wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example, between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

You have twisted that.

Good government fosters a good environment for people to excel, and that
includes the ability to earn and retain the majority of their income.

Good government does not tax hard working successful people to bailout
corrupt and dysfunctional private companies like GM and the banks. Nor do
good governments rack up debt and print/create money so fast no one even
knows what it will do to the economy, other than the results will not be
good.

Japan tried it, recovery took over 10 years. Reagan took less from the
middle class and recovery began in a year. Go figure.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the
US, the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on the polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in
their politics. If you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you mostly have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of
political life.

That's pretty much the nature of a two party system. The battle is
almost always for the middle.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the
US, the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the
European scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into
groups on the polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in
their politics. If you want to get elected in this country to a national
position, you mostly have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of
political life.

That's pretty much the nature of a two party system. The battle is
almost always for the middle.


That's been my battle since I was 20. lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access



--
Nom=de=Plume