studied political science, taught, of course by a herd of socialists at university. Being taught by socialists does not equate to being educated. Those who are naive become brainwashed. Those who already practice a conservative philosophy become merely wary of all words coming from professors' mouths. I happened to argue a lot with mine. To their only credit, they still gave me decent grades. I learned a lot from your comment here.
One comment re Hillary's comment: she talks as though someone willy-nilly simply changed the meaning of the word, liberal. Such is not the case at all. What changed was the behavior and changing attitudes of the people within the liberal community. THEY changed the meaning of the word only through their evolution of political thought. Hillary "sounds" intelligent enough, and in some areas she may be, but when it comes to good common sense, I don't think she's much smarter than the average socialist.
I am trying to remove useless labels from my vocabulary. I now divide actors in politics into only 2 separate categories, and I vote for or against them based on ONLY these two "values".
Those categories are:
controllers
vs
individual freedoms
My rationale is: anyone who wants to control other people cannot champion individual freedom. Anyone who believes in individual freedom cannot possibly be a controller. No one who believes in individual freedom can possibly beg for big government, and the opposite is true. I will never knowingly vote for a controller, even if he may have a view or two that I might like. And if an individual freedom candidate might disagree with me on some other issue. Individual freedom is my clarion call. I wish it were everyone's.
Thanks for your great comments!
Chardo wouldn't go around his neighborhood demanding that his neighbors contribute to his health insurance, Social Security, etc. But he would vote for someone to go to Washington to do that for him. You see a moral equivalence there that completely escapes him. There is a difference in world view that makes mutual understanding almost impossible.
Chardo's world view is called "liberal" by some and "progressive" by others. I have a paper on the development of progressivism at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/, but its too long for most people. Here are some high points.
During a 2007 presidential debate Hillary was asked: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word liberal? And would you use this word to describe yourself?
Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century."
President Obama has never been that forthcoming, but he did at one time say that he is a "pragmatic progressive". It seems like a strange thing for a president to say. In this context the word "pragmatic" does not apply to policy formation, it refers to a technique in philosophy for evaluating the truth of statements. But I digress.
Chardo has stated that he is an "Obama Progressive". He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that he would never question an Obama position. Of course, only racists question Obama.
Lets get back to the progressive era that Hillary referred to. This was the formative period of progressivism. All over the world the writings of Karl Marx and others were being widely read and debated. He had two books of note, Das Kapital and his Communist Manifesto. The first was an economic analysis, the second was his proposal for a government based on his economic principles. When we use the term Marxist we are referring to his economic philosophy only. What is not well understood by many is just how pervasive his ideas became. Universities in Europe and here were teaching his ideas, popular authors like Upton Sinclair wrote novels promoting socialism, socialist political parties were very strong in Europe and had considerable following in the US too.
As one would expect, many who were swayed by his opinions were not in full agreement, and numerous variations of interpretation led to the development of similar philosophies. Progressivism is one of these. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as an early progressive.
Woodrow Wilson's thoughts on the limitations of "democratic" government.
Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.
... 'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208
If you are thinking, "we are a republic, not a democracy", Wilson was referring to America as a democracy.
Several years later John Dewey, an influential progressive philosopher and prolific writer discussed the evolution of liberal thought. Dewey preferred the term "liberal" over "progressive", but the term "liberal" has meant different things at different times. The liberals of the 1700s were proponents of "individual liberty", whereas the "new" liberals (late 1800s to present) were for liberty from concern. Here he is referring to the old liberals like the founders of our Constitution.
The point is that their failure to grasp the historic position of the interpretation of liberty they put forth served later to solidify a social regime that was a chief obstacle to attainment of the ends they professed. ...they had no glimpse of the fact that private control of the new forces of production, forces which affect the life of every one, would operate in the same way as private unchecked control of political liberty. But they failed to perceive that social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.
Then came F.D.R.'s Second Bill of Rights:
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Socialism and even Communism had no particular stigma until after WW II and the start of the Cold War. Prior to that the various liberal factions spoke freely about their political objectives. The Cold War and McCarthyism changed all that. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is more oppenness and aggressiveness.
The liberal position is entirely emotional and based on a desire for a better society. The fact that it has never really worked is not a deterrent. Woodrow Wilson commented on that too:
The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever.
Chardo: [i]Yes I will impose my beliefs on others if I think that it will make for a better world, but that is not religion!It's politics.[i][/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your comment was a most informative one. I am not a student of political thought, though I have studied political science, taught, of course by a herd of socialists at university. Being taught by socialists does not equate to being educated. Those who are naive become brainwashed. Those who already practice a conservative philosophy become merely wary of all words coming from professors' mouths. I happened to argue a lot with mine. To their only credit, they still gave me decent grades. I learned a lot from your comment here.
One comment re Hillary's comment: she talks as though someone willy-nilly simply changed the meaning of the word, liberal. Such is not the case at all. What changed was the behavior and changing attitudes of the people within the liberal community. THEY changed the meaning of the word only through their evolution of political thought. Hillary "sounds" intelligent enough, and in some areas she may be, but when it comes to good common sense, I don't think she's much smarter than the average socialist.
I am trying to remove useless labels from my vocabulary. I now divide actors in politics into only 2 separate categories, and I vote for or against them based on ONLY these two "values".
Those categories are:
controllers
vs
individual freedoms
My rationale is: anyone who wants to control other people cannot champion individual freedom. Anyone who believes in individual freedom cannot possibly be a controller. No one who believes in individual freedom can possibly beg for big government, and the opposite is true. I will never knowingly vote for a controller, even if he may have a view or two that I might like. And if an individual freedom candidate might disagree with me on some other issue. Individual freedom is my clarion call. I wish it were everyone's.
Thanks for your great comments!
Apr 26, 2013 19:20:25 #
Apr 28, 2013 15:01:44 #
TheChardo wrote:
Well, I answered honestly and you didn't like any ... (show quote)
Define "stealing" and try to get it right this time. Stealing is a wrongful taking of something one owns, and without their consent.
When people steal, they are arrested and prosecuted and go to jail.
When government steals, while calling it taxation, it's quite okay, huh? Government is not arrested for stealing, nor prosecuted, nor goes to jail. Tasine was telling you simple truth, but obviously that's "extreme" and therefor she is a "lunatic"?
You neither see nor care that "gun control" is forbidden by the 2nd Amendment, and call that "modest"? Is that because you wrote that with your panties on?
Then you go on to claim that real people cannot build roads; or self defend; or hire security, or fight fires. Only government can do that? And who do you suppose conducts these matters? PEOPLE, private people, who join with others to accomplish and any all tasks you might imagine.
I see you with a serious or even fatal comprehension problem, and dangerous to Liberty and Free Choice to the nth degree.
Apr 28, 2013 15:20:45 #
Striker wrote:
Define "stealing" and try to get it righ... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I wondered where in the world Chardo spends his days. He is bound to understand that roads can be built without government. Fires can be fought without government. Bridges can be built without government. Laws can be enforced without government. Food can be grown without government. Hospitals can be built and operated without government. Schools can actually teach, especially when there is no government interference. Churches can flourish without government. The economy would flourish and companies would return to America were there no government. EVERYTHING WOULD BE BETTER WERE THERE NO GOVERNMENT.
Apr 28, 2013 15:27:27 #
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~ br Yes, I wondered where in the world ... (show quote)
Wow far out, you must be a John Lennon fan " .....nothing to kill or dies for......" So like NO government at all!!??
Apr 28, 2013 15:31:25 #
Striker wrote:
You neither see nor care that "gun control" is forbidden by the 2nd Amendment, and call that "modest"? Is that because you wrote that with your panties on?
You neither see nor care that "gun control" is forbidden by the 2nd Amendment, and call that "modest"? Is that because you wrote that with your panties on?
And what court case decided that? Seems to me that there is an ongoing debate. Even Justice Scalia, the most conservative justice said that all rights have limits. https://webtop.webmail.optimum.net/mail/
So are you guys like, sovereign citizens or something like that. maybe the Posse Comitatus? Wow, never met one before
Apr 28, 2013 20:08:44 #
Lasher
Loc: Georgia
TheChardo wrote:
I would say that you people were brain washed , but you have to have a brain for that. YES I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD SAVE LIVES! It's common sense, but you don't have much of that either. What the hell is wrong with you people! Even if there is uncertainty about the positive effect...what negative effect....except dinging the profits of the gun makers and dealers can there be? The chance that it would save even one life is worth it.!
Most lives taken by thugs with guns are in the gang-banger category which is no great loss to humanity. Many lives of decent, law-abiding people have been saved by their guns doing away with the street-trash who attempt to rob, rape, maim, kill and otherwise take advantage of them, including home invasions of good people who protect themselves with guns. It is not a right given by the government, but a God-given right for a person to protect himself and his family in the most efficient way possible. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Also the courts have ruled the police are not responsible for our protection. Be safe, get a gun.
Apr 28, 2013 20:12:35 #
Lasher
Loc: Georgia
TheChardo wrote:
Wow far out, you must be a John Lennon fan " .....nothing to kill or dies for......" So like NO government at all!!??
No oppressive, overreaching, overtaxing, overspending government; just one that assures our basic Constitutional rights and protects us from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Apr 28, 2013 20:15:33 #
Lasher wrote:
Most lives taken by thugs with guns are in the gan... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well said. I cannot believe that everyone cannot see exactly what you are saying is true!
:thumbup:
Apr 28, 2013 20:25:18 #
Lasher
Loc: Georgia
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ br My rationale is: anyone w... (show quote)
What do you think of the people who control our money? I refer to the Federal Reserve System which as you must know is not Federal at all, but a privately owned criminal enterprise run by Zionist Jews who print our money like newspaper and then lend it to us (the American taxpayers) at usurious interest rates. These people also own and control the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and virtually every bank in America. Google "The Creature From Jekyll Island."
Apr 28, 2013 20:39:55 #
Lasher wrote:
What do you think of the people who control our money? I refer to the Federal Reserve System which as you must know is not Federal at all, but a privately owned criminal enterprise run by Zionist Jews who print our money like newspaper and then lend it to us (the American taxpayers) at usurious interest rates. These people also own and control the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and virtually every bank in America. Google "The Creature From Jekyll Island."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do I think of them? I think they have greater brains than anyone in our government, but I don't see them as the enemy. I see the enemy as our own government who handed our money over to the Federal Reserve without a moment's thought as to what they were doing to America. I think the Federal Reserve is the sorriest excuse for control of our money - BUT it is superior to the US Congress who cannot, will not control itself and it's ridiculous spending. If the Federal Reserve had been offered to ME, I'd have taken it, wouldn't you?
We MUST wrest our money from the creatures who gave and spent it away. I'm not sure how one can render the Federal Reserve powerless, but I hope someone knows and shared the news with the rest of us.
We need a total do-over. We need to fire Congress and the President, we need to toss all the laws that are unconstitutional, about half of them I would guess. We need to gut the Federal Reserve. We need to de-fund all our enemies, foreign and domestic. We need to start our re-building on the Bill of Rights, tossing all the oppressive issues within the Constitution, and changing some of the powers that are enumerated for the federal government. As long as we leave those things alone that have lead to this fiasco, caused by politicians that copycat toddlers' behaviors. I never thought I could live long enough to develop so much animosity for my government - but of course, THIS isn't MY government. It is the government of our usurpers from both sides of the aisle. REPRESENTATION? I hope you know that I am LAUGHING. I've never had representation, and have even less now, and tomorrow I will have even less if that is possible.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.