What is wrong with Liberal ideology

I'm not a big Kennedy fan but JFK didn't "almost start a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R" He did have the balls to stand up the the Soviets and prevent the implacement of nukes 90 miles from the shores of Florida. If you want to blame anybody for almost starting the big one blame Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev.

Kennedy will also be remembered for starting the program that put the first man on the moon. NASA may have fallen into a bureaucratic disarry in recent years but in the long run it was still a "great leap for mankind" when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

 

Of course they do, you just asked why everybody is bashing liberals right now. Republicans have their guy in office, he's being attacked, and they're getting defensive.

 

Kennedy also made tax cuts if I remember right?
Someone help me out.

 

I was in no way trying to imply that Kennedy was a horrible president, I just don't understand why a lot of people considered him to be the Second Coming.

 

Because he was assasinated, anyone who is killed becomes better than they were in REAL Life.

btw, here is what is wrong with the Liberals in America especially Dan Rather
and Tom Brokaw and any news media that crosses the line.
http://washtimes.com/commentary/20040415-090923-9426r.htm

 

Conservatives don't go against the president in a time of war.
What is wrong with Liberals in this country are some of the leading one's like kennedy, Rather and Brokaw that paint a distorted picture of whats happening and at the same time give comfort to the enemy.

This link is the perfect example along with my sig:
http://washtimes.com/commentary/20040415-090923-9426r.htm

Quote:
Hanoi's Easter offensive in March 1972 was another disaster for the communists. Some 70,000 North Vietnamese troops were wiped out — by the South Vietnamese who did all the fighting. The last American soldier left Vietnam in March 1973. And the chances of the South Vietnamese army being able to hack it on its own were reasonably good. With one proviso: Continued U.S. military assistance with weapons and hardware, including helicopters.
But Congress balked, first by cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over, which, in turn, was followed by a similar congressional rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.
The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was so rapid even Giap was caught by surprise. As he recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a general offensive — and then rolled into Saigon two years before they had reckoned it might become possible.
That is the real lesson for the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Whatever one thought about the advisability of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States is there with 100,000 troops and a solid commitment to endow Iraq with a democratic system of government. While failure is not an option for Mr. Bush, it clearly is for Sen. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, who called Iraq the president's Vietnam. It is, of course, no such animal. But it could become so if congressional resolve dissolves.
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the antiwar movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest, it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.

 

Okay, so I was wrong...

Its been years since I studied history about world war 11 and so I didn't remember that.
You win

I don't blame anyone for questioning Johnsons policy such as bombing empty fields with trees.

As for Carter,
He couldn't run a mission to get hostages out of Iran, I was pretty young then but how
could you not criticize that whole scenario.

Nothing would scare me more than a war actually happening with Jimmy Carter as President!

 

What is the warrant? Hell, look at the clause in the Constitution that states that any power not specifically spelled out in this document as being one held by the federal government shall be delegated to the state itself? I mean, the CONSTITUTION tells you that it's giving the power to the state and local authorities. What more should you pay attention to?

Democrats from John Breaux to Bill Clinton to Ralph Nader on down will ALL-to a MAN-tell you that the more burden you relieve the federal government of by transferring the power to local authorities, the more smoothly the national government operates, the less cumbersome the apparatus of government becomes, the less intrusive in our daily lives it becomes, and the more involved and empowered the population of this nation becomes.

A central tenet of having a healthy society is having a politically active and motivated, and INVOLVED populace. By placing the authority lower down the food chain, it is simple logic-VERY SIMPLE-to not assume but to know for a fact that the power being put closer to the people will empower the people to influence the decisions that move those powers.

If you could influence the decision to change your workweek from five 8-hour days to four 10-hour days, and you wanted to do so, then you would use the power to do so. You would do so because you knew that you had the ability to influence the decision.

However, if the work week for you-on the bottom of the food chain so to speak-was decided not by your immediate supervisor or another, higher level of middle management, but by your corporate office (who don't happen to have a suggestion box), you wouldn't lift a finger to try to evidence change. You would not because in today's society, you know that your voice as one person does not carry that high.

It does carry to the ear of your supervisor, and those of his, and so on.

Please don't cling to the idea that the federal government can somehow divine localized will, tendency, and standards better than local representative government. You'll lose LOTS of credibility, and I so far think you have a somewhat lucid posting history here.

The framers of the Constitution answer your own question for you in the document you bring question to. I believe it's known as the implied explicit clause of the Constitution, and it's quite clear.

The problem with the problem you see is that when a government that GIVES you everything, its population stops striving to try to attain it on its own. Human nature is to merely survive. It takes a work ethic that the majority of people are not born with to excel in our society. That's because excelling in this society is not a RIGHT, and it is NOT A BIRTHRIGHT.

What is a RIGHT, and what is a BIRTHRIGHT in this society, is having the ability to TRY to excel, and to be rewarded if your attempt is successful. You are not guaranteed a paycheck. You have to go out and earn it, if you're like most people in this society. The federal government should not guarantee nor facilitate your path to Powerball Paradise...

What it should do is make sure that your path is no easier and no less tough than anyone else. It should GUARANTEE that your avenue to success is littered with no more or no less than any other's path. That you have the same chances and opportunity to reach your dream as anyone else born under our flag or granted citizenship status is what our government is here to do, amongst other things.

It should not give you your dream.

We've tried a government that "gave its people everything". Marxism failed in Russia, the USSR, the Soviet Satellites, and elsewhere around the world. A government that guaranteed bread and sausage for all no matter whom did what work and no matter who excelled or was lazy at their job ended up being a government that collapsed. A government that imploded and was manipulated by its leaders into conniving, ruthless despotic.

It was manipulated, corrupted, and perverted at its highest levels because down the food chain, "on the streets" its propaganda machine was working wonders, not to mention no one was hungry or worried about pressure to earn their keep.

A fat and lazy populace which suffered from-worst of all-a SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT-grew so fat and so lazy that when their all powerful omnipotent government collapsed, they had no idea about how to do things on their own and fix their own problems.

As you seem to infer yourself to be a student of history as it applies to governmental influences and their effect on society, care to address how such centralized versions of governmental authority as Russia, Rome, and Germany failed in the long term?

It's because a government that tries to hold all the sand it can in the palm of its hand will inevitably lose grains through its fingers. You cannot plan for every contingency. You cannot think of every angle. For that reason, putting faith in national level governmental authorities -while a definite good thing-will NEVER be comparable to the way that a government on a local level can react to problems in a timely, effective, and TANGIBLE manner as the problem appears to the local populace.

Rome imploded because it applied its rules for its City over its entire Empire, and it also allowed a conscript army to fight its battles and to keep the peace. That conscript army-made up of formerly conquered men from formerly conquered countries throughout the Empire-eventually turned on the empire that charged them with its protection and security, and Rome was sacked, and the Roman Empire began its slow fall.

Wow...History right there seems to painting you into the incorrect ideological position on this note. History seems to dictate that when a large government tries to rule over its populace in a micromanaging fashion, applying broad strokes in its governmental philosophy (and, in another current day liberal philosophical similarity, transferring its military power to a conscript army which has no allegiance to the government from which it draws its strength), those countries fail.

In other words, perfect, large scale, well publicized historical documentation that you-and your mindset-is categorically incorrect.

I won't quote your comments on welfare and the 2.3% point, but I guarantee you that 2.3% of people in ANY system who are manipulating, taking advantage of, and otherwise abusing a system of public assistance is 2.3% too many. I’d also like to cite and link your number you seemingly divined out of thin air. I don’t doubt you. I just want to see where you get your math.

I also find it odd that the current liberal torchbearer on a national level seems to scoff at our 4% unemployment rate, which equals out to less than 10 million jobs. While you mitigate 2.3%, he says that 4% is so unacceptable that he has conjured up an economic formula that will create 10 million jobs...Which actually means that the United States won't have enough people for all of the jobs it needs filled.

So, what's so different between 2.3% abusing welfare and 4% unemployed? They are both percentages that are quite close to each other. The former you wish to pshaw and act-or at least refuse to acknowledge and or admit there is a problem with-and the other is such an astoundingly outrageous number to your liberal kin and your torch bearer that they make a huge point and develop entire economic strategies to combat the number?

Please, clarify your stance in light of the majority of your ilk. They seem to think 4% is terrible, while you feel 2.3% is harmless, or not even enough to mention...

Your comment that the greater amount of poor in a country is a sign that the country has a stable economy is somewhat true.

But, would you not say that there are MILLIONS of what you would consider poor people in this country who have central heat and air conditioning? What about refrigerators? What about means of transportation, whether public or private? What about clean running water? What about indoor-plumbing?

If you want to apply international standards to whether or not you think our country has a stable economy as far as a validation of a need for welfare in our society, then apply international standards to what we call poor, and then compare them to those who are poor in the Third World. I'd tend to say that by your standards of a healthy economy as they apply to the amount of poor, that we are unequivocally stable and the healthiest, robust and in the best shape of any economy in recorded history.

Grave abuses on the masses would include the launching of strategic missiles to avenge "terrorist activity" that happen to fall on the same day as the testimony of the woman who gave you a hummer that you lied about receiving under oath.

Grave abuses are your President (Bill Clinton) saying such things as, "Kenneth Lay is a great corporate citizen of this country." Don't talk about conservatives as if the only "abusive blood" to be found on the hands of those in this country's government is to be found on their hands!

Why? Are there not laws on the books to punish those such as Kozloski and Lay and the rest of the Book Cookers out there in Corporate America?

What America needs is not taxes to help pay for safety nets that don't provide safety to MILLIONS of Americans that paid for them. What America needs if leaders who will ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!

Enforcement does NOT equal higher taxes. Enforcement equals using the laws on the books combined with watchful leadership.

I do not think that housing and feeding every member of this society is a good thing. I have no desire to house and feed the deviant members of this society. I have no desire to house and feed those members of society who do not wish to house and feed them selves. To want to house and feed and provide for those who want to be housed, fed, and provided for and who have no work ethic or assertive nature or initiative is not a good thing. It's idiocy. It's not compassion on the liberal part. It's stupidity on an ideological and fiscal standpoint on the liberal part.

Think of it this way. This country has excelled, prospered and is more powerful than any other current country, both today and throughout the entirety of the third planet from the sun’s recorded history. It has survived its own push for independence, the Constitutional Crisis of the Articles of Confederation and its push for the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. It's survived an ideological war with itself based on the sovereignty of its member states and just where they draw the line on state's rights. It's survived an long fought, hard battled and significant struggle to right its backwards philosophies regarding race, age, color, creed, gender, and many other physical, mental, and perhaps some would say perceived slights and discrimination on such grounds.

It's won two world wars, and it's done so at great collective risk on the part of our Union and come out bigger and better for it. We've survived isolationism. We've survived Communism. We won. We know unequivocally that our system of government is the closest, most perfect form of Union in world history. You can judge it from its poor, from it's wealthy, from its middle class, and from any other angle.

It's done all of this with ONE UNQUESTIONED, UNDENIABLE FACT that puts in opposition to the ENTIRETY OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.

In the realm of representative governments on the world stage, NO GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD can say that they are more conservative in their form of governance while allowing for local provision of authority than the United States of America.

France's idea of liberal, as well as England's, compared to this country's would make Nancy Pelosi look like Jerry Falwell in comparison.

It's a known, unequivocal, non-negotiable, non-debatable, undeniable fact.

I think that this fact is not just a coincidence. It's a mindset that we'd be well damn well served to continue on in.

Either change the makeup of this country's philosophy...and become more like the rest of the world...move back to the pack from an ideological standpoint, and we might as well move to the back of the lunchline, too...