![[SeMissourian.com]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 37°F |
|
Liberals are Bad? Really?
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009, at 3:51 PMRead comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Walking around our new "blue" state, I still get a sense of "redness." I guess it could be just the people I am around. Regardless, I hear people say things like "Obama is making us a socialistic state," or "Big government has run amuck," or "Our babies are gonna die," even "Obama is gonna take our guns away," but my favorite is "Liberals haven't done a thing for this country." Of all the idiotic sayings I have heard, the only one that actually gets me to think is the last one. With the idea that a group of people have literally done nothing for our country, makes me think how I could prove that statement is simply wrong. So follow me on a trip through U.S. history and let us really see if "liberals did nothing" for the U.S.
The ideas of 1776 America derived from Europe's Age of Enlightenment. The ideas to rid of nobility, question the authority, and own one's property came from Enlightened thinkers like Voltaire, (Jean-Jacque) Rousseau, Montesquieu, (Thomas) Paine, (David) Hume, and (John) Locke. The very influence of our revolution came from their writings. The idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence came from Locke's design of "life, liberty, and property" in his (Locke's) Second Treatises of Government. So, starting a revolution with anti-establishment ideas: check mark for something good Liberals did for our country. Let's have another. Now let us speed up to 1860. Slavery was rampant throughout the South and the North condemns its practice. We had a very divisive country that is on the verge of secession. While others said it was necessary for slavery to exist, the correct opinion came down on the side of what was morally right. The victors of the Civil War passed three important Amendments to the Constitution that has helped many people throughout our country. Before I mark up another one for the Liberals, let us dive into Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson, and to LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 eliminating Jim Crow Laws from the United States. Now, hold on to your hats. That makes 2 more in favor of the Liberals because they eliminated slavery and Jim Crow Laws. Liberals have 3! Let us look at the women. Professionally, please. Of the two genders, they are the ones who have labored the most and received the least. Their fight for suffrage can be traced to the Seneca Falls Convention in New York in 1848. Suffrage leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, and Susan B. Anthony took up the cause for equal rights. Most people opposed the idea because they feared the status of the family would decline once women got equal rights. Yeah, I do not buy it. Women were in the forefront of war efforts and took the lead in education, which is just to name a couple of things. Despite upheaval from their opponents, the Nineteenth Amendment passes in 1920, which gives women the right to vote throughout the country. Thanks President Wilson for your help on that. Standing up for women, definitely not a conservative initiative. 4 for the Liberals... One more. Remember Hoover had the mentality of laissez-faire? Well, neither do I because I was not alive then, but I remember reading it and studying it. Here is the thing to remember. History likes to repeat itself. After the awful Hoover administration, FDR came swooping in with great ideas that helped America get back to work. Deregulation hurt the American economy in the late 1920's, and it took serious government action to help rebuild it. Likewise today, deregulation hurt the economy, and it will take serious government action to correct this. Uh-oh, that's 5... I guess it is safe to say that Liberals have done a lot for the betterment of this country. Deriving the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, declaring independence from Great Britain, ending slavery and Jim Crow, granting suffrage for women, making education available for everyone, and continuing the effort to level the playing field so that all have the opportunity to succeed. Where are the Conservatives? They were there too, just opposing every one of the ideals. I mean, really, look throughout history, not just the U.S., but also the world and name a bunch of Conservatives who did something positive for the world? I can only think of one, and that is Reagan. He really stands out in a group that is filled with All-Star Conservatives like Pharaoh, Caiaphas, Herod, Caesar, Ayatollah, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, King George III, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi-Minh, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, John Dickinson, George Wallace, Kim Jong-il, etc., etc. Maybe we should walk around our new "blue state" and ask "What have Conservatives done for our country?" instead of questioning what the Liberals have done. Just a thought. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Sunday Bloody Sunday(4 ~ 9:24 PM, Nov 17)
Thank You
My Top Ten
Hey Extremists, Shut Up
Morality, What? Where?
|
![[Feed icon]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I think he's serious.
Bless his heart.
well honestly, is he wrong?
Not a surprising response. Rather typical really.
Too much MSNBC?
Amen Drew! And unfortunetly for the conservatives, there are many more things that we have in this country that they can thank the liberals for but disregard it as nothing, like minimum wage; rights for the handicapped; laws to protect animals; health care benefits; 401K benefits; laws to protect domestic violence victims; laws to protect every aspect of our lives has at some point brought the liberals out to protest for better and more equal rights.
So all you liberal bashing conservatives out there, who have health insurance, a 401K, and are making minumum wage have the liberals to thank for the life you are living. Remember that the next time you cash your paycheck...
Okay, I'll bite.
"Obama is making us a socialistic state"
Do you deny this Drew? If you honestly think that is not happening you need to get your head examined pronto.
Now, I am not entirely a fan of the bailouts because I do not believe CEO's need to be rewarded for their mistakes, and with the economy in such shambles, where is our bailout? If the government wants to really stimulate the economy, build from the ground and move up, instead of continuing Reaganomics.
However, I am not a fan of someone losing their job when it is out of their hands. For instance, it is not the fault of someone who works on the GM factory line that his/her boss makes bad business choices. Those are good paying jobs and now millions are in jeopardy. Is that fair? Is this part of the economic cycle? I don't think so. These jobs are necessary.
Btw, I had my head examined when I was three months old. Everything is fine :)
Hey Drew on your next blog will you discuss whether or not dogs are racist
Just wait until the Pay Czar starts telling everyone (not just CEO'S) how much they can make at a job or business. America better wake up before our life as we know it is gone.
Oh, wow, Mao Zedong is a conservative!! Omigosh, and the ideas of 1776 were the exclusive intellectual property of liberals!! Oh, why oh why would anyone dream of being anything other than a liberal? .
Thanks, so much, Drew, for this "enlightenment!!"
Wow, what an intellectual argument, simply come up with a list of the most hated politicians in history and call them all conservatives!
Sorry, Drew, but the last time I checked, Ho Chi-Minh, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Il were all socialists, right?
The ideas of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, those of a small government, low taxes and minimal government influence on the individual are the same as basic conservative and libertarian ideals.
And, I do also notice that you left several off your list of conservatives, people such as Dwight Eisenhower, William F. Buckley, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams and George Washington.
Obviously, you must feel that only people such as Hitler and Mussolini deserve the title of conservative.
Lil' Hahn: First off, Adams was no conservative. Look at his book by David McCullough, or just watch the HBO mini-series. Would a conservative defend British troops of the Boston Massacre? No, they would call him a Loyalist.
Furthermore, Lincoln was not conservative either. Just because he was a Republican does not make him a conservative. I think the Emancipation Proclamation sums that up.
Oh and read The Federalist 5 on Madison's idea of government.
Again, is he wrong?
If I am reading this correctly Drew, you responded that the Socialization of the United States of America is "necessary". Is that the inevitable of Liberalism? I ask because as a Conservative I do not see the "Bailouts" and the "Stimulus'" as "necessary".
People do lose their jobs because of others mistakes and greed. The problem was the loss of moralism. There is nothing wrong with companies making money. They can make huge fortunes and it still would not take away from anyone else. (Economies are not a pie that when one takes a big slice, someone else gets a smaller slice). Those companies chose to do business without a moral compass and should not be rewarded for it. Yes, it would impact us when they fall but there will be someone there to pick up where they left off. That's Capitalism in motion. Capitalism with moralism will win out everytime. Capitalism with Liberalism... well, you see the result.
PS: If the "Stimulus Bill" was supposed to stimulate the economy, why is most of that money not going to be spent for years to come? If I was stimulated like that to go to work, I would be out of a job.
This blog is a great example of the liberals re-inventing history.
As long as we let them get by with it, then their lack of morals allows them to lie unchecked.
How insulting to compare any Americans other than Reagan and liberals akin to Hitler.
You are a disgusting author to suggest an article full of disregaurd for the holocaust (reminiscent of Akmadinjad of Iran).
You need to need to check your compass as your belief system greatly hreatens our country. Socialism is here and the Chinese are now buying gold ($80 billion this month...two Ft. Knox's) to shore up their poor investment in Fed. T-bills under the socialist leaders in Washington. The more money we borrow as a country, the greater our inflation later this year and next. The gold is a way to temper the Chinese loss that is coming.
The simulus bill was rushed to a vote by the dems (lead by Obama, Pelosi and Reid) to pass in less than 24 hours in February. Obama said it was to be used for shovel ready programs:
cost=over $800 billion
spent so far=$50 billion...why the rush to pass it when no one had read it? Pork spending on liberal agendas...not shovel ready.
Passed...$9,000,000,000,000 (trillion) buget of deficit spending for the next 10 years.
GM fiasco.
Now coming, as Obama can't wait, another trillion dollar health care plan to allow those without healthcare (8% of Americans) free services which will hurt all of our care.
People, our vote next year is important to send out the clowns!
DON'T CHANGE HISTORY, it makes you appear ignorant!
Lil' Hahn:
Eisenhower and Lincoln were conservatives? Now that is FUNNY! President Eisenhower desegregated the military immediately upon becoming President and said many times "there are no second class citizens in my country". You are so far out with Lincoln we won't even discuss it.
Right-wing, red-neck, rabid-racist, radicals are today's conservatives. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be just as appalled by them as modern Americans are appalled by them. LIBERals built this country. LIBERty was their goal. Hate, prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination have no place in any civilized society.
I find it amazing that 8% of Americans without health insurance is acceptable. That is very close to one out of ten. The French do much better than that.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
America can surely do better than 37.
Go for it Obama.
Maybe Drew went a little overboard on some comparisons, but he made a general point about liberal vs. conservative not democrat vs. republican.
Lincoln was the first elected Republican president, yet he supported liberal ideas for his time.
Teddy Rooselvelt was the trust buster.
Eisenhower was his own man. A Colin Powell of his generation. Loved his country enough to tell both sides to stick it.
This isn't rewriting history. You can't ignore the parts that don't fit Rush's code of conservatism.
Universal health care is not a right.
To say so also says that the doctors providing that care must treat everyone equally, even those who don't pay. I know the libs will say that we should treat everyone equally, but not those who don't work and earn money.
Granted, basic care for a (emergency) hospital visit needs to continue, but the local hospital takes that on the chin and raises everyone elses rates to pay for the non-payors.
To compare us with the French system is a joke. I doubt you would head off to France to treat an unknown illness to your family. Surely you would try Mayo Clinic, Cedar Sinai, or even Riley for your children.
If universal health care becomes reality, then you will be waiting in lines, sometimes for months , to get basic care, mush less a heart surgery. Doctors are ready to quit and start remote clinics in the Barbados, Turks or Caymans so thay can practice on those who can pay them what they are worth.
Also, whather you like it or not, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, Conservative, God fearing, Bible loving president who was much more like Reagan than he was like FDR. Don't insult him by changing history to suit your own misunderstanding.
Another thing, to call conservatives racists is just showing stupidity and bias. I doubt you could tell Micheal Steele that or any other main line conservative. Racism was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln. I know a social lib would like to re-label President Lincoln as a liberal to make them feel good, but still, you are changing history. President Lincoln managed a war to preserve our union (sounds conservative to me.) I am glad he didn't wait for a tracking poll to decide to run his presidencial decision making.
Let's stop calling liberals, liberals and call them what they are...socialists.
Thanks so much, Globe&Anchor, for showing your proverbial backside. Your rude, intolerant (I thought libs were supposed to be "oh so" tolerant) post should really hit it home for people who want to peek into the mind of "enlightened" liberals.
I consider myself conservative and I am certainly no "right-wing, red-neck, rabid-racist, radical". Far from it in fact. But you wouldn't know that and I'm sure you wouldn't care. You just want to spew hatred and be on your merry way.
If you really wanted to be honest with yourself, you would acknowledge the fact that the founding fathers were more LIBERtarians than liberals. They would be completely AGHAST at the size and scope of our bloated government.
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE THIS GUY THE BOOK, "LIBERTY AND TYRANNY: A CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO" ALL OF THESE TOPICS THAT HE SPEWS OUT ARE DEBUNKED IN HIS BOOK.
This is a tremendous book. It's been No. 1 nine out of ten weeks on the NYT best-seller list.
In a purely market-based society (the opposite of socialism) we'd do away with our roads, schools, many nursing homes, libraries, much of our medical research, any effort to maintain healthy water and air, and so on. The new administration is promoting slightly more government intervention in the economy. Whether this will work out, I have no idea. I'm inclined to say let's let the American car companies fail due to their own poor business practices. However, if you think "we're on our way to socialism" I invite you to check out this graph: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/co....
I noticed someone on this page complained about insults and then accused liberals of a lack of morals. That itself is pretty darn insulting. Liberals and conservatives have different ideas of the role of government in our lives, but those labels are political and have little to do with morals. Liberals are often motivated by compassion and feel that we are responsible for one another. Conservatives advocate looking out for oneself but probably give more money to charity than liberals. No one has a monopoly on morality.
George Clinton 2012.
This country needs some Parliament.
If you add up all the programs proposed since Obamanation started, they have proposed more spending than any government since George Washington through G.W.Bush, combined.
Do you know how much money ten trillion dollars is? $10,000,000,000,000.00. That is 10 million, million dollars in 150 days.
This is not "promoting slightly more government intervention". It is uncontrollably ridiculus enough that even Franch and Britain have warned us to stop our deficit spending.
By the way, it is IMMORAL to take more money away from some people (who earn it) and give it to others (who don't earn or deserve it). It is theft. We should be given a choice of who to be charitable to not forced to through phoney programs rammed down Americans throats.
I guess we need a law to make the legislature read the bills before reading them. While I am certain, the illiteracy rate of some legislators would be astounding this alone would get us to the next election cycle in time to vote out the socialist Robin Hoods.
Since I raise cows, should I automatically give half of my cows to you because you have none?
Cow Rancher:
There's the conservative mentality that good people can't stand, "I earned it, its mine. Don't make me share because that's immoral." What a bunch of hogwash. Jesus said it himself "What you do to the least of these, you do unto me." So go ahead and lock up the Robin Hoods for wanting to take away from the "Have's" and give to the "Have-nots," while they will just get a spiritual blessing.
Also, if your boy, W, did his job as President like, I don't know, make government work for everyone, instead of starting wars, and helping Haliburton make billions in profit, maybe Obama would not have to spend so much money correcting his (W) mistakes. Ya gotta love the short memory conservatives have.
So go ahead and keep your stuff, Ebenezer Scrooge, and rationalize how right you are. Do whatever it takes to help you sleep at night.
First off socialist programs and socialism aren't the same thing. We are not a socialist nation nor will we ever be. Keep listening to Rush though...he will tell you we are.
Abraham Lincoln was a conservative, but he made a very liberal stand on a moral issue. You are right though...he probably wouldn't have been the crusader for slaves emancipation if it wasn't for the secession of nearly half the nation. He was a free soiler(taking away legal advantages the south had so everyone had an equal chance at new lands...sounds socialist???). Although he morally was against slavery...he was politically against it. WHo knows if he would have ever emancipated the slaves.
Since we are talking about cows, I don't need one. I would be curious to know if you would offer one to a needy family, or do they have to fill out a survey. Sorry Suzy...Mom and Dad are deadbeats, so Mr. Cow Rancher has decided you aren't worthy of hand outs.
I'm not a big fan of the bailout, but what were the other options. Hoover tried the "leave it alone" approach it didn't work well. WOuld it have worked this time? Who is willing to find out.
I also love when people talk about what the founding fathers would have done...does anyone really know. You can't just pick one founding father and say his opinion is what the "founding fathers" would have done. Our Constitution was a long process. Lots of varying views. SOme loved a more active government...some didn't. It was a different time...we don't know what the founding fathers would do.
I had a dream that I spoke with each of the Founding Fathers last night (it was a long night). I had expected total outrage and disappointment from all, but to a man, each one was extremely impressed with McDonalds' franchises.
There was however, mixed opinion on how our government has been functioning for the past couple of hundred years.
"Btw, I had my head examined when I was three months old. Everything is fine :)"
Drew,
Was that before or after you got beaned by the foul ball? ;>)
Just Ol'Simmons being Ol'Simmons
Handouts, charity and contributing are gifts. Since when did we need a bloated, and near exploding, government to tell us when to help those in need?
I am quite certain that immorality is becoming a norm. Whenever there is so much money made available to a group of people, it becomes a matter of when and not if. There is a laundry list of recipients from both sides of the aisle in Washington. ACORN is a great, recent, example.
However, since the liberals are totally in charge now and have been for the past half year, they are responsible for what happens. It is not accurate to say, "well, we inherited this from Bush." While a downturned economy did start in the past two years (under the Democrat congress timeframe, specifically under the oversite of Barney Frank and Chris Dodds-Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac, Pelosi-House, Reid-senate), President Bush is not responsible for where the funds are going now. If I were a liberal, I would be wanting to blame Bush also or anyone else to take the attention away from my own party. I am certain he wouldn't have fired a leader of GM or any other non-government employee.
If you are a business owner, you know what this means.
This government is so beyond the powers granted in the Constitution that people expect their "fair share" while they have contributed nothing (a great example are those who expect tax refunds without paying anything into the system).
Just because I don't want to give my cattle out to someone doesn't make me a Scrooge, it make me a business man protecting his investment. Perhaps you could come help me de-worm my herd this week, castrate the bulls, put up some cattle rubs, fix a water trough, vaccinate the new-borns and help cut and bail hay. Then I may feel charitable unough to give you a half of beef on top of your paycheck (if there is anything left...I can't wait for the national sales tax to pay for healthcare).
Obama and his minions are now directing the cash and the spending of our and our childrens money.
We sure don't need anyone, now, telling us the virtues of liberals (socialists)as they smile while pulling money out of your back pockets.
Keep your greedy hands away from my Constitutionally protected bank accounts, freedom of speech, religion and right to keep and bear arms. I don't need you or anyone to help me buy a green car, tell me who to give my charity to or tell me how moral you are by redistributing our wealth.
PS If you are referring to "Rush" as Rush Limbaugh, please tell me what station he is on. I haven't been able to find him in years and it sounds like he is making some good points (according to you).
Drew, maybe you should have visited Auschwitz, Sobibor, or Treblinka before you wrote this blog. Just a thought.
..........
Everybody relax. In a few short years our whole country will be having a budget crisis like California is having at this very moment.
Then after the big meltdown to come, we can...um..we can...er,well...um,nevermind.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090611/ts_n...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
That's from 2002
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=C3E...
That's from 1990
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YqA...
And that is from 1970
Just pick a year, pick an administration and you will find a budget crisis in California.
My oh my, rancher...wow...where do I begin?
The Constitution...read the Preamble, ya know the thing that explains what this government is set to do. Outside of it parameters? I'm thinking you voted for Ron Paul for President and Andrew Horning for Governor. Way to pick winners.
You said earlier how Drew re-wrote history. Let me pose this question to you: Did conservatives make the United States? Was it them who wrote Enlightened Ideas, and the other things he mentioned? If so, name one conservative who was apart of those movements.
By the way Rancher, where do you stand on abortion? From the way you talk, government should have no hand in it either. If you're pro-life, give us your wonderful contradiction. I know I am itching to read where you stand and why.
That's a good place to stop....
Um,okay,yet,as some may have noticed,my point was "In a few short years our whole country will be having a budget crisis..." California has the Federal Government to bail them out when the chickens come home to roost,so to speak. Who will bail out the Federal Government when the crisis reaches the national level? Are you suggesting it(budget crisis) can't reach the national level at the current pace of borrowing/spending? And how responsible is it to burden our grandchildren with such a debt so we can live the good life now? Isn't it time we tighten the proverbial belt? Borrowed money must be paid back with interest.
Borrowing/spending our way out of a crisis brought on by borrowing/spending too much to begin with makes no sense to this simple farm boy from Indiana.
Cow rancher says: "By the way, it is IMMORAL to take more money away from some people (who earn it) and give it to others (who don't earn or deserve it). It is theft."
I sure hope that if you did pursue higher education, you attended a private college, and that your children or grandchildren or doing the same. How IMMORAL of people to accept government college grants and loans. How IMMORAL of them to attend Indiana and Purdue with cow rancher's STOLEN money.
And I'm sure cow rancher will never drive on IMMORAL I-69, whose funding source is TBD.
I'm sure cow rancher was out protesting when the US invaded Iraq, when we were already STEALING his money to pursue our interests in Afghanistan.
Did cow rancher call the cops when the federal government, under THIEVING, IMMORAL President Bush, turned the surplus into deficit?
Hey Cow Rancher.
Did you get any of that government welfare for ranchers and farmers?
You know what I'm talking about right?
If you could just post your name and address (you still have not done that) I'll be over to pick that check up so we can give it back to the tax payers whom you stole it from, that is if you in fact did get a check from old uncle sam?
Or maybe we could get some of that money back that you dont pay in gas tax, you know that farmers dont pay a road tax for gas right?
Well I had to make that up in my gas purchase so you owe me, right?
After all it's only fair. Right?
Since when did morality have anything to do with establishing economic policy?
Answers to questions:
For evolouie: My name, address and SS# are censored as I told you on another blog-none of your business. I use the same fuel that you do except for my off the road tractors (deisel). Also, I chose not to receive any government subsidies for farming, but I can see how you would support the subsidies for ethanol.
For circle: I took out one student loan for $1250 and promptly paid it back in five years. The interest was not waived as my parents made too much money (lower-middle class) for me to be interest free. Your other comments just seem like rants as you keep SHOUTING!
For hitman 648: I have read and understand the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Mayflower Pact, Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers; you haven't and don't.
This country was founded under Christian beliefs and I'm surprised you doubt that the documents were written and conceived by conservatives. It sure wasn't liberal socialists who had the Boston tea party. As for abortion; it is disgusting and the government has no place paying to murder the unborn.
Now I need to go...it's time to use my handy newberry knife. The bulls need to become steers so they will be tastier for your cookouts. Google it. It will amuse you.
Have a great day!
Drew... I haven't seen u in ages!!! Ur my neighbor.. well u used to be! I had no idea u wrote for the paper!!!
Adams was a Federalist. Lincoln, Ike and Teddy Roosevelt were Republicans, these are parties that are historically considered right leaning or conservative. The fact that they associated themselves with those parties, when they had a choice, states something about their political inclination.
Read "Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800," by John Ferling. America's bloodless revolution. Jefferson's win in that election is hardly a conservative victory, is it? Obama's party claims its roots in Jefferson, not Adams.
You can't paint with a broad brush on one side of the argument, then point out the fine details when it assists your argument. That is intellectual dishonesty, and that was my point.
The truth of the matter is that each of the Founding Fathers is a mix of ideas, radical and mainstream, liberal and conservative, when viewed through the lens of history. Ideas are ideas, some are good, some are bad whether they are painted with a red brush or a blue one.
They had much bigger fish to fry at the time, the problems they were tangling with were how to keep the King from taking back his colonies, how to make their radical ideas of government work in the new world, how to keep out of all the problems France was facing with their revolution.
They were patriots who wanted the country to work. The leaders wanted honest debate, rather than ad hominem aruments and labelling. But, as what happens so often, the darker side of politics, seems to be one that gets the most publicity.
This morning, on "Morning Joe", I actually saw Howard Dean and Joe Scarborough having a sane, honest discussion about healthcare and the debt. It was refreshing.
Like my brother says, surely the richest country in the world can do better than #37 in healthcare coverage, right? Whether your leanings are right or left, you must realize it is time to put partisanship aside and get something done.
"Your other comments just seem like rants as you keep SHOUTING!"
Do you understand how parody works?
How am I not surprised that you have no argument with the trillions in debt incurred by executives other than Obama?
I keep thinking of Ferling's book when I hear comments about that "librul" Adams:
http://www.amazon.com/Adams-vs-Jefferson...
"In 1800 the nation was struggling to its feet amidst an array of threats from foreign governments and a host of constitutional struggles. Against this backdrop, President John Adams, an elite, strong-willed Federalist, set to square off against his vice president, Thomas Jefferson, a populist Republican. The campaign was brutal. Republicans assailed the Federalists as scare-mongers. Federalists attacked Republicans as godless."
Substitute a couple of names and this sounds like the recent election of 2008, eh?
"In 2008 the nation was struggling to its feet amidst an array of economic and foreign policy threats. Against this backdrop, Senator John McCain, an elite, strong-willed Republican, set to square off against the young Senator, Barack Obama, a populist Democrat. The campaign was brutal. Democrats assailed the Republicans as scare-mongers. Rebublicans attacked Democrats as godless."
Lil Hahn, why not just substitute the players directly? Our Constitution is threatened now.
Our country is threatened by foreign governments now. Why say "foreign policy threats" unless you don't take the threats seriously? Iran has said repeatedly that they want us destroyed, 911 was just 8 years ago and North Korea is testing nuclear weapons and missles to deliver them to the West.
The economy wasn't a worry then because taxes weren't instituted and people took personal and familial responsibility. People worked their tails off and bartered or got to keep what they made.
It just goes to show that it is easy to write a story about history, even as recently as 2008. I wouldn't say that the republicans were "assailed" fearmongers or that democrats were "attacked" as godless. As a matter of fact I think Obama has had lots of God. For example he had God with his father in the Muslim faith and he had Black Chrisianity with Jeremiah Wright.
Good analogy.
Remember that famous line from Pogo? "I has seen the enemy and they is us."
Not much difference between Pepsi and Coke.
Both parties are failing us. When are we going to wake up?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_o...
Health care reform? Let's hope.
Liberalism - small l liberalism - in and of itself, isn't a bad thing.
Before you string me up: when you consider "classical liberalism," you'll find that most of today's conservatives (small c) fit the bill.
Unfortunately, the term "liberal" has been hijacked by today's left and made it an epithet.
Drew,
Here is a challenge for you.
Write an article with the similar theme but this time call it, "Conservatives are bad? Really?
Let's see how good of a journalist you really are.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two , not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
-Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Just thought it needed to be said since he was being tossed around so much...
Jesus did say to help but that was of free will not of Caesar. People do suffer in many ways. We give of ourselves and of the products of our labor. We are not commanded to give to all nor is it morally right to have it taken from us (John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.).
I think it is interesting that if I were to talk with someone about their moral situation they often say to "judge not, lest ye also be judged" (Matthew Chapter 7:1) yet have no trouble telling me that I do not give enough and must give to them so that they can give.
Circle wrote:
"Liberals and conservatives have different ideas of the role of government in our lives, but those labels are political and have little to do with morals. Liberals are often motivated by compassion and feel that we are responsible for one another. Conservatives advocate looking out for oneself but probably give more money to charity than liberals. No one has a monopoly on morality."
Morality and politics are never separated and have much to do with each other. Moral standards are taught us from birth. They are reflected in our "life story". I believe Sotomayor is expressing that and gets no flack for that from the Left. She plans on using that to judge "Constitutionality" of laws and actions.
Many of you are also running with the assumption that Conservatives are not motivated by compassion nor empathy but are only out for themselves and only want regression (the way it was). How wrong. Although we see Liberals as only wanting oversee every one else' lives the way Liberals think it should be. Conservatives know that change must occur but want to do it "conservatively" with understanding of how change will affect themselves and others, whereas Liberals know that change must occur but jump into it blindly saying "change is good" and want change "liberally" applied.
Funny how Europe is running from socialism while we are running to it. They have seen the edge, can we not at least ask them what they have seen that spooked them so?
Luke 4:25-26
But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, [a city] of Sidon, unto a woman [that was] a widow.
1 Timothy 5:4
But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Pardon me, I didn't mean to interrupt your Sunday School lessson. I must have made a mistake, I thought I was clicking on a political discussion.
Oh so funny... :D
Politics and religion go hand in hand. Others stated their dogma but sorry if I got carried away (I had another debate going on at the same time).
Cow Rancher:
He never said he was a journalist. He is a blogger, CR. Get over the fact that he's correct and you cannot disprove him. Why don't you return to making bulls into steers?
Sour grapes...
don't be a whiner!
I don't think he is a blogger either, or else he would be reponding to some of the comments on here. Maybe he's just a "blurter".
Perhaps he would take me up on the article idea. Some people are afraid to hear the truth...it's not convenient for them (not in reference to algores' title of his global scamming documentary).
Whiner? The only whining I have seen has come from you my friend. The whining and the greed that you portray in your comments discuss me.
There are food banks around the county. Have you given any beef to them? No, probably not because there is no money in it. The people that would be receiving that beef hasn't earned it. If you are a Christian than where is all this greed coming from? That is all from me sorry for the BLURTING.
I would like for the writer to explain to me how our forefathers challening the English monarchy is an example of being liberal at least according to the modern definition of the word. You say you are in favor of socialism. Ask someone living in socialist China what happens when they question the authority. You called Hoover a laissez-fairest. It was Thomas Jefferson who introduced that term to most of America because he indeed was a laissez-fairest, not a liberal as you claim. I have never before heard anyone call Joseph Stalin a conservative. Stalin was a student of the Communsit Manafesto and a left wing fanatic, the epitome of a liberal.
Everyone needs to remember that the defintion of liberal and conservative changes as society changes. Therefore, to look back in history in order to compare the two ideals is simply nothing more than a distortion of the truth. Let's focus on the modern day liberal movement started by Geroge McGovern in the 1970's of which Obama, Pelosi, and others are products of. This movement has yet to deliver anything to the American people other than empty promises and millions of murders of innocent, unborn children. The obvious bias and misrepresentation of the truth displayed in this blog show that this blog is nothing more than the radical ramblings of a left wing nut job.
It is not greedy to want to earn what I get and get what I earn. Greed is taking away money from someone and giving it to someone who does not earn or deserve it (communism and socialism).
Just as Obama was wrong to say we would be more patriotic to pay more taxes to Joe the plumber (share the wealth), you are wrong to assume that one who is against forced socialism isn't charitable with their product.
I would venture to say that many in our county are the recipients of generous farmers (:0) , civics clubs, churches and individuals.
Try not to bad-mouth me or any other farmer when your mouth is full of the food we produce.
Thank a farmer today!
I saw a great bumper sticker the other day in Bloomington (of all places). It said "I love all of God's creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes". :')
Liberal and Conservative has changed with the times as much as Democrat and Republican. Here is where the problem lies...each side would love you to throw everyone into the far left or far right. I remember fondly of an argument I had with a history teacher about whether or not I could be a conservative Democrat. He laughed at me. I had the same argument with a history professor. Fact is most people are somewhere in the middle. Spend some time researching political parties...it is comical to think of the dealings the higher ups in each party have made to insure they get the necessary votes.
Don't water down religious views and morals with politics. Our forefathers had this one right. Can you really vote on morals. Sure you can support a cause,but you would be better off working at the grassroots level than voting for a politician.
You can absolutely vote on morals.
To not vote is to say you don't care...also an irresponsible choice. However, to vote for a politician who is not a subscriber to ones' beliefs is the same as voting for against yourself (or at least your own platform).
You would be better off working locally and voting. To discount one for another does not help anyone but the opposite viewpoint.
Cow rancher I bet you dont complain about socialism when the goverment gvies farmers money, do to flood or other enviromental disasters. Most farmers around here had their land passed down to them from there mommies and daddies, so it wasn't earned, it was inherited. Most farmers I talk to around here sound like the Rockefellers and Vanderbelts at the turn of the century. "We got money and we earned it" even though they just caught a break or a bit of good luck, or just born into it. So their view was the people at the bottom should of worked harder and they woudlnt be complaining about not having the money. It's easy to have those views though when when you are not standing in their shoes.
Cow rancher, first off, I was not bad mouthing any farmer. Farmers do work hard, and I will not take that away from them.
"Greed is taking away money from someone and giving it to someone who does not earn or deserve it." Don't understand this. Would you care to explain? Greed is when someone has enough of something to be set for themselves and wants more for themselves. When these people could do more with what they have by helping the unfortunate.
cow rancher, please explain to the readers what "soil bank is, or "set aside land,I think that is where you get paid to not plant any crops, now that may be socialism. Also what are price controls when it comes to certain crops. Lets face it all farmers rely on the Government every year to help them . And when I saw you say that you had off road vehicles I started to laugh, you don't buy plates for your tractors and every one I know has followed an unplated Tractor on the road many times.
When the government interferes with free enterprise, then we have no choice but to take subsidies. Most times, it is a choice to accept the subsidies or not compete to keep farming. For example, when the feds mandated 10% ethanol in gasoline, there was no distiller willing to make the ethanol due to it being so non-economical. Therefore, our enlightened government decided to subsidize the distillers to make it profitable for them to make ethanol. That was a poor decision for the government. Without the subsidies, the plants will certainly close.
When set-aside programs came out of the big liberal push of the 70's to have more ground for wildlife, drainage controls for wetlands, etc...farmers had to make a choice whether or not to participate in spending money for crop production or taking government (socialized) money to grow nothing on those acres.
Price controls are in place to keep the US food prices low. This helps to ensure the elderly gets there cheese for free (one example), and others to be able to buy food at a low price.
Thanks to American farmers, our country has prospered with extremely low food costs compared to almost every other country in the world. There are imports now (without subsidies) that are cheaper than US produced crops due to lower cost of production (i.e. Brazilian soybeans).
With all this being said, I don't know a good farmer out there that would rather the government leave them alone and let them compete without the government programs. With the competition in place, the farmers would again be able to follow the market demands and supplies to help supply their families with a profit. Most farmers don't like the government butting in, the paperwork or the ungrateful public (not from Greene Co.) telling them how to produce crops or livestock. They already know their job and just want to make an honest living without the interferance. Those who have worked on a farm, detassled seed corn, cleaned a turkey barn or milked dairy cows know the work involved.
If you also farm and believe differently, feel free to chime in and tell us what you think.
C'mon Cow rancher, you did it a little. A little more won't hurt.
Everyone else is doing it.
Come on don't be a wimp!
Don't you want to be like everyone else?
Some of these comments sound a bit like bullying... and some just a bit whiny. (So what if someone else caught a break? Why spit in their cheerios? How sad.)
It still comes down to VERY big changes in fiscal and diplomatic policies that are happening way too fast for any rational thinking. I can understand some of the Liberal viewpoints and agree that their are some good points but PLEASE slow down and look ahead FIRST. Do we really have to jump into everything? We are not inventing the wheel here. Most of these policies have been tried before and/or are currently in place in other countries. A prime example is usually France's health care system. While it does help a lot of people it is also breaking the country. People DO have to wait to be treated according to their "class" or "benefit to society". There are pros and cons and in the long run the cons out way the pros. Many of the people who are currently without health care are the young who do not see the need for it as I did back in the day. What I am saying is that the statistics being used are not exactly what they are being portrayed to be. Just stop and question things for a bit. That is mostly what Conservatism is.
"In a purely market-based society (the opposite of socialism) we'd do away with our roads, schools, many nursing homes, libraries, much of our medical research, any effort to maintain healthy water and air, and so on." -Well here is an example of philosophy stuck in the class room and afraid of the real world. There is not a PURE form of socialism nor market-based society in the real world nor will there be. Nice try but it gets thrown out for the bow tie.
And yes, greed IS taking from someone else, for your own benefit... no matter how much money they have. I just don't see the moral high ground in forcing someone to give and it opens doors that our forefathers fought to close. We have open debate, that door can be closed too.
jbann,
Good comments. Very insightful although I don't know about your saying I did it a little.
It's a scary time in America with the "change" in Washington and the "change" left in our pockets.
Liberals (socialists, progressives) are not bad people...but the policies have been tried and will hurt the country for a long, long time. Really.
Conservatism is not slowing down and looking at policies and their effects down the road. How could you possibly know? Social Security was an amazing revelation to those seniors that had no prospect of retiring. I doubt the Congress after the Civil War realized that the 15th amendment would be the building block of gay rights(and women's rights). Would that have passed the "Conservatism" test?
Are country has endured some rough times by liberal and conservative agendas.
A completely free market in farming could put farmers in a yo-yo. Supply and demand can be a fickle thing. Look at the farming depression of the 1920's.
Farmers may have inherited the land, but they earn their living. What a ridiculous statement. I'm not a farmer, but I've down enough farm work to know it is a hard work. Farmers live their job...they don't get to leave it at the office.
I am a liberal. All I got to say about this is thanks to the farmers. They deserve respect.
GCC, ya they might earn a living now, but they had that land passed down. Most farmers are against unions because they might have to pay there farm hands decent, because i've never seen a farmer employ someone around here who makes a good living(how much did you get payed GCC?). They think people just aren't working hard enough thats why their not making it. The point I was trying to make was, that these views are easy to say snd stand by when their not standing in a persons shoes that didn't have a business passed down to them.
Qauzar, do you also go by the name Yellow Star? You both sound like the world has hit you and you are striking out. Watch "Meet the Robinsons" and try not to be the "Bowler Hat" guy. Yeah, it's an animated movie but a good moral story. The world does not owe any of us a living. I have lived on the streets (literally) and picked myself up and got jobs even when the odds were TOTALLY against it. Why? Because I went after them. I dressed acceptable and treated people with respect. Then I worked HARD! Everyplace I have left for another position has hated to see me go. They took a chance because I put forth the effort. Most of them paid very little but I took them and kept looking for something better. What help I recieved I was grateful for but I did not continue to rely on it. It was never meant to be a livelihood. I have know more people who are 3rd generation welfare than I ever dreamed possible and I don't wish that on anyone. They are a sad state of barely educated and hating everyone who has more than them.
The world is a hard place so please, cowboy up 'cause it ain't gonna get better.
The world has been great to me i've lived a good life, but I feal for people that haven't had the luck i've had. I guess thats where me and you see things differently, not everyone that is on welfare is dumb and uneducated. Maybe instead of placing the blame on them people you should take a look at big business and big corporations that sent the should of been jobs over seas to make a little profit. Maybe if we could stop this, the jobs like you started in and worked hard would of paid more. Paid more cause you worked hard and deserved it, and most big businesses can afford to do that trust me (such as wal-mart). If you can't see where im coming from you are blind to the facts my friend.
Um, your spelling and grammar does not help your point. But I am curious why your luck is good while farmers having a strong work ethic, instilling it in their children and passing on the family livelihood a bad thing.
As for me, I am have six siblings and we grew up on welfare because my father was mostly worthless, so I understand not "catching a break". Still not letting it keep me from trying to be productive in society.
As I stated earlier, business without a moral compass is destructive and is what you are referring to. Companies can make a profit, even huge profits, and not have immoral practices. Check out "Chick fil a" for a prime example.
While thinking of "maybe's" we should think that maybe if American workers would stop thinking that the world owes them a living and put in an honest days work instead of running off for a cigarette every 30-60 minutes (or more)then many of those companies would not have looked for ways to cut overhead. It is easy to blame the "haves" because they are always "them" and not "us".
"Liberals are often motivated by compassion and feel that we are responsible for one another." -Circle
Does compassion and responsibility only apply when you are taking from the "haves"?
While I'm thinking of previous posts, I don't understand how Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" proves that he was Liberal or not Conservative.
"Just because he was a Republican does not make him a conservative. I think the Emancipation Proclamation sums that up." -hitman648
Does that say that anyone of Conservative ideologies is FOR slavery? I am pretty sure that people of both ideologies participated in that since slavery was mostly commonplace for thousands of years. Please explain since leaving a thought in mid-sentence opens up the opportunity for mis-conception.
And socialist programs are a stepping stone to socialism. While SOME may be needed (for a time), MANY is a sign of a journeyed trek down that road already. While we travel it we are being met by Euro countries running back along that road. -Things that make you say, hmm.
Sorry, way past my bedtime. Night ya'll. Remember, open debate is good. Enjoy it while we have it and use it to keep it. Don't hate. Educate.
Um, I'm sorry about my grammar and spelling. I didn't know I was writing a college essay Jbann. My father also passed me down a strong work ethic, on top of that he passed me down compassion for the working man. The guy that is working the farmers fields for ten dollars an hour if he is lucky.
While on the subjects of maybes' maybe more Americans would have stronger work ethics if they had better pay. Maybe we would have that if corporation didn't union bust. Maybe if it wasn't for Reganomics we would still have unions, and maybe, just maybe you could see this if you weren't so blind and ignorant, and the last maybe is a real strong one.
hmmmmmm......I think Quazar sums it all up.... ;-)
Case closed.
Ten dollars per hour for farm labor sounds like pretty good money. What would be good money... never mind, that is getting off track. And while I am ignorant, I'm not stupid.
Since stupid is forever and ignorance can be cured, please inform me more about how work ethic can be purchased. Is it that work ethic can be purchased or is it that it expires when you do not get paid enough for it? When you entered into the work contract were you unaware of the pay-to-work ratio? Does a good work ethic stop when you feel that you have been wronged? I guess I have misunderstood it this whole time since when I feel I have been wronged by my work, I try to correct it or find someplace else to work. I wonder... if everyone worked hard, no matter what and refused to stay at a place that treated them unfairly, would those businesses continue their policies? This is not union speech this is work ethic and common sense. While unions do have some benefit in protecting employees, like big govt, unions coerce more and more from the "haves" to give to the "have not's" until the "have not's" cannot afford to live without the union. Thus becoming "subjects" or "indentured servants".
The point is, be careful what you wish for... you might get it.
I know what ignorant means, that's why I used it, but after reading this, maybe I should of used the word stupid.
On the subject of work ethic though, you get what you pay for. If you get something cheap its ussually not the greatest thing in the world. Same with low wages. Why would someone slave away for a company, if they know that company could afford to pay them better, and doesn't, because of greed. Now to me that is just common sense.
"Thus becoming "subjects" or "indentured servants"."
You made this statement, I was just wandering if you had lost your mind. Subjects and indentured servants, that is hilarious. What do you say about the coal mines around here then, before the unions came in. You work 7 days a week in unsafe conditions, then you live in company housing, then there is a company store where you buy all your goods from ,that you need to live on. After all of this you want to tell me it's the unions that are forcing their workers into a life of servitude. I would think even a stupid person could see this.
OK, now I never called you stupid so why are you attacking me personally? Have I not tried to keep this an open debate and that the debate was on ideologies? Yes, I commented on your spelling and grammar, which you corrected later which shows that you are capable, but that was to help you be believable. The funny thing is is that I did it because you were not able to make a logical point so you looked ignorant (either uneducated or of choice). I was actually trying to help you in further posts that you might make.
I would like to note at this point who is doing a majority if not all of the personal attacks in this comment section of the blog. If you read from the top down to see the progression, it is the ""Liberals are often motivated by compassion and feel that we are responsible for one another." -Circle" It would appear that Liberals can only show compassion and responsibility for people that agree with their ideology. Sure, this conclusion is only from a small sample of Liberals but notice that it is from pretty much every one of the Liberals present here. -Things that make you say... hmmm.
Did I not say that there were some good points and uses of unions? "While unions do have some benefit in protecting employees, like big govt, unions coerce more and more from the "haves" to give to the "have not's" until the "have not's" cannot afford to live without the union."
So,Quazar, in answer to your wonderment: "I would think even a stupid person could see this." It appears that even in my "stupid" conservatism I did see this.
Perhaps in you choice of level of ignorance and disdain for anyone who disagrees with you, you chose to ignore that. Or was it a feeble attempt to try to put words in my mouth or redirect the focus? Unless you can get the persons of this site to delete my opinions (again) the words that I used are written above for all to read and interpret. Since I have not attacked a person but their ideologies I think it is fair to assume that the posts will stand.
If this debate is to continue "maybe" the whining and the name calling and taunting should stop. There is much of Liberal viewpoints that I would like to read and understand (or so I thought) but it seems that the more focused commented early on and then moved on.
By the way, I guess I would have to disagree with you Quazar about the "you get what you pay for". From what I have seen in the decades that I have been in the work force. No matter how much you pay some people they are still worthless and usually the hardest to get rid of since the one thing they do well is play the system. They sure do put a lot of effort into that. Of course the system was apparently put up by Liberals as you all have pointed out many times. So I guess I was correct in my understanding of this statement: ""Liberals are often motivated by compassion and feel that we are responsible for one another." -Circle". The "one another" is anyone who agrees with Liberal ideology.
Well, it was nice while it lasted but it would appear that this blog is dead. Especially since the "blogger" has only made one appearance and that was pretty feeble and untrue. (Who requested that "Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman-Sachs, etc" supply people with loans that were obviously incapable of sustaining the payments? Um, that would be the Democratic Congress when they took over. -Things that make you say... What? But the media keeps telling me it was the Republican Congress!
Lets see, after the planes hit the towers the economy went down. The Republican Congress acted and the economy went up. The Democratic party takes over and 2 years later the economy takes a huge dump.
Yeah, I see your point... ;)
Next blog please!
Drew, you & I have been through this before, but just do this for me...
I know you are a Christian. Please wear that label proudly AT ALL TIMES. Don't take it off so that you can be the die-hard liberal Democrat you like to be. I don't think Christ would speak in the divisive prose that you (and others on both sides of the political isle) did in this blog. Now, I know what you're thinking - "Jesus spoke in VERY divisive prose! Just read any of the 1st 4 books of the New Testament." But Jesus' divisive speech separated the sinful from the righteous, the unforgiven from the forgiven, the unsaved from the saved. Unless your goal is to be a "shock jock" along the lines of a Howard Stern, a good journalist knows how to get his point across & create healthy discussion without being divisive. Next time, try conveying your thoughts from the perspective of the disciple of Jesus you claim to be. Now, I also know that you are never at a loss for words & will likely try to prove ME to be divisive by using my own words against me in some form or fashion. And that's fine. Whatever makes you feel good. Love ya, Bro.
Drew, I just read my earlier post again, and realized it sounds a little mean. I didn't intend for it to come across that way. So please read it in as non-threatening way as possible. Loved your story about your dad, though!
Returning back to Drew's original comments about the liberal views of the Founding Fathers, I found the following comments on the Declaration of Independence from one who is considered to be one of the great liberal British minds of the 18th Century to be amusing.
"[Jeremy Bentham,]
A Short Review of the Declaration (1776)
In examining this singular Declaration, I have hitherto confined myself to what are given as facts, and alleged against his Majesty and his Parliament, in support of the charge of tyranny and usurpation. Of the preamble I have take little or no notice. The truth is, little or none does it deserve. The opinions of the modern Americans on Government, like those of their good ancestors on witchcraft, would be too ridiculous to deserve any notice, if like them too, contemptible and extravagant as they be, they had not led to the most serious evils.
In this preamble, however it is, that they attempt to establish a theory of Government; a theory, as absurd and visionary, as the system of conduct in defence of which it is established, is nefarious. Here it is, that maxims are advanced in justification of their enterprises against the British Government. To these maxims, adduced for this purpose, it would be sufficient to say, that they are repugnant to the British Constitution. But beyond this they are subversive of every actual or imaginable kind of Government.
They are "to assume," as they tell us, "among the powers of the earth that equal and separate station to which" - they have lately discovered - "the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God entitle them." What difference these acute legislators suppose between the laws of Nature and of Nature's God, is more than I can take upon me to determine or even to guess. If to what they now demand they were entitled to by any law of God, they had only to produce that law, all controversy was at an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call self-evident truths. "All men," they tell us, "are created equal." This surely is a new discovery; now, for the first time, we learn, that a child, at the moment of his birth, has they same quantity of natural power as the parent, the quantity of political power as the magistrate.
The rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - by which, if they mean any thing, they must mean the right to enjoy life, to enjoy liberty, and to pursue happiness - they "hold to be unalienable." This they "hold to be among truths self-evident." At the same time, to secure these rights, they are content that Governments should be instituted. They perceive not, or will not seem to perceive, that nothing which can be called Government ever was, or ever could be, in any instance, exercised, but at the expense of on or other of those rights. -That, consequently, in as many instance as Government ever exercised, some one or other of these rights, pretended to be unalienable, is actually alienated.
That men who are engaged in the design of subverting a lawful Government, should endeavour by a cloud of words, to throw a veil over their design; that they should endeavour to beat down the criteria between tyranny and lawful government, is not at all surprising."
It is good to get the view of a contemporary liberal on the events of 1776!
Jeremy Bentham is considered the godfather of University College London, the first entirely secular institution of higher learning, open to all, to be founded in England.
All in fun, all in fun. Jeremy later (1787) endorsed the American and French Revolutions.
Per his will, his corpse was preserved and stored in a cabinet at University College London. This self-named "auto-icon" is pulled out occasionally for college council meetings, where ol' Jeremy is listed as "present, but not voting."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bent...