NOTE TO POSTERS/TROLLS:
Non responsiveness may result in the loss of publication privileges.
This is especially true if you are a troll who has already broken the rules: www.democrats.com/rules
Since American Liberalism contains liberal, conservative, and libertarian sentiments, conversation can be productive across political leanings.
Present day Republicans and Right Wingers, are however, just plain nuts: They have systematically rejected the Sciences, and everything classic Conservatism has fought for over the decades. They have become MASSIVE Government builders except with respect to fighting for the vast majority against Economic Monopolies.
We are left with nitwits claiming to be Conservative but advancing Far LEFT nonsense in support of the Iraq War. In the next breath Far RIGHT nonsense with respect to Economics.
The American Experiment is for those who can keep it. The Right has become nothing more than a team label.
You took my plaything
;-)
Sick and tired of War and Fleece, yet? Vote democrat!
I figure the price of a
I figure the price of a Disruption Admission should be at least a couple of questions answered ;)
I agree
Can't we offer classes or something? I'm not sure it would work since they're sort of ignorant, but we could try. ;-)
Sick and tired of War and Fleece, yet? Vote democrat!
I don’t think we can afford the insurance:
Thinking would surely kill them and answering ONE of my questions would surely give me a stroke or sumptin.
HOPE
Yes, we could offer classes. But if our primary and secondary public education system focused on producing citizens able to read, write, and compute, think critically and versed in civics and life skills such as personal financial and household management, we might not need to.
Incredible as it may sound, I know through personal experience that our local high school graduates were never required to read and discuss the meaning of the US Constitution. But, I was assured by a graduate they they were told about it. O, I felt so much better!
My point is that by neglecting these basics, we foster an environment ripe to subvert our republic with its democratic traditions into something like fascism.
So, where's the HOPE in all this?
I spend a fair amount of time interacting with tightie-righties. And to say that they are threatened and confused by what has gone on is an understatement of extreme proportions, in my estimation. They are confused and argumentative, but rarely have facts to back themselves up, and often proclaim their opinions as facts.
The hope is to stay on the facts and maintain your position. They will try to get you to do their bidding - "research this or that" - while they try to cover for the dismal, absymal failings of 6 years of Bush and the Republican-led congress. Be ready to fend off attacks, both political and personal. Point out that their inability to discuss the topic without rancor means that they have a weak position. They'll yada-yada about "liberals" "socialists" and "communists" because they don't have a clue what each means, just like many don't know what a neo-conservative or fascist is.
One of their latest memes is that we (the collective, illusively-defined "we" - it means anyone not subscribing to their viewpoint) think we know best because we think we are superior to others. Notice how this is a variation on previous years' memes - when they asserted that THEY were superior because of their beliefs or morals. No one wants to acknowledge that someone else is superior, so be aware of the conniving psychological sleight of hand. It's a card played in desperation.
Take every occasion to describe fascism and relate current events to the characteristics of fascism.
Describe and provide examples of authentic liberalism at every opportunity. Never miss an opportunity to reiterate a previous point, with links. Don't be diverted by some red herring. Stay on topic, and point out when they don't. Be patient, professional and direct. Don't ignore smear tactics - call them out on it. Note how the smear tactics show the weakness of their position.
Call a luddite a luddite, and when they dis the American CAN-DO spirit, call them on it.
We must continue to recognize the pollution of political discourse for what it is - a tool of the existing fascist regime. Our fellow Americans, though they be tightie-righties, are confused and conflicted at the abysmal failures and betrayals of the Bush administration. Mainstream America is ready and waiting for a monumental pendulum shift. We have only to appeal to our authentic American values, based on our Constitution and our republic with its democratic traditions, to conjure up the pride of our national American spirit.
WE WILL, WE WILL, ROCK THEM!
That's cool but...
Look I realize that ignorance of the law is no excuse amd I'm not offering an excuse.
I broke the rule about open solicitations for fundraising, I apologized and if you notice I have since sinned no more.
in my understandable zeal to bring you and your readers the good news of a candidate who is IMHO the living embodiment of every thing this website claims to champion, I failed to read the "no fundraising" rule. I am wrong and I offer my most humble and sincere apologies.
That said; may I please have my prvilideges back?
Never doubt that a small committed group of citizens can change the world - it's the ony thing that ever has !
You're cute
I like you. :D
In this life there are two things that are certain. Those two things are death and taxes. (paraphrased - Ben Franklin)
Republicans offer death. I'll take the taxes.
I believe OZ has already
I believe OZ has already done that.
Check and let me know.
Isn't he cute?
I like his style.
In this life there are two things that are certain. Those two things are death and taxes. (paraphrased - Ben Franklin)
Republicans offer death. I'll take the taxes.
I can't tell if a guy is
I can't tell if a guy is handsome or not. You know.
hehehe
;-)
In this life there are two things that are certain. Those two things are death and taxes. (paraphrased - Ben Franklin)
Republicans offer death. I'll take the taxes.
Thank you...
you are most kind.
Never doubt that a small committed group of citizens can change the world - it's the ony thing that ever has !
Nonresponsiveness
"Non responsiveness may result in the loss of publication privileges."
As a victim of your rule, I have some comments. You posted the idea that health care should be provided by employers and be considered as part of their compensation package. I assume this was forwarded because of your view that progressives should 'frame' their policies in the language of the right. I assume you believe this approach would produce converts. I replied that health care was a fundamental right of Americans that should be a single payor plan-Medicare for everyone. Other developed countries do it this way and provide better care at a far lower cost. America provides the worst healthcare for the most money by far per capita. Only 2-3% of Medicare funds go to administrative costs while private providers spend 15-31% of their funds on administrative costs. Overall, IMO, your reply was condescending, arrogant and largely incomprehensile.
First you posted that health care was not a fundamental right because two defined terms that you did not define could not co-exist at the same time. You then went into a tirade that the Left and Far Left had to stop making their arguments based on sentiment and the heart, and 'frame' them in the terms of arguments of the right. I guess that means Harry Truman was a member of the Far Left.
American corporations are vigourously pursuing the elimination of health care and pension benefits. So the right and the corporations are doing their best to eliminate these benefits from the concept of wages. So to 'frame' health benefits as compensation is not part of the corporate lexicon. Corporations only started providing health benefits to circumvent wage controls because of a tight labor market. The union movement, particularly the UAW, carried this concept through after the war. The union movement of the 1930's created the American Dream and the middle class. Corporations also used health care and pension promises that they knew they probably could renege on to reduce current wages.
The Raygun regime initiated the destruction of the unions and the middle class and reintroduced the Social Darwinism idealogy that shaped American society during the Robber Barron years that ran from the latter part of the 19th century to the 1920s where income and wealth inequaliies among Americans grew.
Bush has just accelerated this process by using 911. Now American society is now the most inequitable of the developed countries and the inequalities are growing. The technolgy that created globalization helped Bush along by massively increasing the labor pool so wages can be really depressed. Progressives should base their arguments on creating a country endeavoring for the common good and a just society. These are American values.
The right's values are Social Darwinism where the political economy is supposed to create the gross inequalities and corporate-owned government that Bush craves for. There's no room for compromise or trying to dress-up progressive ideas in the right's arguments. The right believes in two classes of Americans, the uber-rich and the under-mensch.
You then used an incomprehensible explanation of a scientific process which I supposed meant that because you picked up a science degree along the way that adds weight to your arguments.
Finally, you issued an ultimatum that unless I out-argued you, I should fall in line with your views or else. I thought any response would be a waste of time since all your arguments were based on your preconcieved alternative vision of what the political economy of the US was or is which you have invested so heavily on this site. In addition, most of your arguments were incomprehensible.
Finally, the tone of your posting was condescending. Then, with no explanation, my publication privileges were eliminated. I think those privileges should be restored. Although I have read your extensive postings on your conception of what the political economy is, it's still difficult to understand although it is inflexible. For example, what do you mean by your defined terms of Free Market (or whatever is the term you use to describe what you think the American political economy was, and should become again) Far Left, Left, Communism, Socialism, Aristocrats and Monarchy? What do you think the political economy of the US was before Bush? What do you think it should be? Again, I believe my publication privileges should be restored.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
Wow
Got a link? This doesn't sound at all like the Jim I know, and I don't want to miss anything!
I believe 'non-responsiveness' refers to hit-and-run trolls who come in, take a jab, and run like a turkey while the controversy they started grows like crazy.
In this life there are two things that are certain. Those two things are death and taxes. (paraphrased - Ben Franklin)
Republicans offer death. I'll take the taxes.
Ani, no one here could have said what you said better...
every dot is dotted, every T is crossed, and you let the punches fall where they may. This administration and our present corporate structure, consisting of the Robber Baron mindset(as you have also said...shades of the 19th centure with it's untrammeled capitalism...)want the rest of us to die and rot...unloess of course, we will work for less than that amount which will sustain us and our families.
You really said it all well.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Ami, you are not a "victim,"
Ami, you are not a "victim," although you sound like you enjoy the role. Posting an attack on a moderator on an open board will gain you little, and it definiely does not advance your cause.
I followed the thread(s) that you are referring to, and you were in fact non-responsive, but that is not the only reason that you were made a "comment only" user. I suggest that you sit out your time in the penalty box, and not post any more personal attacks, as that is likely to get you banned.
See the Rules here: http://www.democrats.com/rules
In what sense were you a
In what sense were you a “victim” of the rule?
I asked you to respond.
You did not.
I did NOTHING (but perhaps sigh).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if you had given me the courtesy of even ONE interaction you would have seen that and not accused me.
The rule is in place so that we can make some advancement, but mostly to ensure that Right Wing Trolls are forced to think or get lost, not for Dems who disagree or who think they disagree.
As to your post now: That is a wonderful way to advance the Democratic cause: Responsiveness.
You seem to have missed many of my points; however that is partially due to a lack of back and forth conversation and the ongoing work here to produce a Template for American Liberalism which is true to its roots and self consistent.
I'll answer your post point by point soon.
Liberals would give you the shirt off another guys back.
.
"You posted the idea that health care should be provided by employers and be considered as part of their compensation package."
No: this is an ongoing project to change people’s overall VIEW of ANYTHING Democrats gain for the majority.
Democratic gains are (generally speaking) NOT “entitlements”, they are NOT “charity”, and they are NOT “rights”. They should be overwhelmingly MORE robust (read Health Care, no taxes on the first $60,000 made, increase the troop’s salaries 50%, etc.) and are simply partial compensation for labor packages.
The majority has not gotten a real raise in decades. They can gain it via synchronized action within the “Free” Market and this would NOT cause upper tier workers (at now lower compensation) to leave their jobs (because we know they use to work for less). With this mindset thoroughly in place any strike/boycott that fails due to scabs (either in reality or in conversation) could still gain victory. How? By another kind of synchronized action (that is more practical now that we have a Nation of a third of a billion people): Voting.
I offer arguments for how this is not the cop out advanced by Newt Gingrich and his “vote yourself a raise” campaign so as to shame workers into remaining Republican. Some of the argument is that both Republicanism and Libertarianism both rely on “Taking from the Winner and giving to the Loser” and so Liberalism is no different in kind, just in scope –we provide for a Middle Class and dignity for all.
This then, can stand against Libertarian and Republican onslaughts as “charity, rights, and entitlements” can not. This is useful with respect to advancing Liberalism amongst:
Folks don't need all the details I allude to above (though the conduits to them –“moderates”, academia, etc do).
rights
" I assume this was forwarded because of your view that progressives should 'frame' their policies in the language of the right. I assume you believe this approach would produce converts. I replied that health care was a fundamental right of Americans that should be a single payor plan-Medicare for everyone. Other developed countries do it this way and provide better care at a far lower cost. America provides the worst healthcare for the most money by far per capita. Only 2-3% of Medicare funds go to administrative costs while private providers spend 15-31% of their funds on administrative costs.
First you posted that health care was not a fundamental right because two defined terms that you did not define could not co-exist at the same time. You then went into a tirade that the Left and Far Left had to stop making their arguments based on sentiment and the heart, and 'frame' them in the terms of arguments of the right. I guess that means Harry Truman was a member of the Far Left. "
.
First let me say that this is all very Twilight Zone like. Whoa’s name in his/her profile is Ami Ami. I can’t remember all that is being referred to here but I do remember that connection. Whoa was rabidly Illegal Alien and falling for Right Wing “solutions”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway:
Drop the framing in the language of the Right attack:
- I have proposed far grander reforms than most.
- I have taken up countering THE persuasive argument of the Right (that Liberals would give you the shirt off another man’s back). I have given myself the additional challenge of not making use of what does not work: an appeal to the Liberal Heart alone. I am advancing this both dispassionately and in an IN YOUR FACE manner to Republicans who come here.
.
.
And yes, I have heard the numbers –including those championed in pop culture by Baldwin, which I think you quoted. We need something to penetrate the masses. Elsewhere I write:
“I assure you that everyone of import does their job for a reasonable salary alone. The welfare so produced is enjoyed by EVERYONE, including those who bemoan “charity” and “welfare.” Once hard workers of modest desires catch on to this, they will demand more for their labor in the form of Health Care for all Americans.”
So we are likely to be on the same side.
New/Old Conversation
”Overall, IMO, your reply was condescending, arrogant and largely incomprehensile.”
The condescension and arrogance, if there, came from:
Worrying over the same approach as has been tried for decades not working. Maybe some of us feel we need to bend a few arms and do the dirty work of starting a new conversation. Of analyzing everything to its core including some powerful and well meaning counter arguments to Liberalism. If this is the case then a calculated measure of force is needed to make advances. There is no other way, as has been shown most recently by Rush and company.
There may also have been a bias introduced due to Ami Ami. I simply can not clearly remember.
The incomprehensible nature of what I wrote, if there, came from:
-This is NEW to the world (or Old) so perhaps it was difficult.
-You where non responsive so there was no feedback.
-I did a shitty job.
And it is likely to be all three.
Might I catch a break however?
The Right did bad things. People should be good. Yes. Now what?
I agree with you and that is why you are wrong. The Right IS doing their best to eliminate these benefits from the concept of wages. They do this because they understand that the vast majority of Americans view wages as something they DO deserve. To allow this, or an even broadening of the concept (as I suggest), is deadly to their cause.
You just summarized some things the Right has done that Liberals despise. Okaaaaaay.
And how does stating it, help anybody? The problem is not what you state, but that the majority of Americans voted it in due to the mythos of the “rugged individualist”, “Winner Take All”, etc. Blue Collar folks, with money in their pockets due to past Democratic gains, have had the luxury of listening to the Right's bullshit. Now that their ox is being gored they are a bit more attentive. Still, as our Illegal Immigration Forums show, sometimes even “Liberals” fall for it yet AGAIN. These Liberals are not being so nice or good, they are simply pissed at Mexicans. If you would like to tell them to be good be my guest. What I have told them is to be good AND smart and added a bit of ridicule to motivate a positive goal: Good incomes for the vast majority of professions.
Now you demand that Americans should be nice to each other. Once again however you take the easy way out and provide no arguments to counter:
“A Liberal will give you the shirt off the other guys back.”
I do provide those arguments. That is the difficult part, not noting that the Right is bad and that we should all be nice.
You have presented no arguments. You note that the Right has done bad and the people should be good and imply that we should make one person work for another’s well being WITHOUT providing a framework for how that might be reasonable and a bit different than it seems at first blush.
I do provide those arguments.
I lead the life of a bleeding heart liberal.
I do not see how that gives me the right to force someone else to work for another. The ends do not justify the means as many millions have been killed in the advance of such.
Comedy is a powerful. Dealing with all the barbs, ridicule, and laughter about “helping others” does grind on a Liberal’s soul. However, it grounds one as well.
It is wrong to force labor for another and that is what popular “Liberalism” has come to mean.
It is also NOT what American Liberalism demands yet STILL arrives where you wish to go.
The merciful "end".
Maybe you could have responded with a question?
Again, maybe you could have responded with a question?
I see however you are really getting your digs in, without a moment’s reflection, so I will end here for now. If you are trying to draw me in with your constant use of “incomprehesible” do you not think I can draw some of my own conclusions?
If you like I can respond to your responses or finish responding to your main post. This work is being hammered out, to some extent in public, while concurrently battling Right Wingers live on the boards. It provides answers to:
rather than simply summarizing the ills the Right has caused and forcing people to be nice to one another.
After all, the public has voted for f@@@ing over Unions. They cheered for increased gas prices or at least jeered the notion that Commies would beat back such Corporations with filthy Taxation. Etc. The public is hypnotized. The shit hitting the fan helps but that does not excuse us from mitigating damages by attempting to cut through the bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ami,
You have attacked me in more than a half a dozen distinct ways, some repeatedly, simply for requiring a response. And this so that arguments can be advanced rather than leaving a multitude of cork board replies that just sit there.
Your namesake Ami Ami, the Anti Alien, then attacks in unison.
I have now spent quite some time answering about three quarters of your points, which by the way, have already been answered elsewhere on the blog.
If you don’t get an argument I am making (scientific or otherwise) then either I screwed up or you have a problem, because I do not fling fluff for fluffs sake. Further I have few pre conceived notions as I work through everything from fundamental principles no matter how long it takes. Take just a moment to entertain that as a possibility rather than trying to score points by deriding it.
Now instead of working your way up to dozens of insults please use the forums as they have been designed: for responsive postings. And yes, your pre conceived notions will be challenged.
Thanks,
Jim
Universal Health Care
My post on universal health care as a fundamental right was based on economic grounds. A single payor health care system through the government is far less expensive and produces better results. The US government representing the American people would be able to negotiate better terms with the service providers, like Big Pharma. Further, the US has lost jobs to other developed countries because it does not have a single payor program, and some corporations, like Ford, are supporting such a program. Finally, as I recollect, public health became an issue in the US only when the epidemic the have-nots were suffering across the river spread to the haves. In any event, according to the polls a significant majority of Americans want universal health and are willing to pay more taxes to get it.
Of course, in any society with limited resources, priorities would have to be set. The program would cover the needs of the many and not the few. Maybe there would be a place for the insurance companies to provide Medigap coverage beyond Medicare, if they were willing to do so without corporate welfare from the state.
IMO, the promise of the culmination of American values imbued by the Founding Fathers is a country with a political economy designed to futher the common good and a just society, but it will always be a work in progress. Even the reigning saint of capitalism, Adam Smith, conditioned the implementation of his theories on the furtherance of the national interest and did not think them applicable to corporations. In his view, it was the free market that was to serve the national interest, not the other way around.
IMO the promise of American values represents the further civilization of America and not barbarism. To me, this means a country devoted to the common good and a just society.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
When a FRAME is REALITY.
Thanks for the reply.
I think we are missing each other. I continue to champion as much OR more, for the vast majority, than I think you have spoken of so far (not a challenge, just a rough estimate so you understand where I am coming from.)
I am not trying to reframe the issues however. I am simply looking deeper into what the reality of the situation is.
Now Libertarians and Republicans will cry foul because this was accomplish via the synchronized action of a National vote rather than via some synchronized action within the “Free” Market.
The goal of Liberals however is to make the above clear! IF a vote leads to what a “Free” Market action would, THEN it is a technical detail that separates the two, NOT a Communistic move.
Workers need to know the reality of their situation:
This approach of analyzing just one damned level deeper than the sound bites (used by the Right to bash us) to the actual American values of reason, perspective, hard days work for a descent days pay, etc covers the ground Democrats have lost these last few decades.
It is certainly agreed that a parallel course of expressing the traditional Liberal heart is also necessary but not sufficient. It is our birthright to be selfish if we wish. What is not ours however, is not ours.
Not only does homage need to be paid to our birthright to be selfish but ALSO to the reality above and Darwinian cooperation.
I have read some of your old posts. You seem competent and a Liberal. I hope my words are making more sense.
I hope to post a roughed out map of where America lands on the Economic landscape shortly. I hesitate to pass this along on open board because this is only for Liberal ears, but if you can read between the lines: I am claiming defining points in Economics that aid the vast majority while not turning off the vast majority.
Jim
P.S. The groups below must be reached. They share a dislike of the Religious Right but have bought too far into Republican Economic views.
South Park Republicans, Eggheads, Under 18, Libertarians
In no particular order these groups: Like Republicans on Money Matters. Republicans have just about tied Democrats on Money Matters. Running even further along the Republican route.
The general populace must also be reached as Republican Economic "theory" has made massive inroads there as well. The above, concurrent with a big and transparent Democratic plan for them, will win them over.
Continuance
In the absense of a union movement or social movement, the government must be aligned with the interests of the American people and not the corporations. In this regard, it would be very useful if corporations were not defined as persons under the Constitution with Constitutional rights. But this would require a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court ruling reversing its prior decisions. The political economy must be aligned for the common good of Americans as it was under FDR and LBJ.
Corporate profits and private wealth are a product of the society in which they were earned and the workers that made the profits possible. They are also beholden to the externalities (toxic waste, pollution, dead, injured or sick workers or members of the community in which the business was located) that the corporation has passed-over to the nation. Finally, there is a lien on those profits that were generated by corporate welfare or the transfer of the land, property or other interests held by the public trust for the benefit of the American people.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
The union movement/social
The union movement/social movement you desire flows from an electorate changing its mind.
This thread http://www.democrats.com/node/7018 provides some steps which do not rely on higher order concepts that are easily rejected (with the help of the Right’s taunts).
American Liberalism is centrist in nature. There is no place in Liberalism for simply aiding the majority. We must be clear we also defend the individual INCLUDING on financial matters.
However, as I have tried to convey, all is not as it seems. The above does not imply a free for all as in Libertarianism.
I think its useful to work through a thought experiment in which an individual becomes a millionaire WITHOUT making much use of his fellow members of a society. Then answer why his labor should be forced to help another. Liberalism protects us from the mob as well as the monopoly.
(It is agreed that Military defense and Intellectual Welfare bestowed by others create a livable society. Our thought experiment millionaire is in debt due to that of course. Beyond that however we have individuals who may gain millionaire status with an order of magnitude less help than others. Why should their labor be forced?)
Continuation
In
the absense of a union movement or social movement, the government must
be aligned with the interests of the American people and not the
corporations. In this regard, it would be very useful if corporations
were not defined as persons under the Constitution with Constitutional
rights. But this would require a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme
Court ruling reversing its prior decisions. The political economy must
be aligned for the common good of Americans as it was under FDR and
LBJ.
Corporate profits and private wealth are a product of the society in
which they were earned and the workers that made the profits possible.
They are also beholden to the externalities (toxic waste, pollution,
dead, injured or sick workers or members of the community in which the
business was located) that the corporation has passed-over to the
nation. Finally, there is a lien on those profits that were generated
by corporate welfare or the transfer of the land, property or other
interests held by the public trust for the benefit of the American
people.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
I'm confused about the
I'm confused about the repeat as well.
Was this to imply that what you wrote is all there is to Liberalism and the electorate and I am simply to take it?
If so, the electorate is not taking it.
A direct answer to any of the points I have made would be useful, instead of relying on the generalities also used by people who force labor.
By the way:Yes corporations
By the way:
Yes corporations should not be treated as people, but when people believe their interests are aligned with corporations (both with respect economic advances AND that of the spirit: read individualism, the notion of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, etc.) then we must address those concerns.
Continuation
To promote the promise of American values, the political economy
of America should be a self-sustaining capitalist consumer economy.
This would reflect the vision of Henry Ford that his workers would be paid enough to buy his products. This prevailed until the Raygun regime. Raygun initiated the destruction of the American Dream. Then the natural instincts of the corporations to lower wages by any means possible was released. Deregulation decriminalized corporate actions that harmed Americans. Privatization gave away the land, resources and other interests held in trust for the American people. Bush was able to accelerate the destruction by using 911. The Senate Republicans just filibustered an increase in the minimum wage in the face of evidence that those states and cities that raised the minimum wage above the federal level had increased economic activity and the loss of no jobs.
In place of the American Dream economy, Bush created the most inequitable developed country where a person had a better chance of achieving the American Dream in most other developed countries. Bush created the national security state at permanent war where demand is endless for products that kill, destroy or suppress American's Constitutional rights. Polls say a majority of American workers want to join a union if they could. Under Bush, legal and illegal means of preventing and busting unions is consistent with the aims of the Bush Party.
The bad joke of an American as a rugged individual is pervaded by TV, films and Bush propaganda of an ownership society. The reality is the ordinary American spends most of his waking hours under a corporate or governmental dictatorship where doing the right thing means personal destruction. This is particularly ironic in the welfare Red States where their economies are subsidized by the Blue States and corporate pork. In reality, the sad truth is that people who try to do the right thing are killed like Martin Luther King or jailed like Eugene Debs. Unlike TV and films, the rugged individual does not get the girl and ride into the sunset.
The term Progressive better describes those who are trying to realize the promise of American values. The term Liberal is tainted by neo-Liberal economics, the Washington Consensus, that when implemented create the most inequitable of just society.
Ami represents my email address aztec maya inca, three great American civilizations that were also destroyed by thugs carying bibles.
Illegal immigration will only be stopped when the corporate executives that benenfit from their work are jailed. For example, when a Walmart store contacted with a coyote to clean the store, the CEO of Walmart would be jailed. Corporations love illegals because they are much easier to exploit, it lowers the pay of other workers and racism can be used to divide workers against themselves. The only other way that the flood of illegals will stop will be when the wages in America are the same as they are in their home countries. The Bush Senate is not going to pass an immigration. They plan on holding townhall meetings to use racism to their advantage in the 2006 elections. For Nixon, they called this the Southern Strategy.
Jim, I think this covers your points. If not, let me know.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
You did not address any of
You did not address any of my previous points nor answer any questions.
You did however include a few well posed phrases so that tells me something. I’m not sure then why you refuse to open up to detailed work across disciplines.
Summarizing what Liberals know is not enough to change the minds of the electorate. Of course, just the shit hitting the fan may be enough even without specific input from Liberals.
You have now:
- wielded a dozen insults without a single apology.
- left unanswered every question or point except in generalities and never as a “reply”.
- shoved in my face a verbatim post with a slightly changed title so I would get that you are not going to bother and are simply going to repeat yourself word for word.
- (and forgive me for being suspicious) ended with what seemed like another: yeah yeah yeah whatever. I may be in error about that one but in context it sounded that way.
You are aware that this thread was shut down for a time due to other reasons. I might be content to allow that to continue but I did not want a shut down that forced mine as the last word.
I Thought This Was Closed, But If Not
Jim- I thought my post did answer your points.
As far as your mind experiment, I said the greediness of the individual is always trumped by the common good backed-up by a government supporting the people rather than the elite. Your millionaire would have to pay his progressive taxes (or have the excess wealth taken away or redistributed from him by some other means), even in the impossible scenario where he got not no quid pro quo (what about the rule of law and the police) from the country where he made his wealth even if never exploited anyone and his genius produced not only wealth but a cure for cancer. If he does not give-up his excess wealth the coercive power of the state comes to bear against him.
I posited a fix for the other side (is this what you mean by cross-something?) that their capitalist game would become suicidal if they did not more equitably share the profits. This is what FDR and Henry Ford also told them.
"War is a Racket" Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler
Resurrection:
I'm resurrecting this forum because we've had a lot of hit and runners lately.
As you can see above I had an ever evasive Left leaning poster attacking me but never answering a question.
Anyone care to answer a friggen question and perhaps tear the SpaceTime Continuum in the process?
If so, here it is for all those "Rugged Individualists": YOU TAKE FROM THE WINNER AND GIVE TO THE LOSER VIA GOVERNMENT. You do this with a smile on your face. You do this while also railing against this very notion.
Please explain???
I will make quite a claim here: Right here. Right now. A new politics is being worked through. Join the effort because it is not occurring within Independent voters nor Libertarian Camps. They are no longer thinking from the ground up.