Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:the whole premise of modern liberalism is to give up liberties in exchange for some security...which is why its hilarious to watch libs whine about the patrtiot act.

Interesting assertion. Can you back this up with a citation?

aside from the fact that FDR is a modern liberal hero, who took away many more civil liberties in WW2 than Bush has taken in wake of 9/11....or even Clinton for that matter with his Echelon program.....

but I'm speaking more towards economic liberties and Private Property, starting with the formation of the IRS and Income tax, to the "New Deal" to the "great Society" to now with them trying to Socialize medicine and raise taxes, all of these things require taking away our liberties in exchange for "security", whether its "Social Security" or welfare, Socialized Medicince, Gun Laws, etc. The general idea is that we have to give up some of our economic liberties in exchange for this and the "greater good".

Justice Brown, in a famous speech they will twist and use to attack her if nominated said the following:

Quote:The great innovation of this millennium was equality before the law. The greatest fiasco — the attempt to guarantee equal outcomes for all people. Tom Bethell notes that the security of property — a security our Constitution sought to ensure — had to be devalued in order for collectivism to come of age. The founders viewed private property as "the guardian of every other right."9 But, "by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature."10 A hundred years later came Milton Friedman's laconic reply: " 'I would say that goes pretty deep.'"11 In between, came the reign of socialism. "Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."12 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: "There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.'"13

don't pay your taxes and see who really owns your "private property", those rights have been trampled in exchange for all these big government programs. High taxes and government regulations trample economic liberties, cause barriers to entry in business and so on.

gun laws trample the 2nd amendment, in exchange for perceived "security".....

don't get me wrong, we haven't taken the full plunge yet and honestly the 20th century is empirical evidence of the failure of this path, its the "Road to Serfdom", i.e. Slavery that F.A. Hayek famously wrote about, Ronald Reagan quoted chapters of his book at length and had them memorized....

Quote:Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

i.e., big govt. programs oppress the individual and take away rights. Extreme version is a place like Cuba, castro is basically one big slave owner and the island is his plantation. And they'll never read any of this because the internet is banned there.

some of the founders wanted to make voters only those who owned property and paid taxes, but got over ruled. They knew that human nature would eventually lead to people trying to vote themselves an income.

and in defense of FDR, it can be said he was giving in to populist demand. Whether or not he should've as leader is another matter. Alot of things led to it culturally and then the great depression, you can also blame the idiots on the Fed. at the time and JW Keynes economic theory that took a normal recession and turned it into a Depression, along with the Hawley Tarrif act.

if I was a politician I would praise FDR if asked about him, its common perception he was 'great' and every govt. school pretty much teaches this to re-inforce this view. Uncle Sam schools teach that the people that made uncle sam more powerful were 'great', imagine that... same for Lincoln.

Gotcha. Thanks, that clears it up a bit.

29% Approval in Msnbc/Wall Street Poll

a whopping 68% disapproval ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Machiavelli Wrote:29% Approval in Msnbc/Wall Street Poll

a whopping 68% disapproval ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its called siding with the Dems/libs on Amnesty. Same reason McCain is plummenting in the polls. Repubs have turned on him over that, it was brewing last year.

of course Congress is much lower and Harry Reid is at 19% approval.

ok, so immigration resulted in 5% loss for Bush....what about the other 63% who dont like him?

follow his daily tracking #'s in May and June:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...b_approval

then go read some conservative/Republican blogs, at some of these if you can go back to last May when this issue was brought up to see the dissapproval.

don't forget to check out Harry Reid's 19% approval.

i dislike harry reid as much as george bush. they are both inept leaders with no sense of pragmatism or reality.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Gone are the days when a president will ever again be known as great. The political environment is far too poisoned now. Reagan by any objective measure was a great President. Yet the left in this country has tried to dismantle his legacy at every turn.

To be a great president you have to have faced a great challenge and faced it well. Wilson in WWI, FDR and Truman in WWII, though the country hated Truman by the time he left office. People call JFK great though he did nothing to earn it.

Bush is a mixed bag. His national defense policy and standing up to terrorists will eventually show him as a resolute leader and a visionary, that is until libs take over, turn our country over to Islamo Facists and they write the history from then on. [/sarcasm]

His domestic policies are a travesty other than the tax cuts. Those brought us out of a recession and kept the country going after 9/11. Those that argue otherwise have no grasp of economics.

In the end he won't be great, but he won't be awful. He won't be the best, but he won't be the worst. At most you can say "meh, he was ok."

GWB's run as president will be rated somewhere between that of his father's and Carter's presidency. Closer to Carter.

bush will either be a top 10 president or a bottom 10 president....there will be no in between.

aTxTIGER Wrote:bush will either be a top 10 president or a bottom 10 president....there will be no in between.

Bottom 10, definitely. Worst of the last 50 years, easily.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:bush will either be a top 10 president or a bottom 10 president....there will be no in between.

Bottom 10, definitely. Worst of the last 50 years, easily.

right now.....he would be closer to the bottom 10 than the top 10....however, they said the same thing about truman and now he is considered a borderline great president. maybe the bush doctrine is to islamic fundamentalism that the truman doctrine was to communism. we just dont know yet. if it is, then ill be the first to admit the greatness of GWB despite his rampant discretionary spending. if the bush doctrine ends up being a failure, then there is no doubt that he will be a bottom 10 president.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Bottom 10, definitely. Worst of the last 50 years, easily.

They must have made increased the strength of crack.

Ax, you're gonna call someone that actually had the balls, and didn't give a damn about the polls, to fight a fight against Islamic fundamentalism? This **** is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. Nancy Pelosi could be elected and guess what....it'll still happen. However, it will be much easier. You guys that don't think this is a growing problem need to wake the **** up, before the **** happens at YOUR local market. Radical Muslims must be killed. Dead. There is no other way.

As for dipshit, I'm thinking he's young saying Bush is the worse in 50 years. He might want to stay at DU.

RebelKev Wrote:Ax, you're gonna call someone that actually had the balls, and didn't give a damn about the polls, to fight a fight against Islamic fundamentalism? This **** is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. Nancy Pelosi could be elected and guess what....it'll still happen. However, it will be much easier. You guys that don't think this is a growing problem need to wake the **** up, before the **** happens at YOUR local market. Radical Muslims must be killed. Dead. There is no other way.

As for dipshit, I'm thinking he's young saying Bush is the worse in 50 years. He might want to stay at DU.

Ignorant morons like yourself need to quit using your parents' computer when they're not home.

This thread has reached a low point, and is now closed. For those participating in personal attacks...cut it out & then go read the AUP.