patrick.net

"In Gandhi’s teaching, no human should be regarded or treated as being an 'enemy', in the sense of someone you have a right to destroy, or to hate, or to regard as alien, from whom you cannot learn, for whom you can feel no understanding or concern.

"These are simply not appropriate attitudes toward another human being. No one should be regarded as being -- in his or her essence or permanently -- evil or as utterly antagonistic. No people should be seen as being evil persons, as if they were without good in them, a different, less human order of being, as if one could learn nothing from them or as if they were unchangeable, even if what there were doing in the moment was harmful and terrible, indeed evil and needed to be opposed. Thus the whole notion of enemy was both unneeded and dangerously misleading."

-- Daniel Ellsberg, from his memoir _Secrets_, relating his initial encounter with Janaki Natarajan Tschannerl, and her description of the Gandhi philosophy of non-violence.

This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.

Actually this country was founded as a Novus ordo seclorum, a place that rejected the old order of noble privilege, dynastic wealth, and inequality.

The Progressive Era of 100 years ago had the same conservative vs. liberal battles we see now.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

No, this war of ideologies, is not over. But you are not my enemy, nor am I yours.

I can learn from you and you can learn from me.

The liberals won the battles of 230 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and we'll win the current ones.

If we're still right.

I am reminded of the very great American, Senator Carl Schurz:

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

stated in a speech in the Senate, February 29, 1872.

The fight between liberals and conservatives is, as you state, a long, rich one, one that the conservatives have been generally losing from the start. But stick to your guns, we need you to keep us honest and our arguments correct.

Troy says

“In Gandhi’s teaching, no human should be regarded or treated as being an ‘enemy’, in the sense of someone you have a right to destroy, or to hate, or to regard as alien, from whom you cannot learn, for whom you can feel no understanding or concern.
“These are simply not appropriate attitudes toward another human being. No one should be regarded as being — in his or her essence or permanently — evil or as utterly antagonistic. No people should be seen as being evil persons, as if they were without good in them, a different, less human order of being, as if one could learn nothing from them or as if they were unchangeable, even if what there were doing in the moment was harmful and terrible, indeed evil and needed to be opposed. Thus the whole notion of enemy was both unneeded and dangerously misleading.”
— Daniel Ellsberg, from his memoir _Secrets_, relating his initial encounter with Janaki Natarajan Tschannerl, and her description of the Gandhi philosophy of non-violence.
This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.
Actually this country was founded as a Novus ordo seclorum, a place that rejected the old order of noble privilege, dynastic wealth, and inequality.
The Progressive Era of 100 years ago had the same conservative vs. liberal battles we see now.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607
No, this war of ideologies, is not over. But you are not my enemy, nor am I yours.
I can learn from you and you can learn from me.
The liberals won the battles of 230 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and we’ll win the current ones.
If we’re still right.
I am reminded of the very great American, Senator Carl Schurz:
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
stated in a speech in the Senate, February 29, 1872.
The fight between liberals and conservatives is, as you state, a long, rich one, one that the conservatives have been generally losing from the start. But stick to your guns, we need you to keep us honest and our arguments correct.

Troy,

Making a gratuitous assertion, doesn't make it true.

The liberals of 250 years ago, are NOT the Liberals of today.

Liberals 250 years ago, were all about freewill, free speech, self reliance, self determination.

The Liberals (or more aptly) the Progressives of today, want only to steal the wealth of the Tax paying class (people like me), and maintain themselves in the ruling class.

The sad truth is, that intellectually honest progressives, have MUCH more in common with awakened, and informed Tea Party/ Right / Patriots like myself.

The political left, manipulate people to vote Democrat to "get the evil rich", when it's really the super rich, that back the left, and democrats to steal money from me (the tax paying class) to keep us from rising up and competing with the rich.

I wish you would all read Hayek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

There is no place on Earth -- worth living in at least -- that operates according to Hayek.

There is, however, real-world socialist paradises of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany to learn from.

They have their share of problems but Austrian libertarianism is a pipe dream wrapped in delusion.

I am actually a left-libertarian by leaning. I'd like the world to be structured such that we have infinite economic freedom. However, this is not an infinite world, and what I see with the "Honest Abe" version of libertarianism is nothing more than a vicious circle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting increasingly disempowered as wealth -- land, natural resources, capital -- become increasingly owned by the hereditary wealthy.

This is exactly what the Founders were fighting against. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson especially.

Thomas Paine wrote _Agrarian Justice_:

"Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property."

Speaking with my Georgist hat on, it's a beautiful idea!

As for your babble above, I don't know how to respond to it. The Tea Party is largely captured by Christianists like DeMint and Palin, and their shadowy billionaire backers like the Kochs, Murdoch, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks.

The Tea Party is just retreaded and rebranded Republicanism of the sort that catastrophically failed in 2006-2008 after its good long run of 1995-2005. It's all bullshit.

Republicanism and movement conservatism as exercised under Gingrich and Hastert, created many more problems than they solved. Pelosi only got 4 years to address these massive disasters, Obama only 2.

Oh well.

What's funny is that Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, and by accounts got along great with the general Misean nature of the place. Leftists certainly have more to fear from Obama than conservatives, LOL.

Progressives: Hand-holding conservatives through change since 1775.

Troy says

This is exactly what the Founders were fighting against. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson especially.

Funny that you would reference Jefferson when responding to the assertion that the "liberals" of 250 years ago are not the "liberals" of today.

Agree with Hayek's major economic positions or not, a reading of his major work makes clear that the term "liberal" has changed meaning in only the last 60-70 years or so. Today's "liberal" is generally what Hayek referred to as a "collectivist" and seeks more central government control over how the economy is run. The arguments between today's "conservatives" and "liberals" as to the merits and pitfalls of central goverment control aside, there should be little argument that when coming up with a very basic description of the difference between the two, degree of central government control is the issue.

Yesterday's "liberal," such as Jefferson, was for decentralizing government down to the most local level that could be implemented. Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings. Given how you refer to Palin, DeMint, etc., who are probably, generally speaking, to the left of the so-called "liberals" of 250 years ago that you claim are your ideological cohorts, vs. today's conservatives, perhaps you should re-examine whether you are in fact a "liberal," "left-leaning libertarian," etc.: You would absolutely hate Jefferson if he were a political figure today.

BTW, there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek, where (generally speaking, and to pre-empt the typical strawman, not in EVERY single case) government has interjected itself into an economic activity, made the situation worse, and in an effort to fix it, interjected itself even more, to the point of eventually taking nearly full control, while of couse, blaming the non-government sector for the problem and denying any responsibility for any contribution to the problem at all. Hayek's most common work, the Road to Serfdom, was mainly an observation of the socialist movement and control of Germany during the Nazi years, where the central government took more and more control over both economic and social activity... Which leads to another Hayek observation that is generally true and can be seen all around the world: Economic and social policy are inextricably linked...

Troy says

Progressives: Hand-holding conservatives through change since 1775.

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?

Paralithodes says

Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.

What I like about Jefferson was that he was on the same page as Thomas Paine about the evils of concentration of wealth and private ownership of nature.

While as a left-libertarian I think decentralization is good, I also think central coordination about establishing minimums to avoid races to the bottom is better.

The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.

As for my left-libertarianism, I'd like to think that if we all had a citizen's dividend like those socialists up in Alaska enjoy, we'd have a much more egalitarian economy. The core problem I see with the existing economic regime is that 20% of the population is engaged in rampant rentierism on the remaining 80% -- in FIRE, landholding, medical services, energy production and distribution, etc.

It's these rents and the rent-seeking that are the corruption of our current economy. Without them we wouldn't need so much socialism in response, nor would we have the intergenerational dependencies on welfare etc we have now.

there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek

generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you're just bullshitting me on this.

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?

No, we're for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary. Even Hayek didn't have much truck with conservatives harking back on a past that wasn't worth conserving in the first place.

The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the 'Switch in Time that Saved Nine'. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.

This is probably less efficient than a fully centralized approach like "HillaryCare" but it is also conservative and does pay lip service to allowing state-level innovation.

One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that's the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German "Central-Socialism" is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Troy says

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.

Irrelevant to the point, which is that referring to Jefferson as if he were a "progressive" or a "liberal" in the same fashion of today's "progressive" or "liberal" is simply false. Regardless of the commonalities you have with his views, he would be considered a right wing extremist due to at least a) his views on decentralization and limited government control, and b) despite his supposedly being a "Deist" and even pissing off Adams with regards to religion, his quoting and reference to a "God" would have today's left accusing him of wanting a "theocracy," being a "Christian Taliban," etc.

Troy says

The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.

It is very much not conservative, for the simple reason that it specifically breaches a particular aspect of limited central government control. If the government can force people to purchase one product for a specific reason, even if it's a good reason, it can later force them to purchase others, or to further restrict the purchase of others, for other reasons that it argues is good. The health care reform is a specific (and in my opinion intentional) method to finally breakdown the idea of limited central government, or in Obama's words, to "fundamentally transform" the US, which by logical definition means more central government, not less.

Troy says

there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek
generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you’re just bullshitting me on this.

Yes, I answered unfairly. You were referring to examples of where things operated in a positive method according to Hayek, and I answered in the negative, referring primarily to where things operated or progressed poorly, with increasing government control and loss of freedoms, just as Hayek argued they would. I need not provide many specifics on the latter - you can see them all over, but I did not answer your assertion fairly. And I can't because I simply haven't researched that aspect well enough.

Troy says

Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?
No, we’re for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary.

Great! So now we can put to bed the idea that today's liberals have any semblance to those of 250 years ago!

Troy says

The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the ‘Switch in Time that Saved Nine’. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.

I disagree that the reform is pretty "decentralized" since increased centralization can be either a) full administration and control or b) de facto control via directives, regulations, "missions and minimums to meet," etc.

I agree with your observations regarding Hamilton, et. al., but do not accept that as an excuse for continuing down that path. Jefferson himself specifically observed that the natural tencency was for government to increase its power over the people. That, in itself, did not add any legitimacy to the approach, and perhaps that is why he was no fan of Hamilton.

Troy says

One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that’s the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German “Central-Socialism” is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Perhaps.

Liberals have liberated them selves to being irrelevant. There's no Crown to over throw.
America is the empirical Crown, Liberals aren't trying to liberate people from its subjugation or any injustices.

They want to take her out on the highway and open this baby up, and see what this puppy can really do.

Troy says

Paralithodes says

Jefferson himself stated this explicitely in his writings

Jefferson was also elected to office in 1800 with 41,330 votes in total.
What I like about Jefferson was that he was on the same page as Thomas Paine about the evils of concentration of wealth and private ownership of nature.
While as a left-libertarian I think decentralization is good, I also think central coordination about establishing minimums to avoid races to the bottom is better.
The health care reform is very conservative and as such is really no big deal.
As for my left-libertarianism, I’d like to think that if we all had a citizen’s dividend like those socialists up in Alaska enjoy, we’d have a much more egalitarian economy. The core problem I see with the existing economic regime is that 20% of the population is engaged in rampant rentierism on the remaining 80% — in FIRE, landholding, medical services, energy production and distribution, etc.
It’s these rents and the rent-seeking that are the corruption of our current economy. Without them we wouldn’t need so much socialism in response, nor would we have the intergenerational dependencies on welfare etc we have now.
there have been plenty of places on earth that have operated according to Hayek
generally when somebody like you then proceeds to omit a list of actual examples I get the impression that you’re just bullshitting me on this.
Progressives are for a clearly defined, very limited role for the central government?
No, we’re for implementing intelligent change when & where necessary. Even Hayek didn’t have much truck with conservatives harking back on a past that wasn’t worth conserving in the first place.
The idea that this nation is an agglomeration of independent states starting sailing away with Hamilton 200+ years ago, took a body blow 150 years ago with the Civil War, and really went away 75 years ago with the ‘Switch in Time that Saved Nine’. The ACA reform is actually pretty decentralized, with states given missions and minimums to meet.
This is probably less efficient than a fully centralized approach like “HillaryCare” but it is also conservative and does pay lip service to allowing state-level innovation.
One advantage the Swedes and Norwegians have over us is that they are nations of 5-10 million people. Perhaps that’s the largest agglomeration where socialism can work, though the German “Central-Socialism” is a counter example that success can come with population in the tens of millions.

Ah yes, Sweden! The refuge of all the enlightned left.

The bastion of just socialism.

The Ideal example, always pointed to by the left.

You are all so SMART for pointing out how great Sweden is....

NOT!

Sweden is a monarchy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)

Is that your left Utopian society?

Shall I point out other examples of Utopian Left societies, like:

1.) Soviet Union, (50 + Million killed)
2.) China (??? Millions killed)
3.) North Korea (Cannibalism)
4.) Vietnam (Hmm, there's a painful reminder. How's that great utopia doing after 35 years of communist economic development?)
5.) Cuba! (Almost forgot that. Isn't Cuba making painful "layoffs" from the govt. now?)

At one point, 50% of the planet was under ideal progressive govt such as these. I don't see them as bastions of economic, or personal liberty.

Please explain to us toothless, inbred Tea party hicks, how Sweden is an ideal society, AND what could have been done better in these five communist regimes to make them work correctly?

I do it myself, but I still think it's naive to go around talking about 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in the manner that I see in evidence in this thread. May as well clump tomatoes and rocks in one category, with peppers and sand in another.

People's perception of what these terms mean varies (dramatically) depending upon how they classify themselves. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to make judgements about groups of people based upon boundaries that have inherent meaning? Anyone can call themselves anything they want. I would argue that it is self-evident that current (not all) and past (not all) politicians have largely been self-serving individuals - is selfishness the conservative motto, or the liberal motto? Neither, obviously.
Further, as tempting as it is (on both sides), it's unfair to judge the blocks of voters by the actions of the representatives they vote in. To do so completely ignores the huge media conglomerations that *literally* control the flow of information/news. This works both ways, too - you can throw stones at the liberal house all you want, but the conservative one is also built of stone. These 'tea-party' activists have been organized by the Fox news network for transparently partisan political purposes - not for the 'betterment' of our country. Or were they all just too busy to stand up and say something when bush was in office, spreading lies to garner support for a war that (1) endangers our nations safety, when people were calling out for the opposite and (2) looks a whole lot like a war to secure oil, get revenge for a an attempt to murder Daddy, and get fat paychecks for the companies of friends (cough haliburton). Oh, that's right, conservatives will defend these actions using whatever imagined arguments they can to avoid the painful cognitive dissonance. Just like Liberals - when their representatives turn out to be crooked.

My point is not that liberals AND conservatives are a bunch of brainwashed pawns of the corrupt in power, instead it is that our use of these terms is misleading and useless.

Here's what 'liberal' really means: We want equality for people of all races and economic background, we want a stable society where bad luck doesn't mean you die of starvation in the street, where companies don't have a choice about acting ethically ... we force them to.

Here's what 'conservative' really means: We want good moral values instilled in the next generation, we want to cut out the huge mass of corruption in politics that feeds itself with taxes, uses those taxes to grow and suck more taxes, and takes away the freedoms of groups of people (not states - those are lines in the sand and people of all belief systems can, believe it or not, just walk across them. When we drive the transition is even faster), we want to have a say in our society ('state rights', translated: don't let the whims of the majority dictate how we live in bumblefuck nowhere - if we want to drive a truck by god we will!), we want certain rights to be protected, always - the right to bear arms being an important one because it ensures that even if all else goes wrong, at least we'll be equipped to fix it (or die trying).

That's just my take of course, and I'm sure I got a few things wrong. But what I *know* I didn't get wrong is this:
Our politicians aren't aligned, in general, with the goals of either groups. Liberals who voted in Barak wanted to get out of these wars, ASAP ... we wanted Gays to be able to serve (a long time ago, not after we made a stick about his failure in this regard), we want some *real* reform that completely prevents companies, like credit card companies and health insurance companies, from using cartel-like policies (how many health insurance companies do you know of who don't drop coverage based upon BS excuses when the bill gets large? How many credit card companies do you know of who write clear contracts - where it's reasonable to expect the average non-lawyer to understand it?) to screw over the little man, who never gets a break in life (why should it be so easy to earn your second million, if the first is so hard? Add inheritance to the equation and wealth will NEVER reflect contribution to society - is that really what we want, because if it is let's just all go back to being serfs - we can just pick the richest few to be our lords now and skip the long transition period).
The liberals who voted for barak got only watered down versions of what they felt was promised.

And in our last administration, was it any different? Did conservatives ... REALLY want economy-crippling war, premised off of lies (nigerian yellow-cake ... 'we're SURE there are weapons of mass destruction ... trust us we have top secret intel that may look like smoke and mirrors but you should trust us anyway) and DOOMED from the start to endanger more than make safe the lives of americans on american soil (not to mention abroad). What about the HUGE bailout that bush so generously supplied right before leaving office? How does that sit with the tea-party people?

So, to the point: I propose we stop all this redundant rhetoric about left and right politics and start talking about the real problem - the corruption of these politics by individuals and institutions (campaign financiers). We can do this without alienating anyone who we agree with - when you say "liberals are dumb" there's a liberal out that who hears "Let sick children die, I don't give a sh*t as long as I don't have to fix the huge gasoline leak in my double-size truck that I drive to the shooting range when I want to take out my aggression on pictures/targets of people of other religions!" And when that liberal says that 'conservatives are ignorant hillbillies', there's a conservative out there that clutches his gun that much more tightly - because as we all know, liberals want to take away conservative guns and give them to the drug lords who will run the federal government after they abolish all state rights.

If, however, you refer to corruption, greed, and the imposition of terror on people - I think we can all agree on where we want to stand.

Matt

You published two articles today, the “conservative constitution”, and the “Little Red Book”.

Just exercising my constitutionally protected freedom of speech, right?

It is 100% obvious you are a far lefty, dare I say communist / change agent.

Sticks and stones.

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.

I certainly am peaceful, so that just leaves you as the non-peaceful one.

You lefties, are only about lies, and changing the rules, taking other peoples wealth and work, and disagreeing with anything this is just, right or true.

Sticks and stones again. I tell the truth as I see it. We should definitely change corrupt rules imposed by corporate interests, which steal your wealth and work. I agree with everything that is just, right, and true, of course.

This country was founded on resisting people like you, and we, the right will not give up.

No, the country was founded by radical liberals, literally.

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights."

You yourself are a liberal in that sense, and that's a compliment.

Why is it that you pay 28% on income you actually work for, but the mega-rich pay only 15% on unearned income? Shouldn't it be the other way around, so that you can keep more of the results of your own work?

Tenouncetrout says

Liberals have liberated them selves to being irrelevant. There’s no Crown to over throw.

Sadly its also true of the right, but where liberals begin to recognize they're being outflanked and bitch about it, conservatives go to the gallows happily blissful that they've helped built the steps.

My feeling is that the coming two years will reveal a lot of conservatives waking up to the fact that the 'people power' candidates they've championed and elected don't represent them at all. The problem for all of us is that the vocabulary they've been given over the past several decades and that they'll use to express their growing anger is a violence and extremism.

Look at the statement above:

larrypatrickmaloney says

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.
You lefties, are only about lies, and changing the rules, taking other peoples wealth and work, and disagreeing with anything this is just, right or true.

Nothing but hyperbole and platitudes. Where do you go from there?

Anyway, I suppose you could say that there actually is a crown to overthrow, and its the corporate system that dominates and buys US politics. What do you say about that, you bold freedom fighters? Do you want to liberate yourself and your neighbors to live happier more fulfilling lives, or do you want to continue to help liberate corporations to make even greater profits and to continue to send more local jobs to China while you pay more taxes and hope you have a job and pension next year?

Paralithodes says

his quoting and reference to a “God” would have today’s left accusing him of wanting a “theocracy,” being a “Christian Taliban,” etc.

Not at all. He wanted religion OUT of government. He is the original author of the "Wall of Separation" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (who, at the time, were the persecuted minority for the established Christianists of the day)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion#Disestablishment_of_religion_in_Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion#Separation_of_church_and_state

Kinda reminds me of Howard Dean ca 2003, LOL.

It is the Christianists wanting to scrub Jefferson from history, not the left!

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/12/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/

If the government can force people to purchase one product for a specific reason, even if it’s a good reason, it can later force them to purchase others, or to further restrict the purchase of others, for other reasons that it argues is good

You know, when your argument is basically an informal logical fallacy, you should try to reformulate it, or find another one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

The Heritage Foundation's point man on health care was big on a national system of exchanges, government subsidies, and the mandate. Republicans like Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, and about a dozen others proposed a VERY similar system to what the Senate actually passed last year.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

the health care reform is a specific (and in my opinion intentional) method to finally breakdown the idea of limited central government

"Limited Central Government" was a dead letter 100 years ago. It was taking my real estate class when I realized that The Federalist Society was really just a lobbying agency for Full Employment for Lawyers.

Technologically today it is possible to video conference between any two places on the planet and move between coasts in a matter of hours, but prior to the invention and deployment of the telegraph, communication travelled by post road at speeds matching those of antiquity, and so did road movement -- also by animal muscle power -- in general.

"Limited Central Government" doesn't make any sense any more. Either this is one nation, indivisible, or it is not.

The modern impetus is towards centralization and coordination, since it is much more economically efficient than decentralization.

Decentralization is simply a race to the bottom.

Jefferson himself specifically observed that the natural tencency was for government to increase its power over the people.

I think we are still the freest people on the planet. There are various areas where this is not true in detail, like gun control, the drug war, the TSA BS, but in my daily life I encounter negative government power little if not at all.

The areas were I do encounter positive government impact is very long.

We have a great government, we just need to fund the damn thing, and that's what all this jive is really about. People not wanting to pay for it all.

larrypatrickmaloney says

Please explain to us toothless, inbred Tea party hicks

My god, are you really a Tea Party sympathizer? How do you feel its working out for you, in the first few weeks?

larrypatrickmaloney says

Shall I point out other examples of Utopian Left societies, like:

You forgot Venezuela and several other SA countries, the current bugaboo of the system. And don't forget Canada, which has successfully instituted some fine socialist policies... Anyway, the US is as much of a Democracy as Russia was Socialist.

Speaking of aristocracy, I put this out to you - consider it: Conservatives are the ones who actually support the institution of an 'aristocracy', through deference to an established power structure and support for removing the tools that equalize. That conservatism is incompatible with true democracy because of this.

larrypatrickmaloney says

You are all so SMART for pointing out how great Sweden is….

NOT!

larrypatrickmaloney says

Please explain to us toothless, inbred Tea party hicks

There is actually no real debate going on here, of course. The real protest from all the Fox News types is about how angry they feel at being perceived as stupid, because they can't spell, or because they are literally missing teeth, or because they have a southern accent.

Shame is the unspoken driver of Fox News' popularity.

It's easy to point out how unfair and unbalanced Fox News is, but that misses the essential point that it's not about fairness or balance at all. It's about feeling unloved and unwanted. Really. So even perfect arguments bounce off a fact-proof shield of anger.

That anger at feeling rejected is stoked and used by Rupert Murdoch to keep the capital gains tax rate at 15% for himself and his very rich friends.

And even explaining this won't help, because it doesn't make those Fox News viewers feel any more accepted or loved, the way Fox News does.

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.

As a matter of fact, there was peace in this country until Saturday. Unfortunately, Tea Party RELOAD and Palin crosshairs and SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS rhetoric have finally spurred another crazy into an act of unspeakable violence.

Beck, Palin, Hannity, Rush, and OReilly have declared war on Americans that they sneeringly deride as "liberal". Now Palin and Beck are whinning that they may be targeted for violence. Isn't it funny how Conservatives are always starting wars they can't finish?

Matt C. says

I do it myself, but I still think it’s naive to go around talking about ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ in the manner that I see in evidence in this thread. May as well clump tomatoes and rocks in one category, with peppers and sand in another.

Matt

Matt, I like major parts of your response, and it deserves a well thought out reply.

Larry.

kentm says

Tenouncetrout says

Liberals have liberated them selves to being irrelevant. There’s no Crown to over throw.

Sadly its also true of the right, but where liberals begin to recognize they’re being outflanked and bitch about it, conservatives go to the gallows happily blissful that they’ve helped built the steps.
My feeling is that the coming two years will reveal a lot of conservatives waking up to the fact that the ‘people power’ candidates they’ve championed and elected don’t represent them at all. The problem for all of us is that the vocabulary they’ve been given over the past several decades and that they’ll use to express their growing anger is a violence and extremism.
Look at the statement above:
larrypatrickmaloney says

There can be no peace, between us, nor the radical left in this country.

You lefties, are only about lies, and changing the rules, taking other peoples wealth and work, and disagreeing with anything this is just, right or true.

Nothing but hyperbole and platitudes. Where do you go from there?
Anyway, I suppose you could say that there actually is a crown to overthrow, and its the corporate system that dominates and buys US politics. What do you say about that, you bold freedom fighters? Do you want to liberate yourself and your neighbors to live happier more fulfilling lives, or do you want to continue to help liberate corporations to make even greater profits and to continue to send more local jobs to China while you pay more taxes and hope you have a job and pension next year?

Kent,

Fair enough...

I do agree that corporations shouldn't be permitted personal rights. For sure an non-person entity shouldn't be able to lobby congress.

larrypatrickmaloney says

You are all so SMART for pointing out how great Sweden is….
NOT!

larrypatrickmaloney says

Please explain to us toothless, inbred Tea party hicks

There is actually no real debate going on here, of course. The real protest from all the Fox News types is about how angry they feel at being perceived as stupid, because they can’t spell, or because they are literally missing teeth, or because they have a southern accent.
Shame is the unspoken driver of Fox News’ popularity.
It’s easy to point out how unfair and unbalanced Fox News is, but that misses the essential point that it’s not about fairness or balance at all. It’s about feeling unloved and unwanted. Really. So even perfect arguments bounce off a fact-proof shield of anger.
That anger at feeling rejected is stoked and used by Rupert Murdoch to keep the capital gains tax rate at 15% for himself and his very rich friends.
And even explaining this won’t help, because it doesn’t make those Fox News viewers feel any more accepted or loved, the way Fox News does.

Notice the lack of response to my question, evasion of the subject, and a bad attempt to be denigrating.

Did I get the spelling correct oh great English teacher?

May I do a happy dance on my tippy toes and clap my fingers together?

larrypatrickmaloney says

I do agree that corporations shouldn’t be permitted personal rights. For sure an non-person entity shouldn’t be able to lobby congress.

Its the money.

So the left and you can agree in peace on that point, at the very least. So... there's SOME peace between us. and I bet if I dig I could find a few other points of agreement.

Now tone down the hyperbole, consider what it is you're saying, and stop electing people that are completely beholden to the corporations and are intent on screwing us all over.

Ah here we go again. Lets talk about what we think historical figures might have meant hundreds of years ago, as if it has any bearing on the world today.

I like arguing hypotheticals too. Hypothetically one day people will stop being fucking idiots.

Kevin says

I like arguing hypotheticals too. Hypothetically one day people will stop being fucking idiots.

I have to disagree with you Kevin, hypothetically of course...

elliemae says

Larry, your attempt to blame all of the ills of the world on people who believe differently than you do kind of shows why people with your belief systems is the problem. The only thing that it shows to me is that you’re a dick, but a little one…

Sorry - the other side is guilty of the same. Why is it that we feel that we can only win when the other side loses? This is the right way to behave in war but why must our political system be at war - ALL of the time? Obama isn't wrong ALL of the time. Neither was GWB. It's the blind hatred on both sides that get us nowhere.

EightBall says

Sorry - the other side is guilty of the same.

True, I remember the websites (whithouse dot ?) with the hateful satire. There were very strong feelings exacerbated by the belief that he lost the popular vote, and won only with the supreme court's help.

But in spite of all that, it was much easier for him to get his plans through. Especially after 9/11. I don't recall anything remotely resembling the way this last congress opposed and blocked everything Obama wanted to do, and openly said their sole goal was to "make him ineffective." Maybe a difference is that everyone thought Bush was a bumbling fool, and it was a fluke that he was elected once, and it didn't occur to democrats they would have to obstruct everything to prevent him from being elected again. In fact, they assumed Bush would take care of that, by actually doing what he wanted to do !!

In other words, they "misunderestimated" him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/11/2011-01-11_bullets_of_hatred_crazy_talk_encourages_crazy_people__and_the_crazy_people_too_o.html

EightBall says

It’s the blind hatred on both sides that get us nowhere.

Absolutely. I thoroughly disliked GW, but never wanted him dead. I do believe that he'll be known as the worst president ever (please - I don't even want to know if we could do worse!). The hatred is out of control - and yes, it's on both sides. It needs to stop.

Nomograph says

Try questioning ABC news, or PBS or PBS, or NPR, or *any* other news source and nobody will really care. Fox News appeals to sycophants.

Oh yeah I go to NPR where they give glorifying editorials for Thugs, Guerrillas, and unwed teen mothers, while they chastise and fire hard working Americans because of their political Right affiliation.

Nomograph says

What’s interesting is how the “Fox Newsies” (your words, not mine) get so up in arms when someone questions their Messiahs. It’s like a weird cult or something.

Yes, very much like a cult. Fox gives the benefits of cameraderie, an enemy to hate, and hope of some kind of salvation that will take away the pain of being disrespected. And just like a religion, it's impervious to reality when you don't have something better to offer.

The real solution is a sincere desire on both sides to get along, even if that means being slightly uncomfortable.

shrekgrinch says

because your precious Demobitch got hit.

Typical right-wing hate. Euphemistically deny Gabby's humanity as she struggles for survival in intensive care. People are so much easier to kill when you don't think of them as people, aren't they? Callous and sick.

But what do you care? Words don't have any meaning and don't have consequences...

shrekgrinch says

All of that rant has nothing to do with Lougher killing the people that he did. Unless you have proof to back you up instead of crazy-talk that makes me think that if anyone had any influence on Lougher, it was you.

Since your Fox News cannot report on the truth, it is clear Loughner was a right-wing fanatic:

At one point, Loughner refers disparagingly to “currency that’s not backed by gold or silver.” The idea that silver and gold are the only “constitutional” money is widespread in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement that produced so much violence in the 1990s. It’s linked to the core Patriot theory that the Federal Reserve is actually a private corporation run for the benefit of unnamed international bankers. So-called Patriots say paper money — what they refer to with a sneer as “Federal Reserve notes” — is not lawful.

At another, Loughner makes extraordinarily obscure comments about language and grammar, suggesting that the government engages in “mind control on the people by controlling grammar.” That’s not the kind of idea that’s very common out there, even on the Internet. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that Loughner is taking ideas from Patriot conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller of Milwaukee. Miller claims that the government uses grammar to “enslave” Americans and offers up his truly weird “Truth-language” as an antidote. For example, he says that if you add colons and hyphens to your name in a certain way, you are no longer taxable. Miller may be mad as a hatter, but he has a real following on the right.

Loughner talks about how you “can’t trust the government” and someone burns a U.S. flag in one of his videos. Although certain right-wing websites are already using that (and his listing of The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books) to claim that Loughner was a “left-winger,” that does not strike me as true. The main enemy of the Patriot movement is certainly the federal government. And so-called Patriots have certainly engaged in acts like burning the flag.

Finally, I think Loughner’s reading list, although it included children’s books and a few classics, had an underlying theme — the individual versus the totalitarian state. Certainly, that’s the explicit central theme of Ayn Rand’s We the Living and Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, among others. I would argue that that’s the way Loughlin seems to be reading The Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s Mein Kampf — as variants of a kind of generalized “smash the state” attitude.

Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, which does similar work to that of Hatewatch, points out in a post earlier today that Loughner also makes a reference to a “second American constitution.” As Chip notes, that is commonly understood to refer to the Reconstruction amendments that freed the slaves and gave them citizenship, among other things. Chip says that “raises the question of a possible racist and anti-immigrant tie” in the Arizona shooting.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149466/is_jared_loughner_a_right-wing_extremist

Even the local sheriff points to the sickening vitriol poisoning the atmosphere in Gabby's district. That is proof positive for me.

The conservative's much bally-whoed source knew Loughner when he was a peaceful, pot-smoking liberal. He never hurt anyone while he was a Lefty!

Contrary to your assertions, multiple sources have pointed out that Loughner has become a right-wing nut job. And a raging alchoholic to the point of being hospitalized for alchohol poisoning.

Again, law enforcement in the local district point to the vitriolic hate spewing forth from right wing sources. Clearly, something changed with Loughner. I trust law enforcement.

Why is it that the Right can find no peace with Americans? Gabby was a gun toting, red blooded American patriot. Yet you wish her dead.

Let's pull the plug and be done with it.

Sad, and telling of the conservative, right-wing mindset. Just like Loughner, wishing for death on fellow Americans.

"Prove it! Prove it! Prove Obama was born in Haw...I mean Prove Loughner was a right wing wacko like me!"

I'll break it down for you.

Despite what Glenn Beck says, liberals do not consider the "Communist Manifesto" to have any ideological value, so it has the same influence as the "Wizard of Id" as proving Loughner is a lefty. However, Loughner's reading list did include Ayn Rand. This is one of Glenn Beck's and the conservative ideologues favorite authors.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2188571/posts

You keep asking me to prove Loughner was a lefty, but you ignore all of the proof. I don't know what to tell you, man. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink.

You are just pulling crap out of your ass! Admit it! Just admit it.

Calm down.

No, local law enforcement (that sheriff) is telling shit to cover its ass ...

So now the right wing hates the sheriff departments of America? You really believe that police just cover-up crimes? Why does the Right hate law enforcement now?

You can’t prove anything. You just make shit up.

Sir, please calm down.

Lefties gave up any right to be called an ‘American’ long ago.

Soooooo....Is this in your leader Glenn Beck's Constitution? The one I have is a tad different ...

No. That’s ME speaking. [Wishing for the death of fellow Americans]

Ok, I'm now convinced Loughner has Internet access in his jail cell.

Communism works, Capitalism works, even anarchy works... either system will work, but only as well as people in it care to make it work.

When too many try to cheat, steal and defraud - the system collapses under its own gluttony and greed.

Lets not divide into liberals and conservatives, because there are too few extremes and most people are somewhere in the middle. It just comes down to social contract, those who live with it make the system better... while those who break it screw the system and the rest of us.

shrekgrinch says

No. Because that Demobitch isnt’ an ‘American’. As I keep stating.

You keep advocating the killing of Gabby Giffords. (I guess deeming her non-American and labeling her with euphamisms allows you to see her as non-human?).

Jared, I really think you should talk to the guards about getting some psychiatric help. The voices you hear in your head are not real (unfortunately, the right wing voices you heard were far too real I'm afraid). I'm sorry they used you as a patsy.

You consider the Chicago Tribune to be left wing? Have you ever read it? You might as well call the Wall St. Journal left wing...

larrypatrickmaloney says

Lets take your statement:
1.) “No truth spews forth from the rectal mouths of Drudge, Rush, Palin, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Coulter. ”
If you would read, or listen to any of these sources, you wouldn’t write this, and you are 100% wrong.

The lies have been documented in detail. Here is a sample of fact checked sources documenting the lies:

http://motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/big-fat-lies
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/99972/rush_limbaugh_attacks_obama_with_lies_and_bigotry/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0619/fact-checking-rush-and-rachel
http://www.newshounds.us/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008180076

larrypatrickmaloney says

a.) Drudge isn’t a commentator, opinion writer, or editor. He is a “reporter” of sorts, who just posts LINKS to his website of other articles. He does write headlines, but he doesn’t write the articles you see on his site. Those are just links.
Go ahead and visit www.drudgereport.com , and click on a few links. It’s OK, nobody will know. You can see for yourself, don’t take my word for it.

Drudge often routes readers to conservative blogs and news sites. Drudge highlights news items that further the right-wing agend and his link titles often twist the event into a pro-conservative soundbite.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/09/times_klein_drudge_huffington_new_way_at_looking_at_news.html

Now, liberal sites do the same thing. I don't disagree with that. However, I strongly disagree that the sites you list below are "liberal". That is laughable.

larrypatrickmaloney says

b.) Glen Beck: First day after the shooting, he 100% condemned it, and offered solace to the families with loss.

Yes, holding a handgun while decrying violence. Hmmm...

I didn't even include any fact checked websites on Glenn. He would have crashed my browser with the overload of lies.

larrypatrickmaloney says

c.) Rush is a force of nature. I just DARE you to listen to his show ONE TIME, just ONE TIME. When you listen, please record, or take notes to identify some specific lies he tells, then share it with us, so we can all do the research and expose Rush if he lies.
d.) I don’t like Hannity, or O’reilly, so I don’t listen or watch their show. I can’t offer any input. (I don’t like Hannity, his voice is like nails on a chalk board). At least cranky old O’Reilly is considered to be pretty “moderate” by most on the right.
And what “right wing media” are you referring to? Rush, Drudge, Fox, all the ones you listed? (I’m asking literally, not rhetorically) Please list what you consider right wing media.

Rush himself considers himself to be an entertainer and neither a journalist nor a reporter. As does Glenn Beck. How can you possible think you can get any news from them?

Here is Rush's own words:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125111.guest.html

RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly.

larrypatrickmaloney says

We would consider, MSM to be “left wing” media, which includes, but not limited to:
Papers:
1.) Washington Post
2.) New York Times
3.) Chicago Tribune
4.) LA Times
5.) Most of the rest of the American News papers (which were bailed out with the bankers & GM remember?)
TV:
6.) ABC News (TV)
7.) CBS News (TV)
8.) NBC News (TV)
9.) NPR
10.) CNN & Headline news)
12.) MSNBC
There are plenty more of course, but I guess my point is, that there are so many different “left” biased “news sources”, you and other lefties complain about the abundance of the “right wing news sources”.

Where are the facts proving any of the above are left wing? C'mon! This is a fact disproven assertion by right-wing hate groups.

Here are the lefties:
Huffington Post - Yes
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - Yes
Keith Olberman on MSNBC - Yes
Daily KOS - Yes

The right has the following self acknowledged media powerhouses:
FOX News - Yes
Wall Street Journal - Yes
Washington Examiner - Yes
US News and World Report - Yes
Blumberg - Yes
Newsmax.org - Yes
THE ENTIRE AM DIAL!!!

The budgets of these dwarf anything owned by the left. The right is very rich and very powerful.

And the below are corporate controlled mouthpieces for corporate interests:
CNN - Yes
CBS - Yes
ABC - Yes
NBC - Yes
Time - Yes
Newsweek - Yes

larrypatrickmaloney says

I think it’s obvious there are so many more left biased, and manipulated news sources generating “stories”. You are being dis-ingenuous to complain about right-biased sources.
Before Rush, there was almost nothing available for the “right” to consume electronically.

This is just an assertion.

The local sheriff in Arizona confirmed that the right-wing vitriol created a climate that facilitated the shooting. I trust law enforcement over right-wing self-proclaimed entertainers.

Nomograph says

shrekgrinch says

that Demobitch isnt’ an ‘American’.

Has anyone actually *seen* her birth certificate?
We are witnessing this shrekgrinch guy going off the deep end in real-time.

Too many little clues seem to point towards the possibility that Loughner has Internet access in jail.

SoCal Renter says

The local sheriff in Arizona confirmed that the right-wing vitriol created a climate that facilitated the shooting. I trust law enforcement over right-wing self-proclaimed entertainers.

I call a big BS on this guy. They knew this Loughner lowlife was a nutjob and even have files on this guy that they won't release. You basically killed any shred of credibility you may have with your statement here. The Democrat sheriff that failed to contain a nut that they were aware of has started blaming the nebulous "media" - the investigation should be into what this guy knew and where they failed so miserably.

SoCal Renter says

Where are the facts proving any of the above are left wing? C’mon! This is a fact disproven assertion by right-wing hate groups.

If you think the NY Times isn't leftist, you need to have your head examined. They are about as "Fair And Balanced' as Faux News.

It's the descent of a once moral society. You have to increase your dosage of drugs over and over in order to get the same high. The sex gets more perverted because we are desensitized to what was once provocative because it is in our face on TV/Movies/internet 24/7. We no longer disagree with others we need to crush them into oblivion in order to prove that we are right. We dream that our doctors will make technical-but-not-fatal mistakes so we can sue them and profit without having to work for it. As Chesterton put it nearly 100 years ago (paraphrase here), "Eventually we have to stab at our nerves just to get a feeling - even though we are destroying ourselves in the process"