Ideology Thread – Cont.

I think Retired Spook has struck a nerve here, and I am pleased that the dialogue has remained civil – kudos to everyone for that and especially our liberals, so considering the volume of posts on the previous thread – let’s pick it up here. One observation I would like to make comes from a comment from James (not to single him out, but it was in his post). I read this the minute he posted it and have been thinking about it ever since:

…….its (gun control) not on top of my list to be honest. many more things wrong with this country.

I think that comment is indicative of how liberals largely see America, including the President. I think liberals see America has an unjust, racist, imperialistic country that needs to be “brought down to size” so to speak, and that vision could really be at the heart of what separates liberalism and conservatism. I, and I think most conservatives, see America as that “shining city on the hill” (to quote a great President), that has many more virtues than vices. Has this country made mistakes, of course, but has this country advanced prosperity, civil and human rights, and promoted diversity of culture and progress more so than any other country on this planet? That would be a resounding YES! I don’t see America as a country with “many more things wrong with it”. I see America as a country that needs to get back to it’s original charter, to continue the path towards even more “progress”.

Advertisements

81 thoughts on “Ideology Thread – Cont.

  1. Amazona April 11, 2013 / 6:23 pm

    James also claimed “I stand by my statement that in EVERY way, our nation is better off than it was during your time…in the 60′s and 70′s.”

    Based upon what, I wonder. Faster cars? Video games?

    Only by applying the most superficial and meaningless criteria can anyone make that claim.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) April 11, 2013 / 7:19 pm

      Amazona,

      Isn’t the issue not an irreverent comparison between then and now, and more a question of how much progress we made or could have made?

      Sure, microchips made us all freer to enjoy more, but has the government used the force of its power to make it easier to bring products to market or have they made it harder?

      Carson had the best of intentions with Silent Spring but her mostly faked “science” resulted in government intervention to outlaw DDT causing unnecessary death, starvation and misery. How much better off would the planet be had the Omnipresent Government not stuck its intrusive nose in the business of business.

      How many drugs could have saved how many lives had the government not restricted pharma beyond reason?

      And standard of living? Had the Great society not involved itself in poverty, how many families would be productive members of society and not suckling at the teat of community? How many entrepreneurs never got a chance to build a better mousetrap because the government didn’t want the competition?

      How many could have been fed on the pigs plowed under during the Great Depression because Roosevelt though too much pork might drive the prices down? How many people could be treated by doctors who chose not to practice because the good-intentioned government bureaucrats decided that every medical act is potentially malicious and doctors must pay through the nose for every patient with real or perceived slights?

      Not, is it better now but where could we be if we were truly free?

      • bardolf2 April 12, 2013 / 1:02 am

        “Carson had the best of intentions with Silent Spring but her mostly faked “science” resulted in government intervention to outlaw DDT causing unnecessary death, starvation and misery.” Counter

        That is being pretty generous with Carson. The DDT outlaw in the US wasn’t such a big deal since malaria was by then a minor problem. What the followers of Carson have done is nothing short of a genocide in Africa where DDT would save millions of lives.

        BUT that makes James point. Pseudo-science has a much smaller chance of being turned into poor policy today than it did in the 1960’s.

        I would support the claim that many things are better than in the 1970’s.

        The average house size is bigger. Life expectancy is longer. The crime rate is lower. Travel is cheaper. Cars last longer and are safer. One can find reasonably priced clothes for cheap at Walmart. Food is cheaper. Higher education is within reach of more people and learning new things via the internet is free with MOOC. There is a bigger variety of cultural influences. If people take care of themselves they can be vital for much longer.

        The big problem with today is that surviving is so readily had that the desire to actually prosper has been diminished. No vision of going to the moon or making new kinds of music or taking risks that have only a small chance of success. Less need to depend on the family makes it easier for the family to break up. This actually is a problem made worse by big government.

        But it’s not big government which says if grandma is too much trouble in the home, put her away in a facility. No need to depend on neighbors means diminished and often forced relationships including neighborhood watch. The YMCA isn’t for helping pick young men off the street, it’s a recreation/swim center for the middle class. Church itself if for connecting or reinforcing your own ideas, it’s not meant to challenge your high opinion of yourself.

        Is the fact that today in the US, obesity is a much bigger killer than hunger a good thing? I think so because obesity is mostly a personal choice which can be easily remedied.

      • Retired Spook April 12, 2013 / 8:10 am

        The big problem with today is that surviving is so readily had that the desire to actually prosper has been diminished. No vision of going to the moon or making new kinds of music or taking risks that have only a small chance of success. Less need to depend on the family makes it easier for the family to break up. This actually is a problem made worse by big government.

        Excellent analysis, Dolf. The question I and many Conservatives constantly wrestle with is, is the problem made worse intentionally by big government in an effort to create a permanent underclass that is easy to manipulate and can be relied on for votes, or is the problem simple a logical byproduct of bigger and more intrusive government?

      • bardolf2 April 12, 2013 / 9:42 am

        Spook

        It doesn’t matter if a person/agency is making things worse because of incompetency versus meanness. The outcomes are the same. We live in a democracy where people elect their fellow citizens. The politicians I have met from both parties are typically sincere about wanting to ultimately help people.

        One problem is when bad results occur and politician X from party Y says that their ideas just haven’t been implemented correctly. So you’ll never convince many Democrats that head start doesn’t work, you’ll never convince many Republicans that the Iraq War was never a good idea. Hell, we still have people trying to figure out how to win Vietnam.

        The Democrat will point to a minor success of poor Jackie who wound up a MD because of head start, and in any case head start was really not about getting better students at the end of their public schooling just better students for a couple years in elementary school. Of course the minor success is minor only in the grand scheme when considered against all the potential uses of the $ that could have been done. At the poor Jackie level it is a major success.

        The Republican will point out the minor success of eliminating Saddam Hussein or ‘preventing’ Iraq from becoming a base for group Z. That might be a good success if it cost a few American lives and a billion dollars. For a trillion dollars and 4000 American lives and more than 100,000 Iraqi lives getting rid of Saddam is a minor success. Still, even the minor success in Iraq outweighs the successes in Afghanistan.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 9:50 am

        However, dolf, James did not say that some things are better now. What he said was ” “I stand by my statement that in EVERY way, our nation is better off than it was during your time…in the 60′s and 70′s.” ”

        Sure, we tend to live in bigger houses now—but also to have both parents working to afford them, with children being reared by strangers in day care facilities. Better?

        And doesn’t this tendency to focus on the superficial—bigger houses, for example—link to smaller families, which is related to the issue of the elderly not having families to support them in their old age? Better?

        You say “Higher education is within reach of more people…” yet for some reason those who get this “higher education” seem to know less than their parents’ generation did at the same age. They spend the first part of their “higher education” learning what they should have learned in high school, in too many cases, and then they are likely to be subjected to something like this:

        “A University of Southern California professor attacked Republicans as old, white, racist losers in his lectures, a shocking video has shown.

        The rants by Professor Darry Sragow were secretly captured over the course of several weeks by 20-year-old student Tyler Talgo, who used a camera disguised as a shirt button.

        “They’re really stupid and racist,” Sragow said during one lecture. “The Republican Party is increasingly the last refuge of old, angry white people who don’t like what’s going on in this country,” he told his students.

        “Old white guys are stubborn sons of bitches,” he added.

        At one point, Sragow also appears to endorse the illegal suppression of Republican votes.

        “You lose their information on the election in the mail,” he suggested when a student asked how to discourage Republicans from voting. “I mean, there [are] lots of ways to do it.”

        A teaching assistant in the class suggested putting Black Panthers at polling stations to intimidate Republican voters. The comment was supported by Sragow.

        When questioned by Fox News, Sragow told the network he stood by all his comments. “I have said them many times to many audiences, and if the student had told me he was taping my comments I still would have said them,” he said.

        Talgo told Fox News he taped the classes to show that university campuses are hostile places for nonliberals.

        “There are definitely some classes where professors give no regard to the other side, and it’s a class that slanders people who disagree with them,” he said to Fox. “The professors are oftentimes so intimidating you can’t bring up your own point of view. And even if you do, you risk your grade being retaliated against.”

        Talgo said he hopes other students will take a stand and help expose other liberal professors.

        “My major concern is that these professors are indoctrinating students,” he said.

        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/california-usc-professor-republicans/2013/04/11

        This is not an isolated incident.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 12, 2013 / 12:57 pm

        Pseudo-science has a much smaller chance of being turned into poor policy today than it did in the 1960′s.

        Think Global Warming. Fracking. Conservative phrenology. BPA. silicone breast implants. “Clean Coal” etc.

  2. mitchethekid April 11, 2013 / 10:55 pm

    Guy goes into a convenience store and buys a few items worth $5.00. He hands the teller a $10. After a few moments, the customer says “where’s my change?” The teller replies, “what’s the matter with the way things are?”.

    • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 11:18 pm

      And the customer thought for a few moments more and said, “on second thought, you can keep the change.”

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 12, 2013 / 8:11 am

      Is the “teller” working in a convenience store because he/she got fired from the bank?

      • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 8:56 am

        JR

        lol…….stupid is as stupid does….”TELLER” ROTFLMAO. how do you say LOOSER!!

    • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 8:53 am

      bmitch

      do you still want Wayne L to die a slow writhing death?
      why not post the anti conservative, Christian hate and vitriol you spew at the fork?
      AFRAID for us to see the REAL weasel, low life slime ball you really are?

      • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 9:08 am

        lil mitch posting at the fork, and not telling “jokes”

        mitchethekid Says:
        28/03/2013 at 16:40

        If anyone deserves to be tortured to madness, writhing in agony. it is Wayne LP. I bet he has the old persons smell about him. The kind you need a handkerchief, drenched in cologne to thwart. What a despicable waste of protoplasm.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 9:53 am

        neo, mitche revealed enough of his true, vile, self here for us to have a pretty good idea of what he really is. I notice that he is trying to act like a decent normal human being here, now, but he’s just not convincing. He’s very lucky to have found kindred spirits at the fork.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 11:35 am

        Keep in mind, this is a bizarre and quite insane rant about what someone would like to see happen to a man just because he has a different political opinion.

        Sadly, mitche’s rage and hatred are not unusual on the far Left. And these are the people who want more and more control over the rest of us.

        Remember the rants from the same people, about Cheney getting a heart transplant? There were many many comments that he should have been allowed to die, because he was Dick Cheney, and therefore a conservative with no right to live.

        Yeah, these are the people I want in charge……………..

      • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 1:09 pm

        Ama

        in another thread I mentioned I met several retired NYC- 911 firemen who were also military veterans, lil bomber boy bmitchie couldn’t wait to disrespect these heroes and call them names…this from a SUPPOSED veteran…….$#*&^)# you bmitchtheKID!!

    • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 8:54 am

      communisn/pravda, = USA today!

      • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 9:04 am

        News that must be suppressed
        Thomas Lifson

        If our major media were not fully committed propagandists, they would report the findings of a large scale survey of law enforcement personnel on the subject of further gun legislation. After all, they are currently following the President’s strategy of distracting the public from the awful state of the economy by exploiting the victims of Newtown to push for further erosion of Second Amendment rights. So the views of law enforcement personnel ought ot be of some interest.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/news_that_must_be_suppressed.html

    • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 9:57 am

      Cluster, I came here today to post a similar comment. From RedState:

      Why Is One of the Most Horrific Crimes in Recent Memory Getting Almost No Press Coverage?

      If you need to get up to speed on the Kermit Gosnell story, here’s a good place to start.

      A doctor whose abortion clinic was a filthy, foul-smelling “house of horrors” that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them.

      Hundreds of other babies likely died in the squalid clinic that Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran from 1979 to 2010, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said at a news conference.

      “My comprehension of the English language can’t adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell,” he added.

      It’s utterly, utterly horrible; I won’t blame you if you can’t read that story any further.

      However, you may be surprised at how little you’ve heard about this story so far. Seth Mandel lays out the utterly unforgivable decision-making on the part of the national media so far:

      You may not have heard much about Gosnell’s case. That’s because the mainstream press has chosen by and large to ignore it. There is no area of American politics in which the press is more activist or biased or unethical than social issues, the so-called culture wars. And the culture of permissive abortion they favor has consequences, which they would rather not look squarely at, thank you very much. The liberal commentator Kirsten Powers has written a tremendous op-ed in USA Today on Gosnell and the media blackout. Powers writes of the gruesome admissions that Gosnell’s former employees are making in court, some of which amount to “literally a beheading” and other stomach-turning descriptions. On the media’s refusal to inform the public, Powers writes:

      A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.
      The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony. .
      . .
      You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.

      The media should be ashamed beyond description for this behavior. The American left should come to terms with what it means to talk about a human life as if it were a parasite, or merely a clump of cells. And they should most certainly stop lecturing the rest of us on compassion, on pity, on social obligation, on morality. ”

  3. Retired Spook April 12, 2013 / 11:29 am

    Since this is a continuation of the previous thread, I thought it might be interesting to look at the questions posted to the Lefties that went unanswered.

    Retired Spook: James, so you wouldn’t repeal an amendment that “guarantees” that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; you would just infringe that right. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

    Crickets.

    James: If you resist through force as so many of you have indicated you will (neo, jeremiah, gmb) then you will be destroyed, simple as that.

    Retired Spook: What a curious statement, James. Who or what force do you think will destroy those of us who would, without hesitation, lay down our lives for liberty?

    Crickets.

    Neocon: but you want to rule by poles, lets redirect and REQUIRE background checks held in a central data files on ALL voters, PROOF of citizenship, medical records, licenses, permits, taxes, insurance etc etc

    Crickets.

    Tiredoflibs: Watty the majority of Americans are against obamaCare, but I don’t see you or tommy-boy James calling for the greatest deliberative body to debate it repeal either.

    Crickets.

    Mark: James,

    I think, then, that you need to define “liberty” for us – from what I can see, my liberties are greatly eroded from just my father’s time, let alone my grandfather’s. How did grandpa start a business? By starting it – he’d get an idea in to his head and set to work. These days? A bucket of forms and licensing to do before you can even get started – and the cost of these forms and licenses prices poor people out of the small business market…for a vast number of Americans, probably a majority, owning a business is something they no longer have the liberty to do.

    Crickets.

    Casper: Interesting, in that that’s the way I see conservative ideology. Most seems to be very emotionally driven especially the emotions of hate and fear.

    Amazona: Where do “hate” and “fear” come into the picture?

    Crickets.

    Amazona: What I have noticed here is that no one from the Left or the middle seems to know what “ideology” means. Even our resident academics are talking about outcomes, not about the underlying political philosophy of government that should guide every approach to achieving any outcome.

    We have been over this so many times on this blog, yet it remains a mystery to most–that is, that a goal is not an ideology.

    Crickets.

    Retired Spook: Just heard a sound clip of Obama on the news saying (I’m paraphrasing) that the wealthy in America are not going to be able to continue utilizing tax loopholes that are not available to ordinary Americans. Did all those loopholes just get into the tax code on the wings of a flying pig? Is it illegal for someone to take advantage of provisions of the tax code that mitigate their tax liability?

    Crickets.

    D.B. Schmidt (directed at James): BTW, how do you feel that the IRS now feels it can intercept your personal e-mail without regard to your 4th amendment rights in order to tax you into oblivion? Sounds good, right?

    James: Have any sources on that? About one notch above Crickets.

    • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 2:46 pm

      seecond amendment? we don needs no steeenkin seecond amendment!!

      Welcome to the new normal: Large-scale black mob violence is busting out in Philadelphia, Chicago, Utica, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Wilmington (Delaware), Greenville (South Carolina), Grand Rapids, Peoria, Springfield (Ohio), Newark, Boston and Brooklyn.

      All in the last three weeks.

      Police say they are baffled. Others say it is a regular meteorological event: “Large crowds and fights are not uncommon in the city in the warm weather,” said the ABC affiliate in Philadelphia.

      The latest example of the new normal took place Tuesday in Philadelphia: 200 black people on the streets of the downtown financial district: fighting, vandalizing, rampaging, refusing to disperse, tossing bottles at police. It began at 4 p.m. and took police 90 minutes to restore order.

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/busting-out-all-over-black-mob-violence/#msw4MbBC88xORJsz.99

      • neocon01 April 12, 2013 / 3:02 pm

        parrrtay……….FORE!!

        US Raises Nuclear Alert To DEFCON 3: China Mobilizes, Masses Troops On North Korean Border (Debka)
        Debkafiles ^ | April 12, 2013, 8:59 AM

        Friday, April 12, the US raised its nuclear alert status to DEFCON 3, Condition Yellow (out of 5 levels), stating “There are currently no imminent nuclear threats against the United States at this time, however the situation is considered fluid and can change rapidly.”

        Many believe that North Korea will launch their test missile on or about April 15. Japan has instructed its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile that heads toward its territory.

        Contrary to comments from the White House Thursday, the Pentagon reported that “North Korea probably has nuclear weapons that can be mounted on ballistic missiles.” This is a very significant admission by the United States and a dangerous change to the Korean situation.

        China has mobilized its military and is massing near the border with North Korea.

    • 02casper April 12, 2013 / 9:24 pm

      Spook,
      “Since this is a continuation of the previous thread, I thought it might be interesting to look at the questions posted to the Lefties that went unanswered.”

      I can’t speak for anyone else on this blog, but I don’t always have the time or inclination to answer every question or point raised by the conservatives on this blog. I teach during the day and sponsor several clubs in the afternoon and weekends. I would hate to be accused of using school computers to respond to a blog during school hours. That said, I am also picky about who and what I respond to. I’ll generally respond to you, cluster, or Mark if I have the time. Others, depending on what they say and how they say it.

      “Casper: Interesting, in that that’s the way I see conservative ideology. Most seems to be very emotionally driven especially the emotions of hate and fear.

      Amazona: Where do “hate” and “fear” come into the picture?”

      I consider many of the posts here either hateful or fearful. Personal attacks and name calling occur more from the conservatives on the blog than liberals. Using the caps key which is considered shouting on the internet also seems to happen more with conservatives than liberals. Shouting usually happens when someone is angry or afraid. I could give specific examples all night, but it wouldn’t change anything.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 2:17 pm

        “I consider many of the posts here either hateful or fearful.”

        Oh, that’s just what happens when facts are run through the Casper-Bias-Against-Conservatives filter.

        Most of the negative comments are directed at content rather than at persons, but then you people do have trouble telling the difference, as shown by your (plural ‘your’) constant squealing that objections to Obama policies are really personal attacks based on racial prejudice.

        You seem pretty happy with the toxic spewings of such as mitche, and the profanity and vulgarity of so many of your fellow travelers.

        As for your opinion that using all caps for a word phrase is “shouting” and then your gratuitous and silly diagnosis of your personally described “shouting” as symptoms of anger or fear—nonsense.

        When a word or phrase in in all caps, within a structure of normal punctuation, it is emphasis, or it is an effort to capture, in type, the loud and shrill hyperbole of the hysterics who have been bellowing those words or phrases.

        You are so transparently silly, taking the effort to illustrate the shrill stridency of Leftist hysterics by using all caps (and sometimes bold-face as well) and trying to spin it into expressions of rage and fear on the part of the person who is just making fun of those who talk like that.

        Of course, it could just be another example of your poor reading comprehension.

        The more you complain, the easier it is to see how and why you are so easily misled, as you have a very strange filtering system for what comes into your brain, and you consistently react to things that are not there while being oblivious to things that are.

      • 02casper April 13, 2013 / 8:07 pm

        “Most of the negative comments are directed at content rather than at persons, but then you people do have trouble telling the difference, as shown by your (plural ‘your’) constant squealing that objections to Obama policies are really personal attacks based on racial prejudice.”

        I disagree. Most of the comments by conservatives on this blog are either personal or against liberals in general. Personally, the only person I’ve accused of being a racist is neo, and considering that he was once kicked off this blog for linking to racist websites, I stand by that.

        “You seem pretty happy with the toxic spewings of such as mitche, and the profanity and vulgarity of so many of your fellow travelers.”

        I don’t find much difference between mitche’s comments than many of the conservative comments, including yours. It he was making the same kind of comments about liberals, all of you would love him. As for the profanity and vulgarity, there doesn’t seem to be that much of it of late and I have complained about it in the past.

        “When a word or phrase in in all caps, within a structure of normal punctuation, it is emphasis, or it is an effort to capture, in type, the loud and shrill hyperbole of the hysterics who have been bellowing those words or phrases.”

        Hysterics such as yourself. Many of the posts here come of as angry. That’s not just my opinion, I’ve shared some of the posts with others (leaving out anything that would identify someone as conservative) and they agree.

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 11:40 am

        casper, did you share this? (I put in a mitche file before it got deleted.) “Spiteful wart infested Witch. Do you feel better about your miserable pedantic lonely self now? Talk into a mirror, multiple respondent. What do you do, wander around your barn yelling at me?”

        My point is, the true nature of most Libs who post here is so profoundly vile and vicious, their worst rantings are simply removed. So what you see are the much milder comments by the conservatives who post here, who fail to rise to the level of vitriol and insanity that would dominate the blog if the Lib posts were not moderated.

        Because you don’t see much of the Lib posting, you just lurch into your default mode of assuming that Lib posts are rational and sane, cookies and cream, while the posts of the Right are “hysterical”.

        Yeah. For example, during the last election cycle I hysterically howled at the top of my lungs that I didn’t want to date Mitt Romney, I wanted to hire him, so I was looking at his resume and not his religion. While the allegedly rational Left was murmuring, in subdued tones appropriate for a library or church, that Mitt Romney plotted to deny access to health care for women and wanted to ban birth control.

        As topsy-turvy as that perception is, it seems to be yours, casper. When I imitate the strident hysteria of your side by using all caps, you spin it to say it is really only showing my own hysteria, which of course is necessary for you to rationalize your position.

        Just as you and people like you dismiss objective fact by recasting it as hatred, racism or hysteria, you overlook the true hysteria and vitriol on your side—probably because they are saying what you believe and want to hear, and therefore sound quite sane and rational to you.

        Perhaps you can get past the all-caps thing that you have been focusing on, and give me some examples of overactive emotion and hysteria forming the basis of what I have said.

      • neocon01 April 14, 2013 / 11:49 am

        catspuke

        Personally, the only person I’ve accused of being a racist is neo, and considering that he was once kicked off this blog for linking to racist websites, I stand by that.

        Once again I have to call you the LIAR you are. I stand by that.

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 11:54 am

        ” Most of the comments by conservatives on this blog are either personal or against liberals in general.

        Really? This will be the 78th post on this thread. On it, your ideas have been called stupid and irrational, with the caveat that you must don a cloak of idiocy because no one can be that stupid—a defense of you personally—and later in the same post there is the comment that your perceptions are twisted.

        I went through the posts and I found the comments from conservatives to be for the most part thoughtful and informative, discussion of ideas. The Lib side is represented by you and mitche, and let’s face it, you do a very poor job of holding up the Lib end of the argument. We just got more of mitche babbling and then you weighed in with your comment that conservatives think only rich people should have nice things.

        Yeah. Good stuff there.

  4. Retired Spook April 12, 2013 / 3:47 pm

    Our local drive-time talk show host that comes on after Rush is discussing Obama’s recommendation that IRA’s be limited to $3 million, because, ostensibly, no one NEEDS more than that for retirement. I’m curious how our resident Progressives feel about that.

    • tiredoflibbs April 12, 2013 / 6:48 pm

      “Our local drive-time talk show host that comes on after Rush is discussing Obama’s recommendation that IRA’s be limited to $3 million, because, ostensibly, no one NEEDS more than that for retirement. I’m curious how our resident Progressives feel about that.”

      Somehow the proggies will reject that idea if it were IMPOSED on them. Imagine those proggy politicians who now receive their salaries for LIFE were capped at 10 years? After all, they don’t need that exorbitant retirement after all, no matter how hard they worked for it (or in most proggies cases, how much @ss they kissed to get it)?

    • 02casper April 12, 2013 / 10:10 pm

      Spook,
      Do you feel there should be any limit on IRA’s? Is $5 million to low? Personally, I could live very well with a $3 million IRA. And if that were the cap, it still wouldn’t stop one from having other investments.

      • Retired Spook April 12, 2013 / 11:42 pm

        Do you feel there should be any limit on IRA’s?

        No.

      • Mark Noonan April 13, 2013 / 8:52 am

        Spook,

        But our liberals do – and while liberal rank and file types like Casper might just be of the “enough is enough” variety, liberal leaders know precisely what they’re doing…limiting the ability of poor and middle class people to become real property owners who need no assistance, at all, from government. The last thing liberals want is a Distribustist State because then no one would need liberals.

      • Retired Spook April 13, 2013 / 9:40 am

        But our liberals do – and while liberal rank and file types like Casper might just be of the “enough is enough” variety,

        Two of the aspects of the “enough is enough” meme that Liberals generally fail to think through is (a) who decides who needs what; and (b) what impact do people who have the ambition and skills to accumulate more than they need have on prosperity in general? I would submit that, if you work for a company that has more than, say, 25 employees, the owner of the company probably has more than he/she needs. Would you give up your job for the sake of your boss making less?

        Bottom line, though, I just can’t find those words in the Constitution that empower the federal government to mandate how much a person can save. In fact, we’d be a much better country, socially and economically, if everyone would save as much as they possibly could. But then, as you note, we wouldn’t need Liberals.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 6:54 pm

        Anyone willing to live in Casper Wyoming could live pretty well on a $3M retirement fund.

        Of course, there are few who would be willing to live in Casper, Wyoming (Wind City) which is why living costs are so low. It’s a nasty little city, ugly and with terrible weather. An oilman who had lived all over the world told me that it was the only place he’d ever been where the wind was so bad he had whitecaps in his toilet.

        Move someplace pleasant and the cost of living goes up.

        A main theme of the Left is what someone decides what someone else “needs”—and from that comes limiting what some people have, redistributing to others, etc. It’s a bland acceptance of the very idea that anyone should have the power or authority to determine what someone else should be allowed to have.

        You will notice that the bar is always set just above what the person has or can expect to have. My Lefty cousin once proclaimed “No one needs a VCR”. Then her daughters started to want to watch Disney movies, so the claim moved up a notch, to “No one needs more than one VCR”. Well, she and her husband got tired of watching Disney movies over and over again so they got a VCR for their bedroom, and suddenly it was “No one needs more than two VCRs”.

        And so it goes…………..

        You will find that when a Lefty proclaims that “No one needs” something, what is not needed is something the Lefty doesn’t want or has little hope of ever having, therefore it is safe to decide that no one else needs it either.

        Not exactly the same as Libertarianism, is it?

      • 02casper April 13, 2013 / 8:24 pm

        “Of course, there are few who would be willing to live in Casper, Wyoming (Wind City) which is why living costs are so low. It’s a nasty little city, ugly and with terrible weather. An oilman who had lived all over the world told me that it was the only place he’d ever been where the wind was so bad he had whitecaps in his toilet.”

        And yet, we are one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

        http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/15/the-10-fastest-growing-us-cities-oil-gas-and-an-economic-recovery-have-sent-americans-westward

        And while I’ve never had whitecaps in my toilet, I have had waves. Good news is, the wind doesn’t blow all the time. In fact, its not as bad as some parts of Northeastern Colorado or parts of Montana. Personally I like Casper. We have pretty good infrastructure and overall the people here are pretty nice, although a little conservative. It’s been a great city to raise kids and work in.

        “A main theme of the Left is what someone decides what someone else “needs”—and from that comes limiting what some people have, redistributing to others, etc. It’s a bland acceptance of the very idea that anyone should have the power or authority to determine what someone else should be allowed to have.”

        Interesting, because one of the things that really seems to bug a lot of conservatives is when poor people have TVs, cars, microwaves and coffee pots. I guess only rich people deserve nice things.

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 11:10 am

        casper, I have come to the conclusion that you are assuming a mantle of utter idiocy just to stir things up around here, because no one can be as stupid as your comments indicate.

        Take your response to my comment that Lefties focus on what they think people “need”—you say “…one of the things that really seems to bug a lot of conservatives is when poor people have TVs, cars, microwaves and coffee pots. I guess only rich people deserve nice things.”

        That statement of yours is so wrong and so stupid on so many levels, it is simply stunning.

        First of all, conservatives are not “bugged” by the fact that poor people have luxuries. To even contemplate that possibility is such a bizarre twist of reality it boggles the mind. Tell me, casper—do you really believe that? Do you really and truly believe that conservatives object to some people having things like TVs and cars and microwaves and, of course, those extravagant coffee pots? Seriously?

        No, I mean it. Take just a second, try to remember where the “on” switch for your brain is, spray it with WD-40 to loosen it up since it hasn’t been used for so long, and let the old brain cells warm up for a while. Then answer. Do you really and truly believe that anyone you lump into the “conservative” demographic objects to, or as you put it is “bugged” by, the fact that some people actually own certain things?

        tic toc tic toc tic toc……………………

        OK, I can hear the gears grinding from here, so let me make it a little easier for you. Do you think, has it even entered your mind, that the objection to some people having luxuries is not that they HAVE them, but that other people have paid for them?

        Hmmmmm? tic toc tic toc tic toc……………….

        OK, I can see that you are still bumfuddled by this, but we can’t wait forever for you to sort through that, so I am going to go on, knowing it will just leave you far behind, but then, I’m used to that.

        Have you ever considered the possibility that government assistance to those who really need it should be to provide that “safety net” you people are always howling about? To provide food and shelter and medical care for people who truly are not capable of providing it for themselves, and not luxuries? (And, not to confuse you too too much, I will point out that there is no problem with those who need assistance also having a TV set and a means of transportation and even—-yes, even this extravagance—-a COFFEE POT!!!!!!)

        OK, now we are on to the next level of bafflement—are you truly unaware of the objection to providing such assistance to people who COULD take care of themselves, but who choose not to? Have you been able to suss out that when there is an objection to tax money going out to people who do not work, the objection is to providing a comfortable level of living, complete with luxuries, for people who could take care of themselves but find no reason to try, as Uncle Sam is giving them everything they could want?

        Now we have to move on to the next stage, which is that of government money (that is to say, your money and my money) paying not only for shelter and basic nutritional needs and even a TV or a coffee pot, but for cell phones and tattoos and lavish manicures and expensive unnecessary dental work to provide street cred and to do this without careful vetting of the actual needs and abilities of those receiving the largesse and to make it available on credit cards which be used to buy luxury foods and in casinos and on cruise ships. Are you truly incapable of understanding that there is objection to this, and not to real aid for people who really need it?

        Are you really really telling us that you really really believe that people who object to taxpayer money being used to create a dependent class of able-bodied people who could work but don’t find the need to because they do so much better on the government teat are really really, in their heart of hearts, “bugged” because truly needy people can drink coffee and watch Wheel of Fortune?

        Really?

        What a sad, sick, twisted creature you must be, if you truly carry this kind of belief around with you.

        Which you evidently do, given your last snotty little snarl:

        “I guess only rich people deserve nice things.”

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 11:20 am

        And while we are in the area of casper cluelessness, which appears to be infinite, let’s look at your defense of your home town.

        You point out that Casper is growing quickly, and you support this with a link to the prosperity created where oil and gas drilling is encouraged and allowed.

        Hmmmmmm. Time to ponder again.

        Here is a Lib bragging about economic growth in a state due to two factors—no state income tax and a healthy oil and gas industry—who will no doubt still vote for the party which is dedicated to crippling the oil and gas industry and is all about higher and more taxation.

        A disconnect? Only if there were something between the ears that could be connected, if there was a desire to do so.

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 11:23 am

        Another casper gem: “….overall the people here are pretty nice, although a little conservative..”

        See, he has to have a snarl here, an admission that well, he supposes some people can be pretty nice, in spite of the fact that they think the nation should be governed by its own Constitution.

        Remember, he also told us that when he took a course on the Constitution, he expected to encounter “propaganda”.

  5. The Return of Rathaven April 12, 2013 / 4:36 pm

    Since we’re talking ideology; The thrust of the conservative argument is that people are imperfect and will ALWAYS be imperfect. Therefore, government must preserve what works, and eschew what does not or is untested. Conservatives like experimentation on a limited scope, and if the experiments work, then they will be adopted.

    Progressives believe that people are perfectible, and that the “enlightened” have a right (nay, duty) to impose their vision of perfection upon the “people.”

    That NEVER works. And it is really that simple.

  6. mitchethekid April 12, 2013 / 6:17 pm

    Existence is an imperfection. I disagree with the basis of your contention that just because people will always be imperfect any effort towards becoming more perfect is futile and something to be avoided or viewed with skepticism. What’s that in the preamble; towards a more perfect union? I think this goal applies to all human endeavors. And to set the record straight, I should have said clerk instead of teller. Although they both collect and dispense money.

    • The Return of Rathaven April 12, 2013 / 6:30 pm

      I also disagree with the basis of the contention that just because people will always be imperfect any effort towards becoming more perfect is futile and something to be avoided or viewed with skepticism.

      Now, if we can just figure out who made such a contention we can both disagree with that person.

      • mitchethekid April 13, 2013 / 11:24 am

        I believe it was you who said people will always be imperfect. And I agree, but I have much different ideas on how to make things better. That is, improvement is a goal, something to be strived for, but ultimately is unobtainable. Things that worked in the past do not necessarily apply to today’s problems and government can be a solution, but not the only one. Change is inevitable and the social upheaval we are experiencing today is every bit as pointed and divisive as the ’60’s. Some change is not for the better, but progress, as a concept is generally a positive. Those that resist change, or are scared of it tend to be absorbed by it. There is a rule in evolution. Adapt or die and we can see this played out everyday. Just this week we saw it in congress with gun control. Last week it was SCOTUS listening to arguments concerning same sex marriage and there is the on going debate about immigration. Attitudes towards things change; they evolve. Spook asked what would be the result of progressive ideas being instituted after a generation has passed. Ideas on how to make things better is the very definition of progressiveness. I wonder what things will be like, not in a generation, but in 100 yrs. Or a thousand.

      • Retired Spook April 13, 2013 / 11:42 am

        Ideas on how to make things better is the very definition of progressiveness.

        Except the Progressive movement is not necessarily predicated on Progress toward something better, but only something different or new — or thinking that an idea that has never been successful in a thousand years will somehow work this time because the motives of those behind it are more pure.

        I don’t know anyone who would resist progress toward making any or all aspects of life better, as long as better means making life easier, more free or more prosperous. Where you (collective you) get mired down is when group A gets to decide what’s better for group B because group A thinks they’re smarter. When you get right down to it, one of the basic differences between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives, in general, just want to be left alone to be the best that they can be; and Liberals, in general, believe people can’t be the best they can be without Liberals’ help.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 2:30 pm

        The true foundation of Progressivism is the belief that some people are above the innate weaknesses of most of us, and therefore should be entrusted with vast power and authority over the rest.

        This is part of the Unconstrained Vision written about by Thomas Sowell in Conflict of Visions, and this is what leads to worshipful acceptance and following of charismatic leaders who pop up every now and then and who achieve, or are given, immense power.

        The restrictions on power and control that are inherent in models based on the Constrained Vision—that is, that all men are subject to weakness and therefore all governmental structures must depend on balance of power and on processes, which limit the amount of authority any one person or party or movement can have—are rejected by those of the Unconstrained Vision.

        Therefore, they ridicule those who object to unilateral power vested in one person or party, such as the permission for the President to make a unilateral decision about which American citizens can be killed without due process of law.

        Those of the Constrained Vision say no, this is why we have processes in place, such as the system of laws covering apprehension, indictment, and prosecution—they spread out authority, and therefore help mitigate the dangers of concentration of power. But those with the Unconstrained Vision put their faith and trust in a single person, or party, or movement, because of their conviction that some people can be trusted with this much power and control.

        If mitche does lean toward the Constrained Vision then he must agree that no changes to the Constitution can or should be made without going through the entire process for amendment, rather than simply allowing a select few of the Ruling Elite to decide what should and should not be allowed or disallowed.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 6:59 pm

        Read Men In Black for a history lesson on the SCOTUS and the shift from the original intent to the abomination of having five unelected political appointees, who are not even required to recuse themselves from ruling on issues for which they have been advocates, make law for the entire nation, regardless of the will of the people, once lower courts have overridden the will of those people.

    • percybeezer April 12, 2013 / 7:05 pm

      HA! So mitch knows what human perfection is and how to get us closer to it?

      All they need is a few more reeducation camps to show us all how its done. .

      Nailed it Rat-

  7. Jeremiah April 12, 2013 / 8:14 pm

    The Founders knew best.

    Small, non-intrusive government.

  8. Mark Noonan April 12, 2013 / 10:52 pm

    I would also add that many of the things wrong with America today are the direct result of liberal policies.

    As a for-instance, liberals continually pat themselves on the back for their alleged battle against racism – which conveniently forgets that it was their forebears which institutionalized racism early in the 20th century – but what they don’t seem to understand is that the racism which exists today is cause by liberalism…not just in their fostering of black and Latino racism against whites, but even the vestigal white racism in the country is essentially preserved by liberals who need it, like a drug, to maintain their narrative on matters of race. Had it not been for liberals over the past 30 years carefully dividing us on the basis of race and telling everyone that all problems in a racial group are the fault of white (or, more accurately, straight, white, male Christians) people, racism would be a long over and done with issue in the United States.

    You can go down the list – the criminality rampant in some areas is a direct result of first liberal condoning of criminal behavior followed immediately by liberals insisting that the police cease to properly patrol certain neighborhoods. The breakdown of the family is deliberately fostered by liberals who insist – against every last scrap of empirical data – that the traditional family is no better than any other type of family. The decline of blue collar jobs is directly the result of high taxes, high regulations and environmentalist fraud. On and on it goes – to the point, these days, when America is greatly distressed and may, indeed, have more wrong with it than right…

  9. Cluster April 13, 2013 / 8:26 am

    To all of our “fair share” liberals – Obama paid just an 18% tax rate, and he is certainly a multi millionaire. And Joe Biden donated just over 1% to charity on a pretty substantial income.

    So what you do you think of the two leaders of your party?

  10. Cluster April 13, 2013 / 8:36 am

    This may be the best, and most concise summation of the gun debate that I have ever read by Al Cardenas:

    “We do have a crisis in crime in America, but the reason for crime rates and violence has nothing to do with gun ownership,” Cardenas told Newsmax. “They have to do with low enforcement. They have to do with mental attitudes. They have to do with the breakdown of the American family. They have to do with runaway drug consumption. “These are the basic societal ills that lead to violent crime, and those are the ills that need to be discussed. This administration is not willing to do that because they consider a number of the impacted folks part of their constituency — and frankly, for their sake and the sake of America, we need to uncover and discuss the real reasons for crime — and they’re not gun ownership.”

    • Retired Spook April 13, 2013 / 9:08 am

      Cluster,

      I think it’s even simpler than that. If we could eliminate minority on minority gun homicides, which are largely gang and/or drug related, our gun death level would be right down there with Belgium, and there wouldn’t even be a debate about it. And if we could figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of the likes of Adam Lanza, we could completely eliminate mass shootings.

      What we’ve seen in countries like England where they “solved” the mass shooting problem by confiscating guns, is that mass shootings have stopped but non-gun related violent crime has skyrocketed. Just as a comparison, even though America is generally viewed as a violent society, England has up to 8 times the violent crime rate as the U.S. While the FBI and the British government have slightly different definitions of what constitutes “violent crime”, the fact remains that virtually gun-free Britain is a significantly more violent society than the U. S.

      So the question becomes, would Americans be willing to trade a significant reduction in gun homicides (already at the lowest level in my lifetime) and mass shootings for the likelihood that they would be mugged, assaulted, raped or robbed increasing by 8 times?

      • Cluster April 13, 2013 / 12:27 pm

        ….the likelihood that they would be mugged, assaulted, raped or robbed increasing by 8 times

        Well I think the taxpayers have been subject to three of the four in the last 5 years. LOL.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 2:33 pm

        Cluster, just curious—has the decline in rapes been linked to an increase in the sale of loud whistles?

      • Cluster April 13, 2013 / 2:44 pm

        LOL. Those whistles can be pretty loud, so they have to be careful about the local noise ordinances.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 3:21 pm

        I just wondered if the claim that the best defense against rape is a loud whistle is based on empirical evidence proving that the widespread use of said whistles has resulted in a decrease in the number of rapes.

        I mean, surely a statement like that would not just pop up out of nowhere, would it?

      • dbschmidt April 13, 2013 / 3:27 pm

        Cluster,

        Hate to disagree with you but I have been audited (3 times) by the IRS so I feel all four apply by at least 3 times. BTW, nothing was found but I still couldn’t sit for a week. 😉

  11. mitchethekid April 13, 2013 / 1:27 pm

    ” When you get right down to it, one of the basic differences between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives, in general, just want to be left alone to be the best that they can be…” Then please tell me Spook, why do so many conservatives want to impose their views about social issues on the rest of us? Of course, everyone wants a better, more productive and efficient life. I was being a little simplistic but often times it is the value placed on changes that becomes a point of contention and disagreement. It’s human nature to want to protect your own turf, whether it be real or ideological. I mentioned to a friend of mine the other day that I got a chuckle out of your self-description as being a conservative independent with libertarian leanings. According to multiple political attitude assessments I have taken, I am a liberal independent with libertarian leanings.

    • neocon01 April 13, 2013 / 2:08 pm

      bmitch

      NO you arent, you are a fascist lefty troll playing nice to the audience on this blog.
      We know who and what you are and it smells 100 times worse than than “OLD person smell” you rant about at your home site.

      _______________________________________________________

      Communist Goals (1963)

      Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35

      January 10, 1963

      Current Communist Goals

      EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

      IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      Thursday, January 10, 1963

      Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

      At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

      [From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen]

      CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

      1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

      2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

      3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

      4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

      5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

      6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

      7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

      8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

      9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

      10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

      11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

      12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

      13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

      14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

      15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

      16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

      17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

      18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

      19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

      20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

      21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

      22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

      23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

      24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

      25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

      26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

      27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

      28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

      29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

      30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

      31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

      32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

      33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

      34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

      35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

      36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

      37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

      38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

      39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

      40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

      41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

      42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

      43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

      44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

      45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

    • Retired Spook April 13, 2013 / 2:08 pm

      why do so many conservatives want to impose their views about social issues on the rest of us?

      I suppose there is a small minority of social Conservatives who would impose their views on others, Mitch, but, quite frankly, I don’t know any who are of that mindset. And the ones who do wield very little political power and have very little money behind them. I’m not really much of a social Conservative. I’m more of a live and let live as long as you do me no harm kind of guy, which is my Libertarian side. On my conservative side, I subscribe to the if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it line of thinking. That’s not to say I’m adverse to new ideas, but I believe ideas, whether they’re new, old, worked, never worked, never worked but will now, should all be judged on results. I don’t believe, “well, at least we tried” is an acceptable outcome, and especially not as a routine outcome, over and over, and over. And I believe in the law of diminishing returns, which is a foreign concept to most Liberals I know, a fact that stems from the Left’s love of funding their agenda with other people’s money. If the modern Left were forced to fund all its nonsense with its own money, there’d be a lot less nonsense in this world.

      I’ve heard others describe themselves as a liberal independent with libertarian leaning, but I’ve never understood how modern Liberalism and Libertarianism could coexist — sort of a round hole, square peg kind of thing. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

      • neocon01 April 13, 2013 / 2:12 pm

        Spook

        Perhaps you could enlighten me.

        LOL X1000

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 2:42 pm

        “… why do so many conservatives want to impose their views about social issues on the rest of us?”

        Actually, this is fact turned upside down.

        What the Left now tries to redefine as the effort to impose certain views on social issues on "the rest of us" is really just pushback on the determination of the Left to impose THEIR standards on the rest of US.

        When did the big debate on abortion get cranked up? When radicals determined to shove it down our throats as normal, acceptable, and a Constitutional right.

        When did the trumped-up issue of gay "marriage" become, according to mush-brained youth, the most important issue of our time? Only after activists started to drag it into the forefront, shoving it down the throats of people who had not really given it much thought before.

        Every big so-called "social issue" I can think of has become an inflated distraction from the true issues of how best to govern the nation only when it has been decided by a radical few that they can, and will, impose it upon people who have otherwise not been very interested or involved in it.

        But when people say "Wait a minute—I object to you trying to force this upon me/my children/my church" or whatever, you people then flip it into the defenders being the initiators of the thing in the first place.

        Orwell truly was a prophet…………………..

      • mitchethekid April 13, 2013 / 3:27 pm

        It very well might turn out that we have more in common than you think. Liberal, liberty, libertarian are all derivations of the same word root. No offense intended, but take a moment, get out your dictionary and read the definitions. They all describe an outlook that often times you have expressed; well, not the best opinion of. I do think, however, that it is not very “libertarian” of you to proscribe a broad condemnation of an entire area of political thought based upon a subjective experience of a few individuals whom you have met during your day to day life. I know that more than a few who post here are Constitutionalists. The irony I see, often times while you are lamenting the loss of this clarity, is that the people who composed the Constitution were decidedly liberal. They were influenced by both the Enlightenment and their own experience of being oppressed by the King of England. They wanted to make their own way and to be free of the shackles imposed upon them by a monarchy that in the mid 1700’s was across the Atlantic. In those days, and in practical terms, it was light years of separation.
        Liberalism and libertarianism are distillations of the same thought pool. Cousins perhaps, but both from the same gene of perspective and advancement towards the future. A true libertarian leaves his dirty shoes outside of a house because of forethought and respect. A liberal unconsciously walks in, shoes on feet and washes them. With the method of cleansing achieved by a consensus that the liberal asked for. Out of respect.
        But both have dirt on them.
        Dylan said the same thing in Tangled Up in Blue.
        There is no square, no peg and no round hole.

      • tiredoflibbs April 13, 2013 / 4:40 pm

        mitchie: “Liberalism and libertarianism are distillations of the same thought pool.”

        mitchie is unfortunately confused. In order for “liberalism” to be of the same thought pool as “libertarian”, one would have to equate CLASSIC liberalism with libertarianism and not MODERN liberalism or progressivism. The modern progressives have bastardized and stolen the term “liberal”. Why? Progressivism was in itself another code word for socialism. “Liberal” was more acceptable to the American people than “progressive”.

        If you disagree mitchie, all you have to do is research classic liberal, modern liberal and libertarian to see that I am accurate. If you believe obAMATEUR and the Democrats are close to same thought pool as libertarian, then you are a fool.

        I will go with fool.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 5:47 pm

        mitche, while you are clearly fascinated by the sound of your own voice, to me it is just babble.

        For one thing, aside from your tortured and nonsensical fable about Liberals and Libertarians, you are, once again, mired in your ignorance about the difference between identity and ideology.

        Those with the ideology of the Left were once proud of their identity as Socialists, or Fascists, or even Communists. They found the terms to be badges of honor, accurately describing their political philosophy.

        However, when the true nature of Leftism became apparent, people became suspicious of those labels, so the leaders of the Left decided they needed a label that did not announce tyranny, oppression, or misery. And what could sound more noble, more appealing to the ego, more benign, than “liberal”? So the brutal reality of the Left became cloaked in the lovely-sounding word “liberal”, in spite of the inherent contradiction between the intolerant, illiberal, narrowness of spirit of Leftism and the lofty promise of “liberal”, in the true sense of the word.

        When the word “liberal” became too tarnished by reality, in its use by political Liberals, they needed a new word—and who would want to be in opposition to progressiveness? So then the Left was rebranded as “Progressive”, again in defiance of the harsh reality that is is a regressive political philosophy, seeking to move backward toward an always-failed political structure.

        Some are still fooled, still think that Liberal means liberal, that Progressive means moving forward instead of backward. They are seduced by the dictionary definitions of the words, and incapable of understanding that when these are applied to a political philosophy the true meaning is turned on itself to mean its opposite. All that matters is the illusion they can cling to by the use of the word.

        Leftism appeals because of its carefully crafted idealism, but its reality, when it is implemented, is the antithesis of its promises. Yet many uncritical thinkers are quite satisfied with the superficial disguise of idealism, fairness, equality and generosity of spirit, and more and more are even more attracted by its callous recruitment of the angry, the resentful, the hostile, the needers of hate and conflict, as it gathers together all of these negatives and redefines them as noble if directed toward an Other identified for them by their minders as the Enemy—–the Right.

        We see this all the time right here on the blog. mitche is an excellent example. He admits to a political philosophy that is quite Libertarian, he postures as someone seeking reasoned discourse, yet when push comes to shove we see that what really matters to him, what drives him, is his irrational loathing of an Other which, though it shares many of his perspectives, is identified as the Right.

        He doesn’t appear to move toward the Left because of what it offers but away from the Right because of what he thinks it represents, neither of which has much relationship to political reality.

        There are some who really do want to know the truth, who are strong enough and ethical enough and honest enough to acknowledge errors when they are found. It is a challenge, but some have met it. I found it hard to admit I had been suckered in by fantasy and false promises, but I kept digging and studying and researching, and it got easier as I went on. I found different kinds of Liberals—honest, well-meaning but unexamined Liberals, sour hostile Liberals addicted to the ability to spew hatred and venom without being identified as having personality disorders because they were directing their pathologies toward an accepted Enemy, and the cold-eyed callous manipulators who knew it was all crap but also knew they could profit from marketing it.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 6:11 pm

        It is really amusing to see the likes of mitch regurgitating the tired old whines about how the Founding Fathers were radical liberals,etc.

        As we constantly repeat here, in 21st Century American politics, words are defined, and they are not defined according to 18th Century colonial terms, or dictionary terms, but only as they apply to contemporary ideology.

        In 21st Century American politics, Liberals/Progressives are adherents to the Leftist model of government, which is defined as one centered around a large, powerful, and infinitely expandable federal government with the stated goals of taking care of people, meeting peoples’ needs, and enforcing some people’s concepts of equality of outcome, via massive legislation and redistribution of wealth.

        Even in 18th Century Colonial politics, those wanting to establish a democratic republic did not qualify, in any way shape or form, as political Liberals. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of the goals of the Founding Fathers can see that their determination to avoid at all costs the dangers of large and powerful central government is completely at odds with the basic premise of Liberalism as a political concept.

        In 21st Century American politics, “conservative” has nothing at all to do with the dictionary definition of the word, and everything to do with a commitment to governing the United States according to its formal rule of law, the Constitution.

        A man can be quite conservative, in the dictionary form of the word, being resistant to change, not following fads or trends in dress or social customs, and yet be a raging Liberal arguing passionately for the interference of government in every aspect of life in this country and for the constant redefinition of the Constitution to meet shifting desires and agendas.

        Someone can be quite liberal in day to day life and attitude and behavior, can be a rock musician Wiccan who communicates with animals and drives a Prius and has a rammed-earth house with solar power and is in the Peace Corps, and still be adamant in his belief that the nation is best governed by our Constitution—or, in political terms, a Conservative.

        As long as people are baffled by the difference in definitions and ignorant of the political meaning of terms, and use them interchangeably with terms that have nothing to do with politics, we will keep seeing irrelevant nonsense like mitche’s treatise on the liberalism of colonial rebels, and convoluted fables about attitudes toward muddy shoes.

      • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 6:27 pm

        ….not to mention silliness about Tangled Up In Blue being relevant to reaching a consensus on washing dirty shoes. Or feet. Or floors. Or whatever.

        Dylan also wrote “You’re right from your side/And I’m right from mine” and that didn’t have anything to do with politics, or dirty shoes, either.

        Might as well try to say that the TV show Different Strokes was about “consensus” of “methods of cleaning”.

        And BTW, Liberalism and Libertarianism lose all relationship to each other once you get past the first two syllables. Once again, we see the confusion that comes from simply not knowing how words are defined.

        Libertarianism is about freedom from government interference, while Liberalism is about promoting government interference.

      • 02casper April 13, 2013 / 8:29 pm

        “Anyone with even the slightest understanding of the goals of the Founding Fathers can see that their determination to avoid at all costs the dangers of large and powerful central government is completely at odds with the basic premise of Liberalism as a political concept.”

        Ironic isn’t it that the Constitution was written to replace the government under the Articles of Confederation with a larger, more powerful central government.

      • Retired Spook April 13, 2013 / 8:48 pm

        Ironic isn’t it that the Constitution was written to replace the government under the Articles of Confederation with a larger, more powerful central government.

        Only someone who was ignorant of the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution would think it was ironic. The Articles of Confederation were about 1 notch from anarchy. The Constitution still outlines a central government that is, or at least was, quite limited in scope and power.

      • Cluster April 13, 2013 / 9:26 pm

        Casper,

        Amazona, and many other conservatives have repeatedly stated that in order to really understand the framers intent of the constitution, you have to read their numerous writings of the time, as they deliberated and crafted the document. Those writings clearly reveal a desire to design a document that limits the federal government power, but holds the states authority nearly limitless, as directed by the people of course. The framers intent was clearly to build a union of smaller democracies under the protective umbrella of a larger entity delegated with the mandate to preserve the freedom of those smaller democracies.

      • 02casper April 13, 2013 / 9:57 pm

        Spook and cluster,
        I’m not disagreeing with you. I’ve read a lot of the founder’s writings from the time. The point is, the Constitution was written to create a stronger central government than we had under the Articles of Confederation. Shay’s rebellion scared the crap out of everyone. You can’t run a country with 13 different states each going their own way. Is the Federal Government bigger than the founding fathers intended? Absolutely. They wrote the best constitution they could for the time. I am in awe of them. I doubt though that they would write the same constitution for today.

      • Cluster April 13, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        I doubt though that they would write the same constitution for today.

        I agree. I think they would write a document even more restrictive of the federal government having seen the abuses that have occurred.

      • Amazona April 14, 2013 / 10:41 am

        “Ironic”?

        I know that Libs love to use this word, and so seldom use it correctly.

        There is no irony in the fact that the Founders saw problems in one our early efforts to organize the states into a cohesive nation and corrected it. Duh.

        Instead of trying to drag in as many other things as possible, why not just look at the Constitution itself? There is a cartoon called Family Circus and every now and then there will be one of Billy’s path as he goes from his house to the house next door, and on the way there is a long, looping, meandering dotted line that shows his wandering path all over the neighborhood before he finally gets to the house next door. I often think of this when I read the posts of Libs, with the exception that they seldom if ever get “next door” but are stuck wandering around, gazing at the Articles of Confederation and pondering whether or not the Founders were liberal and how different things are today and so on.

        The Constitution is what it is. Period. And what it is, is a document carefully crafted to create a government with a strong central core, designed to provide a unified identity to a unified nation, and for the purpose of protection, with actual power for government given to the people and to the states. A study of history shows that the original Americans were not happy with the original Constitution, because they thought it did not provide enough restrictions to federal government, and it was ratified only because the Founders promised to come back after it was confirmed by the states and firm it up, which they did with the Bill of Rights.

        They ended up with a tightly written rule of law in which the first part lays out the duties of the federal government and the second lays out its restrictions, all tied up quite nicely with the summation that if the federal government is not told it must do something, it can’t do it, and at that point it is up to the states and to the people.

        The only ones who have trouble understanding this are those who just don’t want it to say what it says, so need to try to find other ways to “interpret” it so they can expand the size, scope and power of the federal government, to accomplish their own goals and agendas.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2013 / 11:42 am

        “Ironic isn’t it that the Constitution was written to replace the government under the Articles of Confederation with a larger, more powerful central government.”

        BUT, they did insist on the BILL OF RIGHTS which LIMITED and restricted that power of that government. Many would not vote for the Constitution WITHOUT those rights.

        “You can’t run a country with 13 different states each going their own way.”

        But the same Founding Fathers put in the 9th and 10th amendments for that purpose. The people and the states would decide what the government were not authorized to. And it worked until the left decided that they could bypass the Constitution through the Courts.

      • neocon01 April 14, 2013 / 1:03 pm

        Tired

        And it worked until the left decided that they could bypass the Constitution through the Courts.

        which is unconstitutional in its self.

  12. mitchethekid April 13, 2013 / 3:28 pm

    Moderator, please enforce the rules.

    Moderator note: I’m not sure to what rules you’re referring. Each of the last two threads have been exceptionally civil.

    • Amazona April 13, 2013 / 5:51 pm

      You seem to think you have enough standing here to dictate how the blog is moderated—yet another example of delusional thinking.

  13. 02casper April 13, 2013 / 8:54 pm

    Moderator,
    I saw a thread on another blog that I thought was pretty good. “What was your last most beautiful moment?” Just thought it might be a nice change of pace.

  14. Jeremiah April 14, 2013 / 2:17 am

    I think that comment is indicative of how liberals largely see America, including the President. I think liberals see America has an unjust, racist, imperialistic country that needs to be “brought down to size” so to speak, and that vision could really be at the heart of what separates liberalism and conservatism.

    Right on, Cluster!

    That’s how higher education is changing the ideological mindset among most Americans. Just as a story that Spook shared recently illustrates, a school that concentrates on ideology that is completely out of step with the primary purpose of higher education, a school that teaches nothing of substantial value, against everything that made America a success. In this manner, they are redesigning the demographic makeup of the political and sociological landscapes. And the children who enroll are told to agree, or be threatened with no opportunity at an education. And some “education” they are getting, with all the communistic humanistic claptrap their minds are being filled with.

    Americans who care should be fed up with what’s going on in higher institutions of learning, or risk the undertaking of a country on its deathbed.

Comments are closed.