memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Well, since you brought up Isaiah, I submit to you that the US is Babylon. Apply that into context with Isaiah, Jeremiah as well.

fmlondon

I would love to know where you get that. I will say this, most of the people called, and who call themselves, liberal are as reactionary, fascistic, calcified, inflexible, and intolerant as the right wing. A true liberal wants no part of ethnic cleansing, and considers every issue on its merits. The so-called liberals are actually worshipers at the shrine of politically-coerced censorship. Nothing gets in the way of their preconceived notions. Like the right wing, you take an issue, and feed it into a flow chart. No thinking needed. However it turns out, that is their opinion. Among their preconceived biases are:

Men=bad, women=good (except concerning Muslims, of course)

White=bad, darker skinned=good

European or European based=bad, third world=good

Rich=bad, poor=good (on a macro level)

Educated=bad, illiterate=good (except if they're White)

There is no need to analyze the specific issue, consider all relevant factors, make even a pretense at fairness. Just use the flow chart, and you will always have the right answer. No logic or reason need apply.

There is NOTHING liberal about the politically-coerced censorship movement.

fmlondon

Stupid, bigoted, aggrandized.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

*Deleted by author*

TheCracker

Funny how progressive liberals decry their perception of hatred at the top of their lungs, while they themselves promote their own so aggressively.

Is there a word which best describes them?

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Hypocrite...for one.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

To whom/what are you making that comment?

fmlondon

I do not know if you are capable of reading, and comprehending what you are reading, but those, today, who are labeled, and label themselves, as liberals are not liberals. They do, in fact, hate as much as the right wing, as I have already stated. They started by rewriting the English language without the input or permission of 99% of us. Since then, they have carved a larger and larger part of what used to be liberal thought. The larger it has become, the narrower its tolerance has become. These are NOT the liberals of the 1960s.

They are progressive in the sense that they do not want people, in the wealthiest nation on earth, to work and not be able to go to a doctor, not be able to afford their medications, send their children to college and bankrupt themselves in the process. They are progressive in that they know that the income tax was designed so that those who could afford the most would pay the most. In the early years, only the wealthy paid taxes at all. There is such a thing as responsibility, something neither the right wing nor the politically-coerced censorship crowd appreciate. And part of the responsibility, something which is also a part of both Jewish and Christian belief, is that those who are better off need to assist those who are not. You live in a nation, and receive the benefits thereof. Therefore, you should be willing to be a good citizen and pay your fair share. People who earn more in an hour than most of us earn in a lifetime need to pay a percentage of that to the government which has provided them with the opportunity to make so much money.

The right wing is irresponsible because of the hypocrisy of wanting to let people starve, who have no objection to all kinds of tax breaks for those who do not need them (and many of whom are on record as agreeing with this assessment). You have no concept of corporate welfare, while decrying personal welfare. A perfect example is Texas. You are the most extreme anti national government state on the planet. Yet, you do not pay the most taxes of any state. However, you do receive more of your taxes back from the government than any other state, by quite a large amount as a matter of fact. You do not scream at this disequity, but you howl at raising the minimum wage, giving tax breaks to those who need it, providing health care (something every single civilized nation on earth does, except for the US) to everyone, etc. That is selfish, greedy, and irresponsible. It is also unChristian and unJewish.

Another great example is 'tort reform.' Stop the big awards on civil cases. However, again, this is misplaced. When a company manufactures a product, they build in a certain amount of failure. For example, a car manufacturer will note that a certain amount of people will be injured and killed as a result of their saving money in one location or another. They understand this before they place their products on the market. If all they have to worry about is compensating those who sue for what they have lost monetarily, why would they ever care about making their products safer? 4% fatalities (hypothetical figure). Perhaps 2-3% sue. And all they have to do is pay out the losses. Punitive damages are designed to make the cost of each suit so high, the manufacturers will make their products safer to avoid the suits. 'Tort reform' merely takes, to an even greater degree, access to the courts away from most people.

Progressives believe that if we must have a government (something which all of us would prefer not to if possible), its primary purpose is to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. So, the terrorists must be killed by the government, and predatory businesses need to be controlled. Just think, wouldn't it be nice to go to McDonalds and not have excrement in ones hamburger? Only government regulation can ensure this. Just as only government regulation could have saved the savings&loan industry. Businesses exist to make a profit. If they have any ethics it is because they are forced to. Economic disasters such as 1987 and 2008 prove this.

Politically-coerced censorship adherents (whom you erroneously call liberals) are irresponsible in that they want to allow every illegal immigrant to be given every right and benefit of a citizen, AND insist that their ignorance must be pandered to. Rather than insisting such people take responsibility and learn English, they insist the rest of us need to learn to speak their language. They waste scarce resources printing every single government document in their language, and paying people extra to communicate in their language. This is enabling and irresponsible, just as it is irresponsible of anyone to expect to move from any country to any other country and not learn to speak the language. There is nothing progressive about this behavior.

These people are not liberals. They tend to be progressive with regards to issues regarding citizens having rights and protections. However, there is nothing progressive about crippling the security branches of the government, prohibiting them from going after terrorists in the name of politically-coerced censorship. If you are speaking of such people, you are right, they are full of hate, venality; and are not liberal or progressive.

Those of us who are true liberals believe in hearing everyone out, making government open so we can see what it is doing, protecting the rights of those who are oppressed, either by business or government. And, liberals believe in freedom of expression. We also believe in religious freedom, not establishing either Islam or Christianity as a state religion. Patrick Henry disagreed, but most of the founding fathers did agree, which is why they wrote the bill of rights. The purpose was to protect all citizens of the country, not limit this protection to every conceivable degree. This protection includes the right to bear arms, the right to freely practice their religion (whatever it might be), and the freedom to not be crushed by the government. They saw the federal government as the bigger risk at the time, but, subsequently, state governments have often been the perpetrators, which is why the bill of rights has been interpreted as applying to all governments, to keep one state from denying said rights. These are all liberal ideas. I am proud to be a liberal, even if I no longer have a voice in the way this country is run. This is why I believe we need a new political party. Both parties are concerned with their own intolerant agendas, and happily throw us under the bus in order to achieve these agendas.

fmlondon

White supremacism.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

fmlondon

I will not call you a moron. However, I will point out a few of the typical fascist principles by which you live and breathe. There is nothing in the constitution which had anything to do with interstate trade in the first place. That is a product of the late 19th century. There is also nothing in the constitution which makes capitalism the official state economic system. Capitalism, in moderation, is very constructive. However, in the 19th century, a period for which you obviously long, people were killed, maimed, and disenfranchised because the courts found that a human being and a large corporation are two equal parties. It is typical fascist nonsense that business may run rampant over people because a corporation, with trillions of dollars, has more power and leverage than any one human being. Regarding them as equal is sophistry. There is nothing in the constitution which regards a corporation as having the same rights as a human being. That piece of dissembling belongs to the evil right wing.

You are right that the censorship of today is coming from the politically-coerced censorship crowd. The right wing is quiet about this for the moment. Traditionally, however, it is the right wing which has banned books, magazines, films, and anything else of which they did not approve.

As for social services originating from conservatives, I have to ask you whether you are using LSD or mushrooms. Almost all social service legislation dates from the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, who proudly called himself a liberal, and subsequent times. Where you come up with such total nonsense is beyond me, except that ideological fascists do not have to use logic, might makes right. Use a gun rather than your mind, much easier, much quicker.

As for a believer, you are wrong, I am one. And you are dead wrong on this one. Judaism teaches that everything on earth belongs to G-d. He allows us to use it, but insists that we give generously. He also forbids the destruction of his earth. So, drilling in the arctic, burning coal to hasten global warming, these are all things which are anathema to him. In Israel, it is the law that the first 10% of every crop goes to the poor. As for Christianity, other than the self-serving greedy variety to which you subscribe, Christianity calls for people to look after one another. I believe it was JC who said something about a camel going through an eye of a needle as more likely than a rich man getting into heaven. You are right, it is better for someone to want to give from within. But society does not run on what people think, it runs on what we do.

I do not know what your paranoid rambling about liberals hiding, being found out, and reinventing themselves is all about. But a liberal believes in helping people. This does not necessarily mean enabling them, but it means helping them. I believe 'let them die and decrease the surplus population' is not a liberal concept.

As for wealth being a result of opportunity, that is sometimes true. However, often it is through the manipulation of the system in any way possible, ignoring rules, and having tunnel vision about ripping people off. And, for your information, companies are on record as knowing just what risks they present. Not always, not every incident, but often enough. This has been brought out in court cases. An example of this is the tobacco companies claiming loud and strong for over a century that their products are harmless. It was also an example with the Corvair, where GM knew full well the wheels could collapse under it for no particular reason, but manufactured it that way anyway.

I stick to my story. Those who call themselves, and are called liberal today, are not liberal. I do not excuse their actions because, as far as I am concerned, they are wrong and often evil. But conservatives not getting violent? Have you never read about the Civil Rights movement? How many dogs were sicked on peaceful demonstrators? How many sheriffs busted how many heads? Blacks who wanted to integrate southern universities were protected by the national guard, for what reason? The KKK was not violent? The Aryan Brotherhood is not violent? All extremists have a tendency towards violence, because reason is not a part of their belief system. Most of the violence today is being created by those worshiping at the shrine of politically-coerced censorship, but that has nothing to do with true liberalism.

As for relying on government, it is, in theory, all the people have. A business's job is to make a profit. It is not to help people, it is not to clean up the environment, it is to make a profit. Government's job, at least ostensibly, is to act on behalf of its people. Is it perfect? Far from it. But I would rather trust the government, rather than a private entity. The beef industry, due to its practices, loads its animals up on antibiotics, because it keeps animals in such a horrific state, that they are eating their own excrement. Then, when these animals are killed, their excrement sprays everywhere, and is not cleaned off. In the old days, professionals knew how to tie off intestines, and were given the time to do it. Today, using low skilled labor and a high speed kill line, the excrement is everywhere, and it goes right into the ground beef, from whence we get e-coli. The reason we get e-coli from vegetables, is that this same toxic excrement is used as fertilizer, and rain carries it away onto the plants. None of this happened when we had meat regulations. But evil minded fascists want government to stay out. Government is the ONLY entity which can stop this. Do I like government? No. But I trust it more than I trust the beef industry.

You cannot legislate bad behavior out of existence. However, you can regulate it enough to make it unprofitable for business to abuse its customers.

And while we are on the topic of enterprise, those who run big corporations often have little or no stock in that corporation. They are not even guided by the good of the companies which employ them, they are guided by their own interests, and those have little to do with the consumer or the company. This is why there are no more savings&loans, why Pan Am and TWA are gone, and why the economy has been in a depression since 2008. By the end of the cycle of each fascist there is always an economic downturn, because fascist policies do not work. And as for free enterprise earning the money, whether they do it ethically or not is one thing. But if the military and police were not there to protect them, they would not be so rich for long.

Did you know that, for the past 80 years at least, the stock market has performed much better under Democratic administrations? That is a fact, look it up. Policies of deregulation are bad all the way around. This is not to say that all regulation is good, or that there is not too much red tape. I know this for a fact. The answer then is to reform the system, not ditch it in favor of greed uber alles. The fact is, if you leave business to its own devices, a few will get extremely wealthy, and the economy will tank.

Taxes have been a part of mankind since the beginning of time. No one likes them. But they are necessary. It is inexcusable for the poor to pay 28% in taxes while the billionaires pay 15% or less. That is indefensible, and only a hard core fascist would even try. And there is nothing in the constitution which ties tax rates to freedom. To create policy on the basis that the rich do not have to pay taxes is immoral.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

[quote=fmlondon]I will not call you a moron. Wouldn't make it true if you did. Besides, I didn't call you one either. I merely stated that I was beginning to think you are one from your response. I've yet to see anything to change that growing opinion. However, I will point out a few of the typical fascist principles by which you live and breathe. I'm not fascist, nor do I live by fascist principles. The burden of proof otherwise is on you, and you have failed in that regard. There is nothing in the constitution which had anything to do with interstate trade in the first place. Liar, liar, pants on fire! Article 1 Section 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. That is a product of the late 19th century. Again a lie. There is also nothing in the constitution which makes capitalism the official state economic system. Again you speak in ignorance. There are only two principle types of economy, Statism and Capitalism. For reference, here is their definitions.

Statism : the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

Capitalism : an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

When you compare these two definitions, and then READ the Constitution, particularly Article 1 Section 8 and 9, it is transparently obvious that the forefathers preferred a system of private ownership, which would explain the absolute void of any reference to state ownership of anything not directly related to the functioning of government. They didn't have the term "capitalism" at the time. It didn't appear for about a hundred years, in the late 19th century. As such, there were originally no laws regulating the economy other than English Common Law. As our country grew and our economic system matured, legislators have had to respond to changes in order to preserve the integrity of our economy. That is why we had to pass anti-monopoly laws and such. The need arose to preserve the best of the economy. However, no law is perfect, and over time our laws have moved us closer and closer to a statist economy. The most recent and worst offending law is the bailout of the banks in late 2008. When the government essentially takes over control of an industry, you no longer have a free economy.

Capitalism, in moderation, is very constructive. Regulated capitalism is a good thing. Regulation is synonymous in this case with moderated. Every system of capitalism is regulated. If there are no outside regulations (read government) then the economy will self regulate, which means that it will do as it sees fit. It's always in control,. The question is under whose control? However, in the 19th century, a period for which you obviously long, FALLACY! You love to use Straw man arguments don't you? You often make such claims about me without one shred of evidence. Often, you make these arguments without my having said one thing about the subject. This makes you a liar. people were killed, maimed, and disenfranchised because the courts found that a human being and a large corporation are two equal parties. As with everything, court opinion evolves over time. You can't blame the system, only the individuals involved for their personal actions. It is typical fascist nonsense that business may run rampant over people because a corporation, Stop it! You clearly have no concept of the word fascist. You bandy it about willy-nilly as though it is some sacred incantation, as though by using the term you may summon it's power. Such thinking comes from a delusional mind. with trillions of dollars, has more power and leverage than any one human being. Regarding them as equal is sophistry. The only sophistry I have witnessed here is your own. The law treats a corporation as a single individual. This is not sophistry. It is a legal decision. A corporation is not a person, but in order to make use of the powers of a corporation, it necessarily must be treated as an individual. Otherwise, the economy as we know it could not exist. There is no fallacy involved here. There is nothing in the constitution which regards a corporation as having the same rights as a human being. There is nothing in the Constitution that doesn't regard a corporation as having the same rights as an individual. That piece of dissembling belongs to the evil right wing. Again, you resort to sophistry. "Evil Right Wing". Calling names does not make it so. But since you digress into the definition of Evil, I submit to you that there is only one author who has the moral authority to define evil, and that is God. As such, all men are evil as they do what is right in their eyes instead of doing what is right in God's eyes. God weighs all sin equally, as all sin prevents men from communing with Him. But since we people love to take measurements, then I can rightfully submit that by measure of the weight of their sins, the liberal left, particularly the left wing, and especially the progressive extremists are the most evil people on the earth. They celebrate self indulgence, and deny God. Thankfully God is not so condemning as people are, nor is He so unforgiving. Why else would he send His only begotten Son to die on our behalf were it not for His love for us? He did so for His sake so that we may have a relationship with Him by faith in His sacrifice for us for our sins, such that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. I will thank you in advance for refraining from further defining who is evil. You clearly are not qualified.

You are right that the censorship of today is coming from the politically-coerced censorship crowd. The right wing is quiet about this for the moment. Traditionally, however, it is the right wing which has banned books, magazines, films, and anything else of which they did not approve. Where is your evidence of this outlandish accusation? History has shown that it is the so-called liberals (democrats) who are the ones who tend toward censorship. My observation of them to this day supports that assertion. They seek to censor Christian constitutionally protected rights to freely exercise their religion. They change the history books to attempt to eliminate inconvenient truths about their history...going so far as to "dispense with the customary form of providing citation". I could go on.

As for social services originating from conservatives, I have to ask you whether you are using LSD or mushrooms. Almost all social service legislation dates from the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, who proudly called himself a liberal, and subsequent times. Where you come up with such total nonsense is beyond me, except that ideological fascists do not have to use logic, might makes right. Use a gun rather than your mind, much easier, much quicker. I am using historical fact...something that you seem to be incapable of. Many things were passed by Roosevelt, but most of it was repealed immediately after the War. Social Security was one of the notable survivors, and there are a few others. Why were they repealed? Because his measures were taking our country back into a recession after the war. Only by abandoning the worst of his legislation were we able to prevent the recession from happening, and so you don't hear about the recession of the late '40s because it didn't happen. Yet here we are, more than 50 years later, and we are trying the same failed experiments again. Unless things change, we are going to see a worse recession than the one experienced during the great depression. This is an economic fact. You cannot defy the laws of economics without paying a price for it, and this administration seems to be incapable of understanding this fact, unless it is deliberate, in which case they are traitors.

As for a believer, you are wrong, I am one. Believer in what? I am a messianic believer of many years...almost my entire life. I know what the Bible says, and how a true believer sounds, and you do not resonate with that. In fact, you sound more like a hypocrite. You clearly lean toward liberation theology, which is an abomination. I could nitpick further, but shall resist. And you are dead wrong on this one. Judaism teaches that everything on earth belongs to G-d. You are clearly a Jew. There is nothing wrong in this. However, you are wrong about saying I am wrong. I never said anything with respect to God versus ownership of all creation. For the record, I agree that He indeed does own everything as He IS the creator. He allows us to use it, but insists that we give generously. This is where you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the nature of God. He does not insist on our giving (other than the tithe, which is His). There is much the Bible has to say on the subject of giving, I could not remotely begin to cover it here. Like I said, the Tithe is His. The tithe is for the storehouse so that there is plenty in time of need. It was also for the cohanim, so that they could faithfully attend to their duties to the Lord. This has nothing to do with giving, however. Giving goes above and beyond the tithe. The purpose of our giving is not because God commands us, but rather so that He may bless us. If we are not cheerful at heart when giving, there is no profit in it for us as God cannot bless us. So, forced giving (through taxation) provides no benefit. He also forbids the destruction of his earth. So, drilling in the arctic, burning coal to hasten global warming, these are all things which are anathema to him. Yes, God will destroy those who destroy the earth. That is certain. However, not all drilling is destroying the earth, but at this point in history, that point is moot. We have gone too far. I see the earth as a machine. If you take the oil out of an engine, it will violently seize up. I suspect that the increase of earthquakes we have been experiencing globally is the result of oil drilling. It is clear that we need to seek another path. In Israel, it is the law that the first 10% of every crop goes to the poor. This is in replacement of the tithe as there is no temple. As for Christianity, other than the self-serving greedy variety to which you subscribe You love to make false assumptions about people, don't you. You do not know me, nor do you know one iota of what I believe. I suspect you are far more avaricious than I could ever be. Just stop with the personal attacks. They just make you look like an idiot at best, a bully at worst., Christianity calls for people to look after one another. I believe it was JC You mean Jesus Christ? Don't be childish and play these silly games. Just spell His (Greek) name out. I prefer to call Him by his given (Jewish) name, Yeshua, Yeshua HaMashiach. who said something about a camel going through an eye of a needle as more likely than a rich man getting into heaven. This is because no man can serve two masters. A rich man serves his wealth, and will seldom serve God. You are right, it is better for someone to want to give from within. But society does not run on what people think, it runs on what we do. God did not give us the Law to enslave us. He gave us the Law so that we might be free from sin. Yeshua came to fulfill the prophecies of Mashiach ben Yosef, the servant king. Yeshua is the Messiah. He dwelt within Jerusalem during Pesach, just as the passover lamb dwelt within the house to be inspected for blemish. When brought by the sanhedrin before Pilot for judgement, Pilot found Him blameless. In that regard, he was found worthy to be the sin offering for the world. Read Isaiah 53. It reads just like the New Testament account of how He died for us. At any rate, while His death was important, what was more important was His resurrection that Sunday, the day of first fruits. When he returns, he will fulfill the prophecies of Mashiach ben Dovid, the warrior king, where he will rule and reign over all the earth in Jerusalem for 1000 years. But I digress. For society to force an individual to give charitably defeats the principle of freedom. It is not right that ANY man should tell another how they must use their resources.

I do not know what your paranoid rambling about liberals hiding, being found out, and reinventing themselves is all about. There was no rambling here. Ever since the progressives first revealed themselves at the turn of the last century, they were quickly rebuffed by society for their deranged philosophy. So the reinvented themselves as "liberals" and hid under that moniker. They then pursued their agenda more secretively under the democratic party. It is probably no small coincidence that they have revealed themselves as progressives once again at the dawn of this new century. Their philosophies are still just as deranged as they were over 100 years ago. You really need to study your history. But a liberal believes in helping people. No, a liberal believes in others helping people. Some true believers practice what they preach, but most do not. This is similar to the statement that liberals are for a greener environment. But how can a rational person believe this when your chief representative, Al Gore, lives in a large house consuming well in excess of 10 times the resources of an ordinary household? In the eyes of the world, liberals are natural born hypocrites. This does not necessarily mean enabling them, but it means helping them. Every policy ever adapted for the poor has had the reverse effect of what was intended. It tends to force them to continue living in poverty and gives them little to no incentive to improve themselves to get out of poverty on their own. That's why you have people saying that they "Want their Obama money" or "their Obama phone". It breeds dependence on the government, not freedom from it. That is why it is bad. I believe 'let them die and decrease the surplus population' is not a liberal concept. Actually, "let them die" is very much a progressive concept. In fact, if you read the history of the founders of Planned Parenthood, who were avowed believers in eugenics, you would know that their intended goal was the genocide of "inferior" races, particularly blacks. That is one of the reasons that Planned Parenthood is an ardent supporter of abortion. The goal of all progressives is anti-human. Their intent is to reduce the world population to a much more "manageable" size, say 500 million. But once again, you do not know your history.

As for wealth being a result of opportunity, that is sometimes true. However, often it is through the manipulation of the system in any way possible, ignoring rules, and having tunnel vision about ripping people off. You mean like our politicians are doing? Make no bones about it, both sides of the isle do it. They are also the ones who are directly responsible for creating the economic environment that supports all the corruption we see in the economy. And yes, capitalists (and politicians) profit from it. And, for your information, companies are on record as knowing just what risks they present. Yes, I already said this. It's called risk assessment. Not always, not every incident, but often enough. This has been brought out in court cases. An example of this is the tobacco companies claiming loud and strong for over a century that their products are harmless. Yes, but this was an example of an entire industry LYING about the risk of their product. That's what the problem was. It was also an example with the Corvair, where GM knew full well the wheels could collapse under it for no particular reason, but manufactured it that way anyway. Again, this was an example of a company selling a product with an egregious flaw knowingly. This is another moral failure.

I stick to my story. Those who call themselves, and are called liberal today, are not liberal. Agreed. I do not excuse their actions because, as far as I am concerned, they are wrong and often evil. Agreed. But conservatives not getting violent? Have you never read about the Civil Rights movement? Yes I have. How many dogs were sicked on peaceful demonstrators? I have no way of knowing without research on that specific question. How many sheriffs busted how many heads? Again, needs research. Do you know? Blacks who wanted to integrate southern universities were protected by the national guard, for what reason? The KKK was not violent? Ah! Something I can respond to. You mistakenly point to the KKK as conservative. This couldn't be further from the truth. It is a myth perpetuated by left wing extremists to hide the truth. They were mostly southern democrats. Again, you really need to read your history. Stop listening to "liberal blogs, and actually dive into the books of the day. Don't read the "sanitized" history books. Go to the original sources. You will find that the world is far different from the one you believe you are living in. The Aryan Brotherhood is not violent? I have no idea what political ideology that they follow, but it clearly isn't conservative. Once again, this is an example of a false correlation. Just saying they are conservative doesn't make it so. All extremists have a tendency towards violence, because reason is not a part of their belief system. Agreed, though you have to use a consistent definition for extremism. Merely hold to a tenet as true doesn't make one an extremist. Their actions do. Most of the violence today is being created by those worshiping at the shrine of politically-coerced censorship, but that has nothing to do with true liberalism. Again, I agree that liberals (as presently defined) are the source of most extremism.

As for relying on government, it is, in theory, all the people have. A business's job is to make a profit. It is not to help people, [color=red]That is because that is what the courts say is a business's responsibility.[color] it is not to clean up the environment, it is to make a profit. Government's job, at least ostensibly, is to act on behalf of its people. You are partially correct. The government's responsibility is to see to the common interests of the people, not special interests. It is to assure fair play in the market. It is to assure our national defense. It is not to assist the poor. That is a special interest. It is not a common need. Unless the government gave the same benefit to everyone across the board, then it cannot be a common interest. Is it perfect? Far from it. But I would rather trust the government, rather than a private entity. If you trust the government, then you have already made yourself its slave. Just look at what is going on today. The IRS is politically targeting groups. The Justice department is forcibly obtaining phone records from journalists without cause or warrant. In short, the government is behaving exactly like the tyranny that our forefathers created the second amendment to deal with. You seriously want to trust that?! God help you! The beef industry, due to its practices, loads its animals up on antibiotics, because it keeps animals in such a horrific state, that they are eating their own excrement. Then, when these animals are killed, their excrement sprays everywhere, and is not cleaned off. In the old days, professionals knew how to tie off intestines, and were given the time to do it. Today, using low skilled labor and a high speed kill line, the excrement is everywhere, and it goes right into the ground beef, from whence we get e-coli. No argument from me. But this has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals. The reason we get e-coli from vegetables, is that this same toxic excrement is used as fertilizer, and rain carries it away onto the plants. None of this happened when we had meat regulations. Again, no argument. But evil minded fascists want government to stay out. There's that word again. Stop using it. Here's the definition for fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. That sounds a whole lot more like liberals than conservatives, but then you'd know that if you actually read the definition of the words you use instead of blindly following some progressive script. Government is the ONLY entity which can stop this. Do I like government? No. But I trust it more than I trust the beef industry. Government is currently our problem, not the solution. The problem is corruption within our government that allows such travesties to happen. But more government will only bring about more of these travesties, or worse.

You cannot legislate bad behavior out of existence. However, you can regulate it enough to make it unprofitable for business to abuse its customers. Agreed, but the trick of it is to regulate enough without squelching freedom.

And while we are on the topic of enterprise, those who run big corporations often have little or no stock in that corporation. They are not even guided by the good of the companies which employ them, they are guided by their own interests, and those have little to do with the consumer or the company. This is why there are no more savings&loans, why Pan Am and TWA are gone, and why the economy has been in a depression since 2008. By the end of the cycle of each fascist there is always an economic downturn, because fascist policies do not work. And as for free enterprise earning the money, whether they do it ethically or not is one thing. But if the military and police were not there to protect them, they would not be so rich for long. Evil people do evil. That should come as no surprise. Most people are only motivated by self interest. It is a rare person who is not, and most of the ones I know are all Christians who actually put into practice the teachings of Yeshua.

Did you know that, for the past 80 years at least, the stock market has performed much better under Democratic administrations? That is a fact, look it up. Policies of deregulation are bad all the way around. This is not to say that all regulation is good, or that there is not too much red tape. I know this for a fact. The answer then is to reform the system, not ditch it in favor of greed uber alles. The fact is, if you leave business to its own devices, a few will get extremely wealthy, and the economy will tank. I would have to research your performance claim. I can point out many cases where it is wrong, but I would prefer substantiating evidence to go along with it. The problem isn't deregulation, nor is it regulation. It is unenlightened regulation/deregulation that is the problem. Too many regulations are created without consideration of the consequences. The same is true with deregulation. That is why we get into trouble. It is also why I believe our existing government is unsalvageable. There are too many overlapping and cross connecting regulations. It is a veritable Gordian knot. The only solution is to cut it off, and start over.

Taxes have been a part of mankind since the beginning of time. No one likes them. But they are necessary. It is inexcusable for the poor to pay 28% in taxes while the billionaires pay 15% or less. That is indefensible, and only a hard core fascist would even try. And there is nothing in the constitution which ties tax rates to freedom. To create policy on the basis that the rich do not have to pay taxes is immoral. You demonstrate yet again your ignorance. You obviously don't understand tax code. The poor pay 28% taxes on their EARNED INCOME. That is the income from their labor. IF a rich man were to work, then he'd pay a substantially higher tax rate on his EARNED INCOME...closer to 50%. The 15% you are quoting is NOT from EARNED INCOME. It is from INVESTMENT INCOME. If the poor man were to play the market by investing his money, then his increases would also be taxed at 15%. However, he is poor, and unlikely to take such a risk.[/quote]

You seem like an intelligent enough person, but you are clearly ignorant of relevant facts. I recommend you go study up so that you can approach this from a position of information instead of ignorance.

fmlondon

Actually, Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th century.

Your ignorance is showing. There are more than two forms of economic theory. And variations within each theory. Communism is a form of socialism, but socialism is not necessarily communism.

What we have in the US, and have had for 80 years, is a hybrid. It is essentially communism but with an element of state control. Pure capitalist theory never envisioned huge powerful businesses which could form monopolies or oligopolies, and be more powerful than many states on earth. These businesses have abused the system to such an extent, that regulation has been necessary, and the first regulations actually date back to the late 19th century, as you pointed out. laissez faire is allowing businesses to run rampant. Laws needed to be passed, and still need to be passed, to reign in unbridled capitalism.

You cannot regulate bad behavior (by the way, how's the war on drugs working for you?), but you need to try. Just because people murder other people is no reason to make murder legal. Having it illegal does not stop it, but it minimizes it. The same is true for business regulation. When business regulations were in effect in the beef industry, people could eat at restaurants without fear of getting very sick, and possibly dying, from eating the food. De-regulation has permitted the abuses to grow. Can you make all food absolutely safe? Of course not. However, that does not mean you do not try.

For years, since the lesson of the first great depression, banks and savings&loans were regulated as to how much risk they were permitted to take. As a result, from the 1930s until the 1970s, the banking industry was solid and safe, and the FDIC/FSLIC did not have a lot to do. However, deregulating these industries permitted those in charge to treat them like legal gambling casinos. Does any banking come with risk? Of course. But that does not mean that you become the norm rather than the exception. Thanks to deregulation in the 1980s, people do not even know what savings&loans were. These are evils which individuals cannot monitor. The only entity with the power and resources to do so is the government, for good bad or indifferent. That does not mean all regulation or government involvement is good. I happen to agree with you about the bailout, and did at the time. In fact, I will go a step further. Thanks to the courts, GM was permitted to continue as a going concern, while its owners were disenfranchised. Many of these owners tried for decades to bring about reforms in company practice. However, the way corporations are usually run, only those with huge interests, such as mutual funds, can effectively make changes. So, when GM was permitted to continue, the directors who created the mess kept their private jets, obscene compensation, and their golden parachutes, while the owners, who theoretically should be making the decisions, were victims of a taking.

Do I bandy about fascism? Do I really? You and your tea party adherents do NOT want small government. You want government as big as, if not bigger than, it is currently. You do wish to change it goals, however. Instead of assisting those in need, you would outlaw abortion, birth control, bring private religion into the public sphere. You would outlaw science if it conflicts with your beliefs. You do it in the name of your beliefs. You are ENTITLED to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to make them public law. But 'social conservatism' is out and out fascism. If you had your way, we would be the United Christian States Of America, essentially making all who disagree with you second class citizens. I call that fascism. And before you go off the deep end (I know, too late) about our founding fathers, they left behind ample evidence that they did not want religion to be a part of the state. They saw the 1800 years of abuse combining church and state did to 'the old world,' and wished to save us from such abuses. They were not unanimous, as I say, Patrick Henry is undoubtedly your hero. But most of the founding fathers wanted religion kept private. They wanted all beliefs protected, and kept away from the state. Prohibition and the war on drugs are perfect examples of peoples of your ilk trying to force the rest of us to adapt your narrow and intolerant version of morality. Fascist definition of the pursuit of happiness is all of you having happiness by stopping others from enjoying their rights.

And don't even start with 'right-to-life.' That is the most cynical lie there is in the public domain. You would execute everyone accused of a capital crime (and would like to increase the crimes under this definition), whether or not they have valid legal representation, whether or not there is evidence to the contrary, indeed, you would kill in cold blood someone whose attorney missed a technical deadline. You do not even care if the accused is innocent or guilty. This is right to life? You do not want to help women who become pregnant, you do not want to provide them with prenatal care, you do not wish to assist the single mother family after the child is born. You do not care if he is educated or given any kind of chance in life. Once he is born, he is 'fair game.' And, when you want him killed, you kill him. That is the most insidious and disingenuous, and dishonest use of 'right to life' there is. What you narrow minded theocratic fascists are REALLY saying is, 'don't have fun. If you have fun, pay the consequences. You shouldn't do it. So, you and your child can just live with your mistake.' Some example of morality.

I do not accuse you of having a delusional mind. I accuse you of having a heartless, soulless, conscienceless mind.

It is NOT necessary for a corporation to be treated as an individual. There is no reason why a corporation, which huge resources, should be permitted to purchase elections. There is no reason why such a corporation should be considered the same as a human being when there is a question of rights being negated.

And as for protecting rights because of 'abandon,' I have never used drugs. I think they are hugely corrosive to society. However, if people want to use them, that should be their business, not yours. People need to be called to account for their actions to others, not themselves. If you want to say committing a burglary calls for a five year sentence, and if it was to obtain drugs, a ten year sentence, that is fine with me. If you want to say someone using drugs abuses his family, again, make the DV sentence worse. But if someone wants to curl up and abuse drugs, that is his business, so is his drinking, or smoking, or any other self-destructive action. Criminalize the criminal behavior, not the self-destructive behavior.

And I feel very comfortable calling you a fascist as long as you label those of the politically-coerced censorship crowd as liberal. There is nothing liberal about them, and you are lying every time you call them that. Perhaps you need to read the definition of liberal. I will not waste time writing it, I suspect you are capable of reading it yourself. I am a liberal, and proud of it. The politically-coerced censorship crowd are as intolerant, inflexible, and unreasonable as the right wing. I actually consider them to be an alternative right wing.

An American citizen has every right to deny G-d. I do not agree, and neither do you. But it is not a public issue, it is a private one.

As for censoring Christian statements, you are perfectly welcome to say whatever you like (at least for now). But you have NO RIGHT to force your beliefs on others. Want to pray? Go to church. Want to pray in public school, do it quietly, and leave those alone who do not agree. It is fanatics such as yourself that prove the point that church and state need to be separate.

Actually, I doubt if you really know what the bible says. You believe in a literal interpretation as if the bible was written in English. The Hebrew bible was written in Hebrew, and some of the later writings were in Aramaic. The new testament was written in Greek and Latin. The old testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin. From these sources, they were translated into English. You surely must be intelligent enough to know that things do not translate perfectly from one language to the next.

A perfect example: The sixth commandment. It is "Don't murder." It is NOT 'thou shalt not kill.' The commandment is two words, don't murder. Murder and kill are not the same. Did you know this? If you choose to take a literal interpretation of your bible as fact, that is your right. You have NO RIGHT to force the rest of us to accept it.

I do not claim that people are perfect, any people. Not liberals, not right wingers, and not worshipers of politically-coerced censorship. All rich people live very well, be they Al Gore or televangelists. That has always been the case, and always will be the case. I would not remove wealth from the world. I would, however, hold those with huge amounts of it to account for helping their brothers and sisters.

Right wingers usually have no clue what poor people are like. Can they be greedy? Yes. Can they be 'entitled?' yes. They can be many things, but they are people. I was a probation officer for many years, and held every one of my charges to their court-ordered requirements. That did not prevent me from observing their conditions, and those of their children. The right wing does not know what is out there, and does not care. For example, for capitalism to work, there must be an element of unemployed people, or wages will be too high to sustain. So, you would let these people starve because they cannot find employment? And people who are injured, and whose work capability is limited, you would allow them to starve?

I seem to recall a rally last year, by the Tea Party, in which a presidential candidate asked if someone is dying, and has no insurance, should he be allowed to die? The response was cheering. This is morality? This is depraved.

fmlondon

I meant to say we have capitalism, but with an element of state control. Sorry.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

Babylon is the love of MONEY! Despite what the sophists claim, America was indeed founded on Christian Morals.

One cannot be loyal to two masters. Christian Morality and the love of MONEY cannot co-exist.

This explains why Liberals denigrate Christ.

The LOVE of MONEY


Christian Morality is the American Way