Repudiating Republicanism...

Also from Wikipedia:

Scholar of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., writing in 1956, said that liberalism in the United States includes both a "laissez-faire" form and a "government intervention" form. He holds that liberalism in the United States is aimed toward achieving "equality of opportunity for all" but it is the means of achieving this that changes depending on the circumstances. He says that the "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."[4]

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you are talking about the modern liberal of America, show us where they are advocating for "equal economic outcome?"

Libs constantly complain about the government not being Robin Hood enough. What is so complicated about figuring it out, imposter, and you are always ragging on about that as well, the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

0 Replies

FYI, the rich is getting richer, and the poor is getting poorer. Where can you find where we have advocated for "equal economic outcome?" Simple question to a statement you made earlier on this thread. Now, prove it with as many copy and paste you wish to make.

0 Replies

come on, okie, put up or shut up.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

So, would you mind explaining how it could be "permissive" at the same time it tells everybody what to do?

okie wrote:

permissiveness precedes the breakdown of a society, which results in government control. If society is not responsible, then government will step in to try to make it responsible. Freedom without responsibility will fail.

but that has nothing to do with answering how you decry leftists for promoting a culture "where nobody has any personal responsibility that is diametrically opposite of the government you say they would propose and you fear being

Quote:

"powerful enough to tell everybody what to do 24 hours a day, and bank on it, it will.[/b]

.

you cannot, with any intelletucal consistency declare that leftists want a permissive society while complaining that the government it would install would tell everyone what to do.

Okie, either they are "permissive" or they aren't.

Which is it today for you?

okie wrote:

That helps explain why Bill Clinton is idolized by so many of that ilk.

KUVASZ wrote:
]Nope, not this one, try another example. Martin Luther King or Bobbie Kennedy perhaps, those would be "liberals" I might consider idolizing, but Bill Clinton?

Hmmm, MLK and Bobbie Kennedy were not the same as your modern day liberal, kuvasz.

So in what way were Martin Luther King and Bobbie Kennedy different than a "modern day liberal?"

okie wrote:

And if libs do not idolize the Clintons, why is Hillary expected to win your party's nomination?

Could it be that since only 22% of American's call themselves liberal, means that liberals do not run the Democratic Party? You know, your remark is so clueless because liberals do not want Hillary Clinton to be the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, because they too remember Bill Clinton, for what he did during NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act

okie wrote:

Leftists are engaged in rejecting age old norms of behavior, but what they do not understand is that those norms are really what have enabled our culture to thrive.

kuvasz wrote:
Oh really? Change "Leftists for "Abolitionists" and that remark sounds an awful like that of the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in 1861.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

Quote:

btw: so you don't have to google him, Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Slavery was also an age-old norm of behavior that enabled the Confederacy to thrive too, so do you want to reinstitute slavery because it was okay in the Bible and the South sang?

So describe how slavery is different than those other "age old norms of behavior" you boast about defending.

okie wrote:

If you wish to equate sexual promiscuity, or homosexual marriage, or other similar things with slavery, or polygamy with slavery, forget it, kuvasz. Abe Lincoln was a Republican by the way.

and gay?

Yet you still haven't described with examples your meaning of "age old norms of behavior."

OKIE wrote:

kuvasz, how many white people died to procure the freedom of slaves? Plenty. Who led that effort? A Republican, Abraham Lincoln, a man that kept a bible on his desk by the way. The modern liberal did not procure the freedom of slaves. And lest you think the women that fought for voting rights were modern liberals, they might disagree with you about abortion.

Sorry, no coconuts for you, you are dead wrong, The modern suffragette movement wanted the vote, contraceptives and abortion rights, and how in the world can you write with a straight face and claim Lincoln when your own political philosophy is against the federalism of Lincoln and is steeped in the "states rights" nonsense of the old Confederacy.

Go back and read on the election of 1912, the big business hogs took over the GOP at their convention and forced out those progressives who were Lincoln's natural political descendents. They formed the Bull Moose Party and had the real last progressive Republican president as their standard bearer, Teddy Roosevelt.

okie wrote:

You are spewing the same old tired bilge of the leftist view of the world. You are blatantly wrong when you claim the poor cannot succeed or that it is rare. I know of numerous examples just in the circle of people that I know, which is a fly speck portion of America. You fit the category of whiners and complainers, and meanwhile people are breaking the door down to get to this country.

It is rare, and your personal anecdotes mean nothing compared to the overwhelming amount of statistics that counter your uninformed opinion.

And my complaint about you is your constant attempt to bull$hit people into believing that one plus one equals three, while your's against me is having me correct your mistakes.

The America Dream is no longer just being deferred it is being eliminated for many people who work hard, play by the rules, and yet nonetheless see themselves falling further behind.

Quote:

The stickiness is at the top and the bottom. According to one much-cited study, for instance, more than 40 percent of American boys born into the poorest fifth of the population stay there

Two out of five American males born poor remain poor. Even "old Europe" countries, chock-full of socialism like Denmark has better mobility levels concerning their poor than the United States.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/05/myth_of_american_economic_mobility/

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200706/land-of-opportunity

http://skatje.com/?p=307

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521827604

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/27607/frontmatter/9780521827607_frontmatter.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html?hp

0 Replies

okie wrote:

A business has a right to demand drug tests. I personally know of businesses that have cleaned out their workforce and have made drastic improvements in performance of their work flow, by getting rid of the druggees. A positive drug result allowed them to fire the people. Otherwise, it would be difficult to weed them out, and to know for sure which ones were the primary problems. The drug tests helped get rid of the right people. If you don't want a drug test, go work somewhere that does not require them. Businesses doing it is far different than the government requiring it for everyone.

Businesses have the right to require certain things in order to work there. People have the right to work somewhere else.

I have not complained about a business doing what it needs to do to remain in business, and I have taken nearly a dozen pre-employment and random drug tests successfully, but you laid out the issue succinctly, "The drug tests helped get rid of the right people." however, not really now was it? Without using such tests management was not able to find job performances different enough between the regular worker and the "drug addled" workers. That implies that the latter were doing their jobs as well as those who passed their drug test.

And okie. Oklahoma is a "Right to Work" state where management doesn't need a reason to fire someone, so your local example is frankly bull$hit, the company could fire anyone for any cause, even for mere suspicion of drug use, and most certainly for poor job performance

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
kuvasz,

Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

No, only for cases of "probable cause."

If it required an examination under the sophisticated scrutiny of a gas chromatographic - mass spectrophotometer to ascertain that someone took illegal (or legal) drugs, would that not likely mean the person was not being affected in a way to adversely affect their job performance.

That is the point, job performance, isn't it?

Frankly, using IQ tests to screen potential employees would be better.

I am required to undergo random drug tests because I drive a truck for a living.
My vehicle can weigh 80,000 lbs loaded.
Do you want me or other drivers driving stoned or high or drunk?

Let me explain something to you because you don't appear to be too cautious with your words. First, you asked:

Quote:
Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

then you made the wild leap implying that if you are not subjected to random drug tests likely you and others would drink alcohol or smoke psychoactive drugs while driving.

There are two problems with what you are stating: one, a positive drug test means only that the person ingested the drug, and likely never drank or smoked pot while driving (or on the job), and second did it only in their home, with no affect on their ability to perform their job.

Especially if they are hauling hazardous material, like poison or radioactive or explosives?
I dont.
"Probable Cause" can be to late for the family killed by a driver that is high on drugs.
So, we do the random tests.

Good for you, and as a result you ought to run on over to Frankfort and demand from the Kenkucky State Legislature to reduce the drunk driving alcohol limit to 0.4%, the driving age to 21, and the speed limit to 45mph because that would make the roads safer for all of us.

Right? You want safer roads, and each of these makes them a lot safer than drug testing the pizza delivery boy to see if he was rocking the ganga the night before in his dorm room.

As a volunteer firefighter,I am also subject to random tesats.
I am not a city employee,or a county employee,but since we are responsible for other peoples lives,we undergo random tests.
To be honest,I dont know if thats a state requirement or just my dept.

People who can cause death or serious injury to others because they hold a position of responsibility (firefighters,cops,doctors,nurses,truckdriver,ship captains,airline pilots for example) are all subject to random testing,and most of us wouldnt have it any other way.

That "responsibility" can be stretched to include criteria that would include everyone from the guy who cleans the toilets at Micky D's to the guy who makes their greasy fries.

So my position is that unless a person's behavior affects their job performance then there is no reason to drug test.

But you want to restrict a person's behavior even if it has no affect on their job performance.

So even though you know that other legal codifications would do better to achieve your goal of "safer roads," you would prefer to focus on restrictions that are relatively meaningless towards achieving truly safer roads.

And you call yourself a Conservative?

Frankly, you're not.

You are an Authoritarian.

So,you would have no problem with me smoking some pot before I go to work,then immediately jump in my truck and haul poisonous chemicals thru your town while still stoned?
After all,I smoked pot at home on my own time.

0 Replies

This last election was an aberation. Limbaugh probably described it best in noting that the rats had just beaten something with nothing.

Obviously that cannot go on indefinitely and they cannot run Casper the friendly ghost for president two years hence. The American people are going to get the opportunity to say whether or not they actually want Hillary KKKlintler for their president.

0 Replies

Re: Repudiating Republicanism...

okie wrote:

You have fallen prey to the idea that government can level the playing field and make everyone have equal outcomes by "protecting the weak from the strong." Attempts to right those wrongs have proven to be utter and absolute failures in history. Again, reality trumps idealism in the real world. It would be better to simply face certain principles of reality, which is provide a playing field of freedom and personal responsibility. Equal opportunity is what this country is about, but equal outcomes are not what this country has ever been about.

Wherever did anybody but you produce the idea of equal outcomes?
[/quote] Liberals produced the idea, Drewdad. That is part of their philosophy. [/quote]
Really? In your fantasies, perhaps.

okie wrote:

Quote:
As to protecting the weak from the strong being an utter failure.... Slavery has been abolished; minorities have the right to vote; women have the right to vote; the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and even the Wiccans have the right to worship; the handicapped can get out and about; I can safely walk unarmed down my street without worrying about local warlords; monopolies are prevented from controlling all commerce.

Uh, you can't be serious that modern liberalism did all of that? Was Abe Lincoln a Democrat?

All? No. Most? Hmm...

okie wrote:

Modern liberals would rather save the life of a mass murderer than an innocent unborn child. Is that what you call protecting the weak. I think you are confusing the weak with the lazy, the irresponsible, the criminal, and so on.

I think you have a fantastic imagination.

Bob Dylan wrote:

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

0 Replies

DrewDad, You have the patience of a saint! LOL okie's brain is calcified, and what he believes cannot be changed; his brainwash is complete! He continues to make claims that he cannot support with any evidence - just generalities, his. The man is a hopeless case of hysterical ravings. He will never produce any evidence to support it.

0 Replies

The only exception would be from other right-wingnuts without the balls to support their rhetoric.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

DrewDad, You have the patience of a saint!

I work in IT.... :wink:

0 Replies

Here is your hero, the futherest thing from a fascist, according to you guys:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275832,00.html

The above is totally predictable for a guy that is convinced he is the messiah of rescue for all poor people. Such people are so self important and convinced they can eliminate all social ills, typical of leftist liberals, they often stop at nothing or nobody in their way to maintain their power.

Yes, Hugo Chavez, the poster child of the leftist liberals that hates George Bush, as all leftists do,. and came to America to give free heating oil to the poor hapless and helpless people somewhere in the Northeast, the people that the evil oil companies and George Bush despises and does not care a whit about of course. That is so admirable because he too is protecting the weak. He "cares." Hugo is the guy that Cindy Sheehan loves and idolizes, as does all the leftwing extremists. Cindy, your model liberal, right, the gal that goes all over the country to demonstrate for peace and makes it her vocation to criticize this country, the same country that allows her and the likes of fellow liberal icon, Michael Moore, the guy that makes such "honest" and absolutely correct "documentaries" about the evil country we all live in, to openly criticize the country "ruled" by the evil, bordering on fascist, George W. Bush.

You guys are delusional.

0 Replies

Look who's talking about "delusional?" The master himself!

0 Replies

Admit it, leftists love Chavez. And Michael Moore had a special seat at the DNC. He was a celebrity. If anyone wishes to know what the Democratic Party is about these days, take a look at their heros.

You should love Chavez. He loves and protects the weak.

0 Replies

okie, Your grandiose accusations about "leftists" is so inane and stupid, I'm not sure your brain is in forward gear. I don't know who "Chavez" is, and I've never watched or ever will Michael Moore's productions or interviews. Where do you dream up all these stupid statements you make up? You need a brain bath.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Your grandiose accusations about "leftists" is so inane and stupid, I'm not sure your brain is in forward gear. I don't know who "Chavez" is, and I've never watched or ever will Michael Moore's productions or interviews. Where do you dream up all these stupid statements you make up? You need a brain bath.

Hmmm, I thought you were more informed than that. Maybe that explains why you think as you do. Maybe you need to investigate what forces are driving politics these days.

0 Replies

okie, What you will never understand or acknowledge is the simple fact that most of your statements on a2k are challenged by many. There's a simple reason for that fact, but you'll never understand why. Keep on posting your ridiculous claims and ideas; it's not only ironic in its claims, but shows absolute ignorance of the topic in which you participate.

0 Replies

okie, Many on a2k have been more than patient in trying to explain why your position is incorrect, but they seem to fly way over your head, and you ignore what they tell you.

0 Replies

imposter, I am challenged on A2K for one simple reason, and that is the participants lean toward the liberal and Democratic Party philosophy. I am a conservative, so I expect to be challenged. Hopefully, you see the value of opinions other than your own, and hopefully recognize that America is made up of some people that still think this is a wonderful and free country to live and work. I am seeking to provide some balance to the people here that constantly whine and complain about virtually everything, from the economy to the rich and poor, to everything else.

0 Replies

Repudiating Republicanism...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know