quote:

You might learn something and then you could come to these forums and debate your ideas on their merits, rather than constantly attacking and snarking at people who don't share your views.

quote:

I think you're more discussing the evolution from the wild west financial/business climate of the late 19th century/early 20th century to the realization that some controls/regulation would be necessary, not as a matter of who's in control, but as a pragmatic compromise with free markets, from Republican Teddy Roosevelt through Johnson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

If you can't defeat the message then you attack the messenger. Grow up and debate with some integrity and quit being such an angry mindless old troll.

Don't you know any other tunes?

quote:

The lack of integrity is yours. You throw out sound bites and slogans, but you don't even understand them. When others call you on your crap, you sling shit.

quote:

For example, here's you, trying to make a rhetorical point:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism. Socialists and Communists have hijacked what was once a perfectly good ideology, and now the term 'Liberal' is so ugly and universally hated they've had to begin calling themselves Progressives.

When will they finally admit that their fairy tale fantasies are completely unworkable?

When asked, politely at that:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.

You come up with only this link to a comedian:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Modern Liberalism

quote:

And you get a reasoned response, not a personal attack:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
All that time, and you come up with a link to a talk by a comedian who explains that liberals think America deserved 9/11 so we shouldn't do anything about it, and thus they hate America--hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization.

Seriously.

More attacks. So what if the Heritage Foundation is conservative, whats your point other than more sneering condescension before slithering back under your bridge.

quote:

As I suspected, you have no idea what the word really means.

Another trollish personal attack - typical. And you wonder why you get the troll label... [8|]

quote:

Rush uses it to mean "anything not conservative," a way inaccurate use, as true liberalism would be attacked from the left as well as the right, and not for the reasons today's "conservatives" use. In fact, actual liberalism is very much like what many conservatives posting here claim:

"Liberalism--Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government...In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled...The U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Liberalism--In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice...Apart from the concern with equality of rights and amelioration, liberalism has focused on the space available in which individuals may pursue their own lives, or their own conception of the good. The immediate threat to this ‘space’ was considered to be the arbitrary will of a monarch, leading liberals to consider the proper limits of political power. They explored the relationship between legitimate power and consent, and the characteristics of the rule of law." --Political Dictionary

Here's where they split.

"In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Conservatives...overlook the dependence of market economies on the (government-enforced) rule of law and the (government-funded) provision of social services...Conservatives...following in the path of Thomas Hobbes, have tried to reduce politics to the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to property [concentrated in the hands of wealthy]." --U.S. History Encyclopedia

In short,

"American political scientist Louis Hartz [in agreement with the Oxford English Dictionary] emphasized the European origin of the word, conceptualizing a liberal as someone who believes in liberty, equality, and capitalism—in opposition to the association that American conservatives have tried to establish between liberalism and centralized government." --from Hartz's book "The liberal tradition in America." (1955)

In fact, the tradition positions are the opposite of what today's conservatives claim:

"Liberalism is attacked from the left as the ideology of free markets, with no defense against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few, and as lacking any analysis of the social and political nature of persons. It is attacked from the right as insufficiently sensitive to the value of settled institutions and customs, or to the need for social structure and constraint in providing the matrix for individual freedoms."

Ironically--it's the conservatives who support strong government and the right of individuals to use it to protect economic exploitation. The points today's conservatives raise are much more liberal.

That is, except for the neo-con leaders. Read "The Family," a book about conservative group behind the prayer breakfasts and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion policy. It's an eye opener. They are for wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy class, and military domination of the world. Yes, world--and that the world be made to convert to Christianity. A chilling read. [The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlot (2008)]

The point here, though, is that regarding the origins and meaning of liberalism and it's ideology--you're way off base (and so's your link).

quote:

And your richly ironic response?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
You're just a troll. He's a liar who can't face the truth about his and your beloved far left ideologies so you throw meaningless qualifiers into the debate and neither of you have either the brains or the honesty required to address that fact intelligently so you resort to your typical lowly personal attacks.

Please. This is beyond ridiculous.

quote:

That's all you understand. Personal attacks and names. Then you try to stick that label to others? Get serious.

But if that's what it takes....fine, here:



Enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

I think you're more discussing the evolution from the wild west financial/business climate of the late 19th century/early 20th century to the realization that some controls/regulation would be necessary, not as a matter of who's in control, but as a pragmatic compromise with free markets, from Republican Teddy Roosevelt through Johnson.

MM,
Regardless of how we evolved to get here - here is where we are.

There was plenty of compromise along the route by both polarities. It was facilitated by options. You can rationalize funding an entitlement program when revenue is increasing. You can't seem to get rid of one when that revenue is down.

Stipulating to a jaded view I'll say the the cause of Carter's one term Presidency wasn't so much that his policies, especially in the self sufficient energy areas, were wrong. I always hoped as an officer on a nuclear submarine he was uniquely qualified to usher in the transition for the US to join Europe in utilizing this source. However he didn't have the political savvy to use the compromise tools on the other side and his image, at best, is one of 'good intent' - poor result.

In Obama's case - he's run into the same fundamental issue, compounded by his strength being in theory, and his weakness being the lack of enough piratical administration experience to appreciate the difference between an academic model and the real world. At this point in time, he's still on a "this SHOULD work - damn it!" mentality; not appreciating that it isn't and trying something else.

I've covered this ground before, but the biggest problem Obama faces last January wasn't necessarily the economic conditions he faced upon taking office, but the pragmatic lack of options and available tools to use as a solution which had been there in the past.

He couldn't drop interest rates any further the cornerstone of the 'Reagan Boon' and others. Where do you go from zero?

He couldn't initiate a 'grass roots' government backed program for home ownership - that was a cornerstone cause of the effect he had to address.

He didn't have a 'new war' to start to stimulate the military manufacturing industries - he inherited two expensive ones.

He couldn't reallocate resources or funds to public works projects. On his same 'side' he would have had to anger the environmental contingent for initiates ranging from a nationwide conversion to nuclear power, to the blind salamanders displaced if high speed rail services disturbed their breeding grounds.

Oh, they were some alternative paths to try, but he would have been the first politician to stand before his constituents and expose that fact and then implement some outside the box solutions.

Iraq / Afghanistan - There wasn't enough money to continue a two front, boots on the ground, war half the world away. The solution was 'declare victory' and leave. What would have been different then as opposed to whatever 'plan' you have in mind when agreeing to this Administration's 'plan' for withdraw? Would Iran's President gotten fewer nuclear alliances? Would yet another Taliban offensive currently going on not have occurred? Would the indigenous population 'liked' us worse, or better? Would Qaddafi NOT be a member of the UN's "Human Rights" council? Would Iran not be invited to sit on the UN's 'Woman's Rights' committee? The appropriateness of apologies for the first 12 months notwithstanding - you think Obama's generated any respect for the US or affected an 'image' change?

Bush II - The worst case scenario put in place too soon after taking power to do so with all the facts in evidence; Obama bought into the "too big to fail" representation that he's now campaigning against. The 'talking heads' say he's now campaigning again against 'Bush'. At some point it will be realized that at the same time he's campaigning against himself. $800 Billion of resources could have been better used.

Health Care - Backing away once it became the boondoggle it is would have been a better path. Instead he's now associated with a program that less than 1% understand yet 63% of US voters now favor repeal and only 32% oppose repeal. Consider that his 'cornerstone' legislation generated that result and it's no wonder Obama's polling forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 .

The 'popularity' is gone, the belief is gone. Change now in the face of an empowered opposition has established a lame duck quagmire making it virtually impossible to get anything done in Washington. As an example, there is outcry from both sides of aisle favorably comparing the Katrina response to the proactive oversight regarding the ongoing oil dump in the Gulf.

Since assignment of blame is essential to advancing the discussion - it was me (personally) who caused these problems for the Administration while at the same time inhibited any effective strategy from being implemented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

quote:

Not sure if you've seen your bloke Alexander someone? can't remember his surname but he was in Reagan's administration

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Not sure if you've seen your bloke Alexander someone? can't remember his surname but he was in Reagan's administration

NG, you're thinking of Alexander Haig. He was Secretary of State.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

You might learn something and then you could come to these forums and debate your ideas on their merits, rather than constantly attacking and snarking at people who don't share your views.

I learn alot on these boards and off them. Definately more off than on, although I have enjoyed Musics links and several others on the boards. Not sure how listening to wing nuts is going to educate you though. You can't believe what they say and hopefully you already know they are crazy, so aside from being able to come on here and state " look at the loon, this proves everyone on that side is ignorant" what's the point? Personally I have better things to do with my time, than listen to them rant. So on that note, have a good afternoon and do enjoy the hateful bs. Hopefully it's not contagious. I'm going to go learn something useful.

quote:

I agree with the bulk of this (it's a good assessment), with the exception of health care, where something had to break through the barrier.

quote:

What your last paragraph has to do with anything I've no idea.

quote:

But otherwise, yes, that's exactly where we are, and I don't see that anyone, Dems, Repubs, Libs, Teas, have any idea what to do about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I understand that Vincent, and Sanity position will stand or fall on its own.

quote:

However, the debate must have gotten in to some corner where it was represented that a "Libertarian" environment failed to achieve it's objective as a argument, seemingly coming as a justification for more regulation and cash flow into the hands of government. The fact that there is no legitimacy to that position must be pointed out.

quote:

CM debates seem to be more pointed to label makers than pragmatic observable results. Why else would there be so little attention paid to unemployment, investment, foreign policy, wars, and the deficit and so much time spent on Palin, Rush, or the tea baggers? There's a hope that the argument stays on the name calling and labeling level. How else can the pragmatic results be rationalized as positive, or someone else other than those in power be held responsible?

quote:

Instead he's now associated with a program that less than 1% understand yet 63% of US voters now favor repeal

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That is the problem, Merc. Sanity will not take a position and defend it.

quote:


Not at all, Merc. The comment as I recall was that Rand Paul was waffling on the Civil Rights Bill and that he was a Libertarian. At that Sanity jumped in and made this comment: "Libertarianism is far more practical than your progressivism / socialism / liberalism / communism in which every thought, action or deed must be submitted to an all-powerful governmental bureaucracy or dictator for approval." Which I repeat was nothing but hyperbole and say now has nothing to do with the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was addressed by the OP.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
CM debates seem to be more pointed to label makers than pragmatic observable results...

Unfortunately true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its way over your head, thats all. You don't understand the fire so you shake your fist & curse the darkness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
So in other words... once again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and are simply spouting some crap you heard someone say on the radio. OK, got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

You might learn something and then you could come to these forums and debate your ideas on their merits, rather than constantly attacking and snarking at people who don't share your views.

I learn alot on these boards and off them. Definately more off than on, although I have enjoyed Musics links and several others on the boards. Not sure how listening to wing nuts is going to educate you though. You can't believe what they say and hopefully you already know they are crazy, so aside from being able to come on here and state " look at the loon, this proves everyone on that side is ignorant" what's the point? Personally I have better things to do with my time, than listen to them rant. So on that note, have a good afternoon and do enjoy the hateful bs. Hopefully it's not contagious. I'm going to go learn something useful.

Sharlet's The Family and Scahill's Blackwater are not books by wing nuts, but about wing nuts. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference. I've also read Avalon's book Wingnuts. I'm sure you haven't. These happen to be three incredibily important works that every American who has a political opinion should read. That goes for the two other links that were presented in this thread. Call it hateful bs if you like, but most thinking people reading this would not agree with you.

I asked why you read books by nutters because you said "I think it's the same book, but it might be some other Christian nutter political book that came out recently. I've read so many they all seem to blend together now."   Now your saying you meant these three? Do you ever answer a question without trying to twist it around?

The way you follow me around the forums and attack me, I'm beginning to think this is personal with you. When you go around taking issue with what I say without pointing out where I have been incorrect or ill-informed and offering no defensible position yourself, you only make yourself look petty and small. Engage me honestly, or shut up.

Follow you around the forums[8|] Now that is funny.