The "fox news kool aid",,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nov 2, 2013 19:56:33 #
I am just curious, since myself and all other republicans/conservatives have been repeatedly accused of drinking the Fox News KOOL AID over Obamacare. Now that the main stream media is starting to report the same thing as they do (the truth), that would by default mean that the liberals were the ones actually drinking the Kool Aid right?
Or is it just me?
Or is it just me?
Nov 2, 2013 20:55:35 #
Nov 2, 2013 21:32:04 #
It must be you! Liberals would never admit that our forefathers were right-wingers! :-D :-D
Nov 2, 2013 21:45:51 #
kegler299 wrote:
It must be you! Liberals would never admit that our forefathers were right-wingers! :-D :-D
Hmmm, our forefathers were not right wingers. By definition they were all liberals since they wished to liberate us from the tyrannical rule of England. That said, the liberalism of our forefathers was very different from what we call liberals today who are social liberals. There was no right wing left wing back then. Just FYI.
Nov 2, 2013 22:14:40 #
lone_ghost wrote:
Hmmm, our forefathers were not right wingers. By definition they were all liberals since they wished to liberate us from the tyrannical rule of England. That said, the liberalism of our forefathers was very different from what we call liberals today who are social liberals. There was no right wing left wing back then. Just FYI.
Back then, there were disagreements between very intelligent men of differing political philosophies about how to build a country. Although their plans were different, they all wanted a country in which free men were in total control of a very limited federal government. Most, but not all of them, wanted the states to have complete and superior power over the federal government.
There were open debates, letters were written explaining their beliefs, newspaper articles and pamphlets were available to the public that explained those different opinions for months, or years. The constitution was not some document thrown together quickly by a ghost writer from some corporation, and passed without debate in the dead of night, like Obamacare.
Nov 2, 2013 23:03:31 #
Nov 2, 2013 23:43:25 #
lone_ghost wrote:
Hmmm, our forefathers were not right wingers. By definition they were all liberals since they wished to liberate us from the tyrannical rule of England. That said, the liberalism of our forefathers was very different from what we call liberals today who are social liberals. There was no right wing left wing back then. Just FYI.
I believe you are conflating liberal with liberationists. They wanted minimum government that worked for the people not just liberation. Their actions and attitudes would today be right-wing.
Nov 2, 2013 23:50:51 #
lone_ghost wrote:
I am just curious, since myself and all other republicans/conservatives have been repeatedly accused of drinking the Fox News KOOL AID over Obamacare. Now that the main stream media is starting to report the same thing as they do (the truth), that would by default mean that the liberals were the ones actually drinking the Kool Aid right?
Or is it just me?
Or is it just me?
Fox News is not news; it is entertainment, meaning Hannity, O'Reilly and such. Like limbugh, what excites is alone relevant. Get the base riled up. Spin it to turn their heads and hearts against Obama and for nothing but against Obama. No ideals and values, no principles and goals, just as Mitch McConnell said, the purpose is to make Obama a one term president. OOOOPPPPsss
Nov 2, 2013 23:58:30 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
lone_ghost wrote:
Hmmm, our forefathers were not right wingers. By definition they were all liberals since they wished to liberate us from the tyrannical rule of England. That said, the liberalism of our forefathers was very different from what we call liberals today who are social liberals. There was no right wing left wing back then. Just FYI.
I have said much the same thing that "One should not try to look at politics from the past as being the same as today".
Nov 3, 2013 00:04:37 #
kegler299 wrote:
I believe you are conflating liberal with liberationists. They wanted minimum government that worked for the people not just liberation. Their actions and attitudes would today be right-wing.
is there something about then and now that you are failing to understand? Pretty much the entire concept, context, and meaning.
Nov 3, 2013 00:10:32 #
lone_ghost wrote:
is there something about then and now that you are failing to understand? Pretty much the entire concept, context, and meaning.
Ow. Truly tired of people trying to make the opinion shows on MSNBC and Fox news news. Neither is "fair and balanced." Who more often approximates the truth? Why bother and how can we know? Our conscience needs to become the sole guide. Is Obamacare right or wrong weighed by all principles of life? And we need to be ready to be undone by the answers we get.
Nov 3, 2013 00:21:43 #
Very nicely wrote. Do you all remember in Obama's first term how the Republicans complained that Obama and his Top Democrates would go into the meeting room, disallowing any Republicans to enter ? That happened many times, and the Republicans were very mad about it. That is when Obama and his top people were putting together ACA. Republicans were not allowed in those meetings. They were just handed the billion page work when Obama was done with it. No one was able to read it completely through, Remember?
lone_ghost wrote:
Very well said.
Nov 3, 2013 06:06:47 #
Nov 3, 2013 08:41:23 #
kegler299 wrote:
I believe you are conflating liberal with liberationists. They wanted minimum government that worked for the people not just liberation. Their actions and attitudes would today be right-wing.
Libealism, in it's nascent form, was largely the brainchild of English philosopher John Locke, who advocated limited government, great personal freedom, and what many selectively ignore, the great personal responsibility that is it's concomitant. His writings influenced many of our founders. Curiously, his opponents, who were advocates of a stronger, more powerful central government, were then known as "conservatives." Even today, in much of Europe, "liberal" is one who advocates Locke's version, unlike in the US, where "Liberal" is synonymous with "Socialist." Over time, meanings and definitions change.
Nov 3, 2013 08:46:11 #
lone_ghost wrote:
Hmmm, our forefathers were not right wingers. By definition they were all liberals since they wished to liberate us from the tyrannical rule of England. That said, the liberalism of our forefathers was very different from what we call liberals today who are social liberals. There was no right wing left wing back then. Just FYI.
There was a faction that advocated for a stronger central government, and one that advocated against it. You could make a case that the "States Rights" advocates were the original "Statists." Was it Hamilton or Hancock who favored a stronger central government? I'm having one of my blank moments here.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.