First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Krankenstein

Paradise, CA

#62 Jul 30, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
What's especially interesting to me is that Kranky, in an earlier post, maintained that liberals were hateful. But in the later post, which I responded to, he suggests that liberal's compassion (their 'inner need' or something) is what gets in the way of their intellect.
So, he's a bit confused.
Let's see if it was the conservative or liberal leaders in our country who have brought us the most positive change, through history. Did their hearts overwhelm their minds and force bad decisions?
Lincoln was a republican and was as liberal as you can get. He freed the slaves, which upheld social justice over the property rights of slave owners. He fought the Civil War, which upheld the nation over states' rights. He used his compassion AND his mind.
Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was, in today's world, an extreme liberal who fought for worker and union rights, instituted our national parks, and fought the big money people by busting monopolies. He was a heart AND mind kind of guy.
FDR, a democrat, inherited the Great Depression from pro-big business Hoover, and initiated work projects that not only helped our infrastructure but also put millions to work. Despite republican opposition, he helped get our country out of the Depression. He started Social Security, something even our most ardent conservatives know to not attempt to eliminate now. He got a bill passed to limit the powers of the Big Banks, the Glass-Stegall bill.
Dwight Eisenhower, our republican president after WWII, was considered a moderate at the time but would certainly be called a super-liberal by tea partiers today. His heart AND his mind called for him and his all-republican congress to spend stimulus money, lots of it, for our freeways and for helping our vets with the GI Bill. Eisenhower was very pro-union, and also warned us of the military-industrial complex (today it's much wider, it's the government--Big Money complex).
Each one of these presidents helped our country to progress, both in social justice, and with improving our economy.
<quoted text>
.
A quick clarification, the hate / compassion thing is consistent because hate is an emotional response. The entire premise of my belief is simply that liberalism is elicited first in emotion and then in logic. As a conservative, I see my process as fact first then logical analysis and finally emotional attachment.

This is the inner continuum that interests me on how and why people are motivated to react the way that they do. Please don't think that I attribute hatred to only liberals, there is enough hatred on both sides. I will tell you that I have had spirited debates about non political issues with other conservatives and found that we could agree to disagree. My experience with liberals in this regard has been much different. This is why I want to see if we can maintain a spirited but civil conversation, all kidding / insults aside.
Krankenstein

Paradise, CA

#63 Jul 30, 2014
TPS, I agree with a lot of the historical context that you have provided concerning leaders in history. We view current events quite differently but we may not be as far apart as either one of us wants to believe.

Strong post, I enjoyed it greatly.
Freestuff

Oroville, CA

#64 Jul 30, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
In which post did I say lemmings commit mass suicide?
#52 " Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff, "
Freestuff

Oroville, CA

#65 Jul 30, 2014
Misconceptions about lemmings go back many centuries. In the 1530s, the geographer Zeigler of Strasbourg proposed the theory that the creatures fell out of the sky during stormy weather (also featured in the folklore of the Inupiat/Yupik at Norton Sound), and then died suddenly when the grass grew in spring. This description was contradicted by the natural historian Ole Worm, who accepted that lemmings could fall out of the sky, but claimed they had been brought over by the wind rather than created by spontaneous generation.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#66 Jul 30, 2014
Krankenstein wrote:
TPS, I agree with a lot of the historical context that you have provided concerning leaders in history. We view current events quite differently but we may not be as far apart as either one of us wants to believe.
Strong post, I enjoyed it greatly.
Thanks, I see that you're maintaining an open mind. I've shown a few of our presidents, repub and dem, who significantly improved our country-- and they all would have to be considered liberals by today's standards.

I've asked this question before-- can anyone name a truly conservative president who's improved our country?

Repub president Hoover was a disaster, in many ways similar to W. Bush. The Roaring '20's of Hoover's administration featured corporate and banking de-regulation, and it blew up with the Great Depression. Hoover responded with austerity, and the Depression deepened.

Nixon and Ford were moderates. The senior Bush of one term reneged on his promise to make no new taxes, and his term was ok. We all know the disaster of Bush Jr.

So you're left with Ron Reagan. First, in today's T-publican world, Reagan is only mildly conservative, but he did lower taxes on capital gains and on the very-rich. He promised more jobs, a smaller government, and less national debt. He did get more jobs, mainly due to Volker of the Fed lowering interest rates, and to the stimulus of much more defense spending, and to the fact that the 80's was propelled by the computer revolution.

But he left us with a monumental national debt, three times its size from when he stepped into office. And a smaller government? No, it grew and he added hundreds of thousands new non-government jobs-- which, in fact, also helped our overall job situation due to the ripple affect.

Reagan's de-regulation of the savings and loan corporations brought us our first economic meltdown, a precursor to the mess Bush left us.

So, in terms of stimulus spending, through the addition of military and non-military government jobs, he was a liberal. But his conservative actions of reducing taxes for the rich, and cozying up to the Big Money interests while demeaning labor unions, set the stage for our current situation-- the widest income disparity since 1929. And the almost complete transformation of our country into a politician- Big Money oligarchy.

So, Reagan is not a good example of a conservative who's improved our country. I think it's a fact that we've had no truly conservative administration which has improved our country.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#67 Jul 30, 2014
(In the above post I wrote 'non-government jobs', when I meant to say non-military government jobs).

Ok, one last thing. Right-wing libertarians will respond to my post by saying,“Well, if we had a truly conservative president, one far to the right of Reagan, then we WOULD see a great new America!”

Rand Paul has said many times (not recently) that he DIDN’T like Reagan, for some of the reasons I posted above. Paul Ryan, who gives out Ayn Rand novels to his staff, also pushes for a libertarian economic policy.

They believe in the de-regulation of all our industries, privatization of our government services, lower taxes on the rich, and the elimination of much of our safety net. They want to dismantle Medicare with vouchers, lay-off more government employees, and let our huge corporations off-shore jobs and cash. They want to cut down or eliminate government agencies that protect our water, food, meds, on and on.

This extremist view is as far to the right as true communism is far to the left. This would be an extremely radical social experiment, the likes of which we’ve never seen in the world.

But we do have an indication of where this would lead us. In the late 1800’s we had little governmental control of the big industrialists such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and JP Morgan. These brilliant and power-hungry guys monopolized the steel, oil, railroad, and banking industries. They made billions, bought politicians, and owned America.

Their employees worked 10 hour days, 7 days a week, in dangerous working conditions. There was rampant child labor. And low, low wages. Health care in those days? Forget it. No minimum wage, no safety nets, no protection of food, meds, water or air. And politicians only cared about making the Fat Cats happy.

And that situation was as close as we’ve ever come to a libertarian society. Thank God for Teddy Roosevelt, who began cleaning up the mess when he became president.

Libertarians, and many tea partiers talk and act like libertarians, want our country to go back to the 1800’s. They want us to approve their ‘great’ social experiment. History shows that it would be a disaster.

I say, no thanks.
thanks

United States

#68 Jul 31, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I see that you're maintaining an open mind. I've shown a few of our presidents, repub and dem, who significantly improved our country-- and they all would have to be considered liberals by today's standards.
I've asked this question before-- can anyone name a truly conservative president who's improved our country?
Repub president Hoover was a disaster, in many ways similar to W. Bush. The Roaring '20's of Hoover's administration featured corporate and banking de-regulation, and it blew up with the Great Depression. Hoover responded with austerity, and the Depression deepened.
Nixon and Ford were moderates. The senior Bush of one term reneged on his promise to make no new taxes, and his term was ok. We all know the disaster of Bush Jr.
So you're left with Ron Reagan. First, in today's T-publican world, Reagan is only mildly conservative, but he did lower taxes on capital gains and on the very-rich. He promised more jobs, a smaller government, and less national debt. He did get more jobs, mainly due to Volker of the Fed lowering interest rates, and to the stimulus of much more defense spending, and to the fact that the 80's was propelled by the computer revolution.
But he left us with a monumental national debt, three times its size from when he stepped into office. And a smaller government? No, it grew and he added hundreds of thousands new non-government jobs-- which, in fact, also helped our overall job situation due to the ripple affect.
Reagan's de-regulation of the savings and loan corporations brought us our first economic meltdown, a precursor to the mess Bush left us.
So, in terms of stimulus spending, through the addition of military and non-military government jobs, he was a liberal. But his conservative actions of reducing taxes for the rich, and cozying up to the Big Money interests while demeaning labor unions, set the stage for our current situation-- the widest income disparity since 1929. And the almost complete transformation of our country into a politician- Big Money oligarchy.
So, Reagan is not a good example of a conservative who's improved our country. I think it's a fact that we've had no truly conservative administration which has improved our country.
EXCELLENT Posts and Conversation Solution and Kranky.

Interestingly in regards to our Presidents, McKinley was backed and elected by the Trusts that Ruled America and American Business in the late 1800s. In an attempt to quash another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, a social activist by today's standards, they put him in the Dead End Vice Presidents position knowing it was a dead end job. When McKinley was assassinated the Trusts worst nightmare came true! Roosevelt was President and the rest is History. If Roosevelt were not President we most likely would be partnered or ruled by Nazi Germany and Industrial/Tyrannical Dictatorial Masters.

Not agreeing is what Democracy is about. But grinding out a compromise, as dirty as it may be, is what successful democracy is about. Currently we are in abject Failure due to a Non Participating Radical Extremist wing of One party. That is a problem for the country not just for the survival of a loyal opposition, this time being the Republican Party. In the late 60s it was the Democrat Party.

The pendulum swings both ways to reach an apex of radicalism on both sides. It's time to move to the center for the sake of our country's future.
The right is wrong

Sacramento, CA

#69 Jul 31, 2014
Freestuff wrote:
<quoted text>
#52 " Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff, "
In post # 52 I said nothing about suicide.

Post No. 52 in its entirety:

"Its mind boggling that I reference repubicans as followers, as in lemmings following each other as in migration and the idiot goes off topic and talks about rodents.

Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff, just like repubican tea -baggers."
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#70 Aug 1, 2014
thanks wrote:
<quoted text>EXCELLENT Posts and Conversation Solution and Kranky.
Interestingly in regards to our Presidents, McKinley was backed and elected by the Trusts that Ruled America and American Business in the late 1800s. In an attempt to quash another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, a social activist by today's standards, they put him in the Dead End Vice Presidents position knowing it was a dead end job. When McKinley was assassinated the Trusts worst nightmare came true! Roosevelt was President and the rest is History. If Roosevelt were not President we most likely would be partnered or ruled by Nazi Germany and Industrial/Tyrannical Dictatorial Masters
.

Yeah, it was lucky for us that Roosevelt assumed the presidency. Making him first the VP, in order to keep him contained, backfired on the repubs/ monopolies of that era.
thanks wrote:
<Not agreeing is what Democracy is about. But grinding out a compromise, as dirty as it may be, is what successful democracy is about. Currently we are in abject Failure due to a Non Participating Radical Extremist wing of One party. That is a problem for the country not just for the survival of a loyal opposition, this time being the Republican Party. In the late 60s it was the Democrat Party.
The pendulum swings both ways to reach an apex of radicalism on both sides. It's time to move to the center for the sake of our country's future.
Agreed, although I believe that the T-publicans need to move a lot more to the center since they're now so far to the right.
Thanks solution

United States

#71 Aug 1, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>.
Yeah, it was lucky for us that Roosevelt assumed the presidency. Making him first the VP, in order to keep him contained, backfired on the repubs/ monopolies of that era.
<quoted text>
Agreed, although I believe that the T-publicans need to move a lot more to the center since they're now so far to the right.
Yes Solution. The Tea Party is the Radical wing of the Republican Party that is dedicated to Government Failure. Their causing the failure of the Republican Party Immigration Legislation today is a fine example.

The Republican Party needs to wake up and lose the Tea Party. They are not conservatives or loyal opposition.

It's good to see you back. I very much enjoy and learn from your enlightened posts.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#72 Aug 1, 2014
Thanks solution wrote:
<quoted text>Yes Solution. The Tea Party is the Radical wing of the Republican Party that is dedicated to Government Failure. Their causing the failure of the Republican Party Immigration Legislation today is a fine example.
The Republican Party needs to wake up and lose the Tea Party. They are not conservatives or loyal opposition.
It's good to see you back. I very much enjoy and learn from your enlightened posts.
And keep your excellent posts coming! Now, get ready to hear from TWerP.
Soul Solution

United States

#73 Aug 1, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
And keep your excellent posts coming! Now, get ready to hear from TWerP.
TwerP is just a TWERP as we know! No problem.
Freestuff

Oroville, CA

#74 Aug 1, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
In post # 52 I said nothing about suicide.
Post No. 52 in its entirety:
"Its mind boggling that I reference repubicans as followers, as in lemmings following each other as in migration and the idiot goes off topic and talks about rodents.
Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff, just like repubican tea -baggers."
Migration my arse,. You only changed the meaning after learning you had been parroting the lemming myth.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#75 Aug 1, 2014
Freestuff wrote:
<quoted text>Migration my arse,. You only changed the meaning after learning you had been parroting the lemming myth.
You can't change facts. You can't change what people post. What you are doing is proving that you don't understand what you read and therefore have a comprehension problem.

Yep, you're a repubican.
Freestuff

Oroville, CA

#76 Aug 1, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't change facts. You can't change what people post. What you are doing is proving that you don't understand what you read and therefore have a comprehension problem.
Yep, you're a repubican.
"Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff, just like repubican tea -baggers."
The behavior of lemmings is much the same as that of many other rodents which have periodic population booms and then disperse in all directions, seeking the food and shelter their natural habitats cannot provide.
You've called this a migration.

One myth deeply entrenched in our language is that of the "Lemming Suicide Plunge" - where lemmings, apparently overcome by deep-rooted impulses, deliberately run over a cliff in their millions, to be dashed to their deaths on the rocks below, or to drown in the raging ocean. Indeed, this myth is now a metaphor for the behaviour of crowds of people who foolishly follow each other, lemming-like, regardless of the consequences. This particular myth began with a Disney movie.

"Lemmings are followers who will mindlessly go over a cliff" you said.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/0...

. Bob McKeown, the host of the CBC program, found that the lemming scene was filmed at the Bow River near downtown Calgary and not at the Arctic Ocean as implied by the film. He found out that the lemmings did not voluntarily jump into the river but were pushed in by a rotating platform installed by the film crew. He also interviewed a lemming expert who claimed that the particular species of lemming shown in the film is not known to migrate, much less commit mass suicide.
Hypocrite Radical Right

United States

#77 Aug 2, 2014
Godfrey wrote:
What you call anger I call your future. By the way, anger is what real men do so get up for it you stupid worms.
Anger is a product of FEAR! Your FEAR is Palpable. You have passed the Anger phase of Fear and graduated to the HATE Phase!

Congratulations, You, Godfreak, Have achieved the status of a dumbded Down KKK Tea Bagger Republican Radical Extremist!

Good Job! Now Sit Boy! Stay! Roll Over! Good Boy!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Replenish the aquifer (Jan '14) 1 hr Rain Cloud 89
Obama policy has fueled middle east chaos 8 hr Local 25
What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox ... 8 hr Local 11
Governor says deadly flooding is worst ever see... 8 hr Local 3
Why is Hillary Lying about E-mails? 12 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 14
ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s le... 14 hr Local 7
Global Warm-thers: Trapped by irony 14 hr Local 94
More from around the web

Chico People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]