New and Improved Liberal Preamble to the Constitution !

Really? I would have figured you for a Creationist.

No douglaq, Bubba is a preamble evolutionist.

You could replace "Liberals and Progressives" with "Conservatives," and it would be not one iota more or less accurate.

Literally.

"You" could if "You" want, but I won't!

Naturally. :-)

How's your day going Proud Pagan ?

Life remains interesting.

In short; it's purely self-indulgent.

Like "Liberals" ever worried about that !

Be that as it may, I'm calling it as I see it and leaving it at that. Have fun with it.

Kind regards

Proud Pagan wrote:

You could replace "Liberals and Progressives" with "Conservatives," and it would be not one iota more or less accurate.

The grammar would probably improve.

The grammar would probably improve.

No doubt. Way too many misused quotation marks. I think the author is trying to emphasize, which should be accomplished with italics, not quotation marks.

Michelle!

Is that all you got, because that's all you seem to be able to produce the last few articles I've seen you on.

Trying to help you look better, Greg. Most people would appreciate it. Also, please notice I wasn't the first to mention it on your article?

No doubt. Way too many misused quotation marks. I think the author is trying to emphasize, which should be accomplished with italics, not quotation marks.

Really? Not too familiar with the real preamble are we? If you were, it would be pretty easy to see that the author substituted his own words into the original using the quotation marks...

I think the author is trying to emphasize, which should be accomplished with italics, not quotation marks.

I hereby donate to you my entire collection of nits so you can enjoy picking them.

Alright, I have to step in here and say that for such a projecting post, the discourse here is shockingly civil. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

MichelleUT wrote:

No doubt. Way too many misused quotation marks. I think the author is trying to emphasize, which should be accomplished with italics, not quotation marks.

Aside from the incorrectly placed commas, I don't really have an issue with the use of quotation marks. My original comment was prompted primarily by the author's more basic errors with possessives and a plurals.

greg-709692 wrote:

Punctuation is the very least of our worries now-a-days, and I mean "LAST" on the list !!

Au contraire. Punctuation often has drastic effects on meaning, to wit:

A woman, without her man, is nothing.

as opposed to:

"A woman: without her, man is nothing."

Here's a more complex example:

Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy --will you let me be yours?
Gloria

as opposed to:

Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is . All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
yours,
Gloria

It's unrealistic to expect you will never be criticized. and if you ignore all criticism and live in your own bubble, surrounded by like-minded people, you will have no way to correct the errors in your thinking. (And we all make such errors.)

Big difference between criticism and supposition.

This sort of article (and I seem to be stumbling on these primarily from the right, targetted at the left) are not criticism, they are ridiculous projections of personal biases which they attempt to falsely ascribe to those whose politics they do not share. They universally have no basis in a factual expression of any progressive ever, but are rather massive distortions and hyperbolic overreations/extrapolations of the truth.

Instead, why don't you constructively put forth positive ideas from your perspective, and constructively rebut the substance of those you disagree with? That would be criticism.

It's unrealistic to expect you will never be criticized. and if you ignore all criticism and live in your own bubble, surrounded by like-minded people, you will have no way to correct the errors in your thinking. (And we all make such errors.)

A post like this seems like the construction of the bubble itself. There's no real discussion to be had, or anything thoughtful - just the equivalent of name-calling.

1. I tend to hold socially liberal stances and fiscally conservative stances.

2. Probably no, but I don't really know what you mean by "more power and control."

3. Well, I don't know how to answer without knowing who "the many" is. Do you mean to ask if I favor higher taxes?

4. What alternative is there to dealing with the national debt other than paying it off?

I mean, I favor spending cuts, but if you couple spending cuts with tax cuts, the debt problem still isn't going to be addressed.

5. Providing for the nation in what way? Materialistically? Militarily? A positive economic environment?

6. This question seems overly simplistic. What ideals?

7. ... I don't see why they should have been removed (the words do have meanings beyond their uses in relation to religion).

thelopes - I'm curious. You state that you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. So am I. Yet you oppose my opinions 99% of the time. How could that be?

thelopes - I'm curious. You state that you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. So am I. Yet you oppose my opinions 99% of the time. How could that be?

I'd probably have to go back and look at individual situations to answer that. But I'm sure there's plenty you say and post that I never see or see and don't find reason to respond.

Socially, I'm a "do as you please", until you invade other peoples rights and spaces. Fiscally, I'm on the side of "Stop Stupid Spending" (especially spending on multiple agencies that do the same thing) and "Fix Problems before you create new laws and regulations".

I think those sound pretty good - to be honest. But - as I 'tend' to be socially liberal, I end up feeling enough of a push to make a stance regarding gay marriage, but not much of a push to care so much about marijuana. Or, while I'm all for stopping stupid spending and get costs under control - at the same time I couldn't find a problem with the expiration of Bush's tax cuts on the highest brackets.

I think a mix of spending cuts and slightly higher taxes could give us a great push in terms of a surplus against the national debt. When we would no longer need the surplus for the debt I'd be all for scaling taxes back again. But that idea seems to pit me against "conservatives" who want to yell about me stealing from their pocketbooks.

I'll bet we could see a reduction in taxes if they cut enough waste out of government.

A little cut, then raise taxes, doesn't cut it for me. (no pun intended).

For me, cutting both just unnecessarily prolongs the debt. If we could raise the tax level, give a little more this generation, and get the debt paid off and dealt with a generation faster - wouldn't that be an automatic positive thing?

If that's the response... isn't the conclusion that 'nothing will work - ever' ?

Really, factually untrue, Greg. Under Clinton, taxes were raised, spending was reduced, and we had a surplus.

Policy matters - for budgets that means both taxes and spending. The reason the deficit is as large as it is right now is about equally from tax CUTS and spending increases.

In 2000 (surplus), taxes were about 20.6% of GDP, spending 19.8%. In 2009, taxes were 14.8%, spending 24.9% (I'm going from memory, so I may be off a tiny bit).

Get both back to around 20-21% of GDP, and presto, balanced budget again!

If the national debt has not been retired, there is no surplus. To insist otherwise is either pure foolishness or mere partisan twaddle.

Greg, great avatar, btw. Could it be the Norse God of Rock, Val Hallen?

Budgets are about income and expenses over a limited period of time. Balance sheets are about assets and liabilities. Two entirely different conversations/issues.

In terms of federal deficit, that is based on current fiscal year income minus current fiscal year expenditures equals surplus (deficit). Tax receipts for fiscal 2000 exceeded current expenditures, so there was a budget surplus. The fact that some of those tax receipts theoritically create future liabilities for the government (assuming that there are no changes to SS until all overpayments of SS taxes for the last 25 plus years are paid back to us) doesn't change the fact that the particular year's budget was in surplus.

Let's say I made $50,000, spent $45,000 on current expenses, and saved $5000 which I plan to use as a down payment on a house in 5 years. The fact that in 5 years I'll owe more money than I do no has nothing to do with my current budget surplus.

In 5 years, I'll spend maybe $200,000 on that house, borrowing $160,000, and if I still make $50,000 and spend $45,000 on everything else I'll have a budget deficit in that year of $160,000.

Year 6, I still make $50,000, still spend $45,000 on everything else, and use the extra $5000 to pay down my debt. I've got a current surplus, even though I still have $155,000 in debt.

Basic accounting folks.

Greg, the article you quote was discussing proposed long term budget ideas during the Clinton admin because, based on tax and spending policy as it existed then, it was projected that annual surpluses would be large and continuing. That didn't happen, because both tax and spending policies changed dramatically under Bush. But the discussion in your cite has nothing to do with whether or not there was a federal budget surplus in fiscal 2000.

Sounds like a revise of an old AT&T jingle

Instead of reach out and touch someone it can be

Hand's "Out" across America!

"PROVIDE" for the General Welfare - most people in America already think that's what it says!

And yet people seem to be balking against verbal 'promoting' of the general welfare, as well.

Depends on what the definition of "promote" is. According to Encarta

Promote - support or encourage

Provide - supply somebody with something

If you bastardize the definitiion of promote then, yep, I'm balking.

If you bastardize the definitiion of promote then, yep, I'm balking.

Ah - apparently my point wasn't clear enough.

I was referring to the OUTRAGE at Michelle Obama "promoting" healthy eating and obesity awareness. (the 'verbal' in 'verbal promoting' - I think both of you missed)

All first ladies are expected to have "causes". I don't think any rational person would be outraged by her speaking out on this important health issue. I think there's a realistic fear, given the ideology of her husband, of what the government might try to impose by law. The left is upset about "the government in our bedroom". Well, most of us don't want the government in our kitchen, either. Although perhaps taxing people by the pound could make a dent in the national debt? (sarcasm)

since you didn't mention Michele Obama of course I missed your point. She can talk until she's blue in the face if she wants to. I really dont' care as long as her talk doesn't morph into more MISUSE of tax dollars

I think there's a realistic fear, given the ideology of her husband, of what the government might try to impose by law.

What specifically about the President leads you to fear some obscure kind of governmental intervention into individual kitchens?

1. Are you a Liberal and/or a progressive?

Progressive.

2. Do you want Unions to have more power and control Over government and corporations ?

Flawed premise. I want the people to have more power and control over the government. I believe corporations are concentrations of power based on wealth alone, and are therefore a threat to the power of the people. Unions (despite their flaws) are concentrations of power based on people, and as such are more consistent with the power of the people.

3. Do you feel that more laws should be past, requiring the "many" to contribute more than they do now ?

The number of laws passed is irrelevant. We need enough, and only enough to assure that the legitimate rolls of government are served. My preference is for the "few" to contribute more than they do now to that end. The most well off among us have garnered the vast majority of the spoils of economic growth in this country over the last 30 years, while their share of the total tax burden has declined.

4. Do you think we should have to give more to government, in order to solve the problem they created

Fixing a problem and assigning blame for it are two different things. Understanding why we got into this mess (taxes have gone down dramatically and spending has gone up since budget surplus in 2000) suggests that both more taxes and less spending need to be part of the solution.

5. Do you think Government should be more involved in providing for the Nation ?

"Providing for the Nation" is an extremist projection of what myself and other progressives/liberals believe. We believe that the government often can and should do more to "promote the general welfare" just as the Constitution says. My personal biases on what the gov't can/should do are based in economic pragamatism (can the gov't provide health care of comparable quality and quantity at less total cost than for-profit private sector - if so it should, if not it should not), including consideration of all of the economic inefficiencies that the free-marketers wish to ignore.

6. Do you worry more about Liberal or conservative ideals ?

I have far more respect for truly conservative ideals (even when I don't agree with them) than I do with almost all of what is passed off as "conservative" these days. I fear the fact-free, and the "free markets are perfect, all government is evil" fakers and their "ideals".

7. Should "Blessings" and "Ordain" be put back in the new and improved Liberal Preamble ?

I'm an athiest, so they wouldn't have been my personal choice of words, but I don't have a stick up my arse about it, so go for it!

Hi Greg:

Those sticky questions are where democracy comes in! We can and do have differences of opinion on where those lines might be, and we should all calmly and fairly present our ideas for all to hear, then let the people decide.

I know I'll hear it about what I'm about to write, but consider this:

Sometimes to "promote" the GENERAL welfare, it may in fact be prudent to "provide" certain things for some. After all, the police "provide" law enforcement services to those in need of them, and whether or not I individually have need of their services, as no one has stolen my car or assaulted me, the fact that they do provide law enforcement nonetheless is to my benefit.

What if we had no Social Security? It's a program that directly "provides" income to most seniors. But the fact that there is this program also saves me and millions of other folks who aren't direct beneficiaries from the burden of supporting my 67 year old mother. My welfare is enhanced too.

The two concepts more often than not work hand in hand, it's not an either/or thing.

If we can agree on these principles, then our differences are just a matter of degree, but we can at least agree that we're on the same playing field.

Well, with SS, the present incarnation of the system, instituted under Reagan, was for all us "wage slaves" to overpay SS taxes for 30 or 40 years in order to build up a trust fund from which benefits are to be paid as the long foreseen demographic changes (aging of baby boomers) comes to pass. The government hasn't really taken anything from SS yet, in that it hasn't yet failed to pay the benefits promised - any changes to SS whereby every last dollar of those overpaid taxes (plus interest) don't go to beneficiaries would then, and only then, be "taking from the system".

The problem with changing SS to an "opt in/opt out" program is that the result would be that those with the most ability to save for themselves would tend to opt out, leaving insufficient resources to fund the system. That sort of fundamental change would in fact, if not in intent, result in the elimination of SS.

TARP (done under Bush, remember) was initially a pretty crummy deal, and was relatively poorly conceived - I agree with a lot of the complaints that the Wall Street screw ups responsible should have been personally required to contribute every dime they had to fixing their mess before the government got involved - then put in jail. Unfortunately, I think some major action on the part of the government was essential to prevent an even greater economic collapse that would have been worse for us all - even though I hated the idea behind it too, I thought it was the right thing to do for the country as a whole, so I held my nose and supported it. On a positive note, too, though it goes relatively under-reported, TARP is actually pretty close to turning a profit!

Stimulus was quite a different animal from TARP. First, let's remember it was around 30% tax cuts, so folks on the right need to scrap their rants about "$780 billion in wasted spending", since pretty much every one of us got some of the money in tax cuts. Folks also need to scrap the idea that it didn't do exactly what it was designed to do "save or create" millions of jobs. As it was actually distributed, far more than originally advertised went to state and local governments to prop up their balance sheets - now that it's run out, we can all see what the states are having to do now without that support to try to make ends meet. In the midst of the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost each month when Obama took over, imagine how much worse it would have been if those government jobs had been disappearing in the summer of 2009 instead of now.

There's a lot that government does and that it doesn't do that couldn't or even shouldn't be done better. If we're honest with ourselves, I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that the same holds for each of us individually in our daily lives. Government is made up of people, so expecting it to be perfect is unreasonable in the extreme - the private sector is also made up of people, and is just as imperfect.

Dennis- Tarp turning a profit is kind of a fallacy. A major part of the bail out was lending the banks money from gov. at zero percent interest when the government is paying interest on the money it is borrowing.

Allowing the banks to play interest spreads against the US taxpayer helped get them on their feet with a quickness and was pretty damn costly. Sadly nobodies talking points include those figures in the calculations of the cost of the bail outs. JJ

Ps- Why can't the people ask about government waste in the stimulus. Giving the stimulus away to government agencies that don't get much done instead of the workers that were ready to go, funding projects instead of hand outs. That is valid criticism that everyone is supposed to suppress just because the rich got a tax break?

Dennis - your example about the police was not accurate. That IS a service, and not "general welfare". We pay them a salary for doing a job. A more accurate example would be "giving" healthcare under Obamacare to those who CANNOT AFFORD IT. We are giving them something and they are paying nothing in return.

Fed lending to banks was not part of TARP - separate item entirely. The fed lending imposed no direct costs to taxpayers, the costs, if any have been indirect. The fed didn't go out and borrow money for those loans, they essentially created it. To the extent that the creation of more money becomes inflationary in the long run, yes, it costs us all, but at 2 years in, the injection of money helped stop us from a deflationary spiral, rather than triggering inflation. The long run consequences have yet to play out.

I have no problem with direct criticism of those parts of the Stimulus that you feel were wasteful. What I do have a problem with is the hyperbole that it was somehow ALL wasted spending - that's clearly untrue. So to have a fair conversation on the merits, we must both acknowledge that it was neither a perfectly efficient allocation of resources, nor a completely imperfect one.

Kjmgirl - we "give" police protection to those who can't afford it too. Police investigate and courts prosecute violence against the homeless, for example. Those who receive health care paid for thru taxes we all pay get a service too, whether they paid in more or less than the value of what they receive. The uninsured who are also unable to personally bear the health care costs they incur are a financial burden society as a whole - emergency room costs for those who are insured/can pay themselves must account for those costs, for example.

They are not fundamentally different concepts. It is a valid question as to whether or not society as a whole benefits enough to justify the costs of any and all government spending. I think the US as a whole is WORSE off because of the Iraq war, for example and the trillion dollars or more expended.

The bottom line is that there is not truly a "we" and "them", there is only an "us all".

Dennis- While it is true that the Fed was able to conjure money to loan to the banks at zero percent interest while US gov. was borrowing at an unprecedented rate (We really do owe it all to fast computers).

Since wealth is created from the interest spreads made available is that not an increase in the available money supply due to the wealth flowing into bankers pockets and if wealth is being created from thin air than doesn't that diminish all US currency eventually?

Leaving that aside, those same banks were not loaning that money to small business. A lot of the money they were borrowing was being loaned back to government making the tax payers directly responsible for the interest payments on money that we provided to them with the printing press we let the fed use.

if wealth is being created from thin air than doesn't that diminish all US currency eventually?

Theoritically, yes. Empirically, I can't say I've seen it demonstrated IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. The money supply can and does and has been increased without a proportional diminunition of the value of the dollar, for example.

To the extent that it does, however, note that it does not create wealth, but rather redistributes it!

I think all the fed determined it had to do was choosing the least bad of a bunch of bad options. The alternative of inaction would have had its costs as well.

The banks were not loaning money to small businesses for several reasons. First, demand from small business fell substantially, as it always does during a recession. Second, many banks were simply not in a position to lend, because the scale of the losses they suffered (due to over-leverage) left their capital positions too thin, even with the federal infusions. Finally, it is true that they did overtighten credit standards - typical pendulum response - they were far too loose for a long time, creating the crisis, and in response they overtightened. I think they're moving toward the middle again.

That much of the fed lending has gone to purchase gov't debt securities, you are absolutely correct in the restribution effect.

I believe for all of the above reasons and more that taxes on the rich should go up in general, and specifically to pay for the benefits they got!

I believe for all of the above reasons and more that taxes on the rich should go up in general, and specifically to pay for the benefits they got!

I am not sure about taxes on the rich per say but taxes on the wealthy definitely.

Why does Wal-Mart get a 37 billion dollar tax break this year when there are Wal-mart employees living in their cars?

Liberal,progressive Democrats are saying that the two parties are interchangeable. Reflections of each other. Both the same. Which begs the question; Why belong to either party?

Er, could the answer be: "We were told so."?

From the birth of this nation, the corporations have been trying to take over thiscountry. Thats' wh ythey were so pissed when Lincoln created the US dollar and took us off the gold standard. That's why the Federal Reserve was created - which has nothing to do with the Federal Govt but has a huuge amount of clout over our economy (go figure).

As long as we fight amongst ourselves, they'll be able to do what ever they want. For instance, when JonMavrick gave all those links at #1.3. That was meant to deride teachers as being vampires on the rest of us. Heaven forbid these hard working folks reap some kind of reward after teaching our "snot-nosed" kids for 30 years or so.

Meanwhile, the corporate bigwigs are leaving companies after serving a few years with million$.

Right now, the strategy is to pit non-public employees against public employees. So, they point to how good the benefits are for the public workers and how it is sucking the states dry. Funny, before 2008, those same benefits were in place and we didn't hear a peep.

Also, instead of bitching about how "good" the public workers are having it, shouldn't the non-public workers be bitching to their bosses about why there own benefits don't measure up?

Just a thought...

Existing leadership would be tossed out like germs in a sneeze.

and infect someone else? Gods forbid. Poor analogy, but I do agree with your points.

I don't know of many one-winged eagles.

You cant miss them they usually flap around in a circle ;p

You cant miss them they usually flap around in a circle ;p

Like pretty much what we are doing on this thread. And while we do this, the Gov of Michigan is trying to become "Overlord of Michigan".

And the band plays on...

I'm just happy for you,

you've realized your full potential.

this is you, self-actualizing. It's apparently the very best you, you can be. That deserves some recognition.

And I really, really, really mean that! From the bottom!

Should read:

And I really, really, really mean that! From the heart of my bottom!

Agent 57, He just did, all you have to do is substitute conservative where ever you see liberal and progressive.

It is totally amazing that you liberals and progs who are always bragging about how well educated you are have such a problem comprehending the subtleties and nuances of the very words printed in front of you.

How 'bout you doing one on extreme right !

you don't want to show everyone you objectivity and fairness... ??

He just did, all you have to do is substitute conservative

I must have missed those nuances... lol... the far's are pretty similar...

I didn't say I was objective or fair.

If the articles all had to be objective here on the vine, there would be NO articles!

you don't want to show everyone you objectivity and fairness... ??

I didn't say I was objective or fair.

I already knew you weren't, thus the reason I posted it...

If the articles all had to be objective here on the vine, there would be NO articles!

...and the ZINGO Award for most astute observations goes to...DARKESTDONNIE!!

Sorry, Agent57, there is no category for snark.

Of course you deny that the same could be said of the readers and commentors who are so sadly typical of the Liberal platform.

We can at least agree that we are equals. Look where are. Look at what we are doing. Neither of us must not have any ideas or solutions. Being a bit silly yourself there I would say BLOGER-486140.

Of course you deny that the same could be said of the readers and commentors who are so sadly typical of the Liberal platform.

as is the article abjectly typical of the sad right thought ,, anytime you punch the "go for the extremes" .. you'll get the above... the middle is done, it doesn't sell. so where next? we're @!$%#ed? or just played??

Neither of us must not have any ideas or solutions.

your ideas, like mine, are not considered.. the game is no longer ours to play....

Admittedly we are in a definite slump, but if we keep playing hard enough we can regain control, even if it means we have to play the game their way for awhile better than they can themselves.

I think there's a big, big difference. I've been trying literally for months to engage folks from the right in a constructive, fact-based dialogue on the deficit and actual solutions that are up to the scale of the dilemna. Other than one highly entertaining and thoughtful exchange on defense spending I got nuthin'. (I say cut back to 3% of GDP, he says not, but ultimately couldn't tell me how he'd pay to keep it at 5%)

It's very disappointing - I assume there are plenty of truly thoughtful folks who happen to disagree with me, but instead all I get is crap or silence.

I think there's a big, big difference. I've been trying literally for months to engage folks from the right in a constructive, fact-based dialogue on the deficit and actual solutions that are up to the scale of the dilemna. Other than one highly entertaining and thoughtful exchange on defense spending I got nuthin'. (I say cut back to 3% of GDP, he says not, but ultimately couldn't tell me how he'd pay to keep it at 5%)

It's very disappointing - I assume there are plenty of truly thoughtful folks who happen to disagree with me, but instead all I get is crap or silence.

Dennis in WA

Ok, I'm trying to hone my argument skills. I suck at it presently but I working out the kinks. In that vein, Dennis (if I can be informal), I throw down the literary gauntlet (well, it's more of a gardening glove made out of cheap China cotton) and take you up on the challenge.

I'm from the right. I consider myself a conservative constitutionalist to a degree. I believe, however, that the progressives have come up with some rather good ideas over the last 100 years or so and that some should continue.

I invite you to:

http://oldphartbsa.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/18/6292439-liberal-vs-conservative-a-citizen-debate

You know, one of America's most integral framers cautioned against being tied to the laws of man's "barbarous ancestors". Even Jefferson thought, derivative of his words, that the document needed some fluidity to remain relevant in a changing world, or rather with "the prevailing social trends of the day."

Yes, but Jefferson didn't go as far recommend it being written in pencil with an eraser attached by string included.

Greg, I so enjoyed your clever preamble. That is brilliant!!! You should send this to Eric Holder!He might want to add that ass, complete with branded symbol, to his new website!! Heck, he may even adopt your new preamble, side by side with his quote from Wilfred Jenks!

Yes, but Jefferson didn't go as far recommend it being written in pencil with an eraser attached by string included.

Don't be so certain of that; the man strongly distrusted two things: government and stagnation. Besides, doctoring of the Constitution is not a liberal trait; it's a habit of both parties.

I enjoyed your post, libertarian, and agree with your opinions. If we gave no motivation for success, there would be no Edison and the Wright Brothers (who were not even very educated...they had motivation to succeed, create.) Our country was built on capitalism, which encouraged innovation. The good, free life we live today would not be here without free enterprise. We would be another Russia, Poland, etc. Now, the policies of this administration are destroying this. When the Department of Justice removes our American flag from the website, you know their intentions. He also added a quote from a British socialist lawyer involved in United Nations ILO. (which the US withdrew from in mid seventies due to leftist leanings)

Department of Justice Removes Old Glory

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/08/department-of-justice-removes-old-glory/

He also added a quote from a British socialist lawyer involved in United Nations ILO.

Just to point out - the site your link takes from says people are actually unsure if it comes from Jenks. The main source of it is an inscription on the walls from the days of Roosevelt.

I dislike the stereotype that just because I'm a liberal, I want to destroy America and it's liberties. To me it's an attempt, albeit a humorous one at dehumanizing the left.

But hey, I support your freedom to say so and I won't try to BS you with a line like "The left never does this" - they do and it's not funny either.

How does it dehumanize anyone ?

By being a stereotype. The concept is that with certain kinds of language it is obvious the judgment has already been made about anybody you'll consider "Liberal."

It is baggage taken into any interaction. Before they'll have an identity for discussion, they'd have to dig themselves out of the pit they're already seen to be in.

Isn't stereotyping what the Liberals do too?

as cseth said.

But hey, I support your freedom to say so and I won't try to BS you with a line like "The left never does this" - they do and it's not funny either.

Yes, everybody does it. It is bad when anybody does it.

And Liberals are a lot better at it than conservatives are.

...

See the "Stupidity" that comes from Liberals.

... and it doesn't help when people use the actions of 'the other side' to justify repeating the actions they're criticizing.

If you haven't noticed "Repeat" is a dying thing, thanks to us folks.

I don't really know what you're referring to here.

Thanks thelopes , you totally get what I'm trying to say. Too much stereotyping from both sides. Nothing gets my goat more when a conservative tries to explain the liberal mindset, it's nothing but hyperbole and generalizations - how the hell does the right know what motivates me and makes me happy? As a liberal, I try my best not to throw blanket statements about the right. You can't really put that many diverse people into one category and call it good, real people in the real world are more complicated than the two dimensional caricatures cable news and internet blogs would try and throw at you.

Had to do with that comment, and whats going on in the States now.

My comment was how you are criticizing the Liberals for stereotyping... by stereotyping Liberals.

If libs are crying now, wait another couple of years. They just keep putting their heads in the sand.

They got nuthin!! So the only weapon they can use is run the other side down. Welcome to the new age of dirty campaigning; not just for general elections anymore. It is a 24/7 process. When you started letting your "Progressives" (code word for socialists) start sitting in the drivers seat of what used to be your party signaled the beginning of the end. You are going to have to do some soul searching and rebuilding after what is coming down in a few years.

Soo a balanced budget amendment doesn't work for you? You do realize that the Chinese artificially deflating their money is dependent on purchasing US debt. We could crash that ponzi scheme and make US workers more competitive by just paying off a little debt with the old printing press. (:

Greg- The States do have balanced budget rules and I think that is one of the things that has kept them from getting out of hand with their defecits but it isn't a cure all that's for sure.

You really can't mandate a balanced budget at the federal level - unless they budget a boatload of money every year for emergencies. And that's not realistic

kjm- Do not be intimidated by the zeros. It is all the same in a relative way.

It will also be one of the most difficult to deal with,

It is just simply the best way to perpetuate and endless source of smokescreens designed to make it look like politicians are listening and doing something and lessens their burden of responsibility for failure to succeed. "Gee, I am really trying, but it is difficult to navigate the endless morass of red tape. I promise you I will keep trying." Double speak for, "I gave them a call but thank goodness the system is designed to be so confusing I don't have to rock the boat. I will call them again, have to confirm a Tee(payoff)time with the director anyway."

I have already admitted to unlimited dementia. I am not demented enough yet to blind myself to certain facts.

There are people involved in government (directly and indirectly)a large number of whom are highly intelligent and educated beyond the norm. Accomplished scholars well schooled in, philosophy, history, sociology, law and psychology. Combine the knowledge and attributes of these fields and you get a group of experts practicing "socialphyscologicalmanipulation" henceforth to be known as SSM.(Asimov called it Seldonism).

These are the same people to whom we have entrusted with the composition of our laws,policies and interpretations. Is it coincidental that the majority of these rules and regulations are confusing to people of reasonable intelligence? No. It is intentional.

What these people are doing is not a "conspiracy" by media definition. It is no more than implementation of a plan carefully laid out to achieve a goal. Exactly as a business man plans on how to rise above his competition. Advertising as a business is proof that SSM is real and widely practiced. Those who practice it best win. These people have the goal of "Societal Control"

Let me leave this with one of my silly little owlisms.

The straightest course through the mind of men is to travel in circles.

Though many of their welds are cracking we can not allow ourselves to break. On top of that we must be cautious in how rapidly and how thoroughly we break them . To shatter and remove their importance would be to do ourselves a grave disservice. Without many of their ideals,their ability to discover new avenues of thought and their hunger for advancement we could easily revert to a "medieval" form of society.

We need to surgically fracture and separate the true academicians from the elitist manipulators.

Well sir I happily disagree.(knew you would be wrong about something sometime(LOL)). It just so happens that many of us, present company included, are not so easily manipulated and deceived as long as we bother to pay attention .As with all extremists, they are to narrow minded and by failing to realize that they were better off ignored they needed the limelight and only obtained partial success. Instead of being able to deceive us into thinking what they want us to think, they only managed to get us to begin thinking when we hadn't been.

It is beginning to get obvious that they don't know how to do much at all.