Norquist Threatens Impeachment If Obama Does Not Extend Bush Tax Cuts !

Don't dislike him personally just the lies and the stupidness he represents in the GOP the greed i listen generally very calmly to both side of the story I've never been a fan of stupid or greedy I'll never be one either

ps I've seen more far right get profane and violent then I am if you think shit head is profane the far right will beak your heart

ps this has nothing to do with our founding unless it's treason that's all you are traitors

sir if we hadn't of had some who understood what was going on there might not had been a united states at all? we might have gone into civil war we were very close to that sir. another bush and we might have throw us into civil war again all of his policy's were a failures corrupt and allowed the bankers as well as Halliburton to rip off the American people to the tune of 5 trillion dollars and creator the economy which took a lot of work to keep us from falling into a second 1929 crash Republican policy's are a failures and as far as the tax breaks no FDR did it and our economy is growing again slowly but if the house would approved the job bill we would have put more to work to fix roads done by private contractors not government workers. man . Your right cut all corporate welfare there crippling us with no more loop holes. the tax rates were higher under under Clinton and we and it did.

p.s. better FD R then Adolf Hitler

I eagerly await your next well-thought out and insightful post.

"I like the way a liberal will be violent and profane."

It is the wont of the Left-wingers.

Left-wingers contradict themselves: They often CLAIM that they are not for expanded government, but always advocate for more, more, more from the government: Pay for post-secondary education, pay for health care, pay more welfare, more regulations, more control over our industries. More, more, more. As one astute Conservative and Patriot said, "Liberalism has no limiting principle."

Conservatism does.

" the government had to expand because if the amount of people it has to serve"

In the early 20th century, government's budget was approximately 2% of the GDP. Today, it is over 25%.

Can you do the math?

"when you cut federal programs you need to know what your doing you use surgical scalpel to cut away the excess you don't use an ax "

How about a chain saw or a bulldozer?

The Liberal probably is like other Left-wingers and thinks that the "General Welfare" clause means, literally, a Welfare State.

These Left-wingers do not understand that our great Founders had the TOTAL population in mind, not just the special groups that Left-wingers use to pit against one another in the hopes of ushering in a Socialist utopia to save everyone.

You know what they say about Communism, don't cha?

The New Deal in a hurry!

I don't want socialism what i want is to pay what we have and move forward. I'm progressive

Progressive is code for Socialist, of course.

True Progressives want an end to our Constitution; they believe it is archaic and does not apply to today's society. Progressivism itself means that things change and there are no permanent truths, and that is a denial of our Founding principles.

Progressives believe in experimentation. If you do not believe me, check out John Dewey and Croly, two pioneer progressives who thought we should get rid of the Constitution and usher in a new generation of human beings with the right social engineering. Both socialists or promoters of socialist programs and Statism and COLLECTIVISM.

I WANT TO work inside the Constitution where our rights are always have been always will be my friend. I'm for making pot legal and taxed so we can teach kids the dangers of smoking it and bring the demand down that way.But there always will be those that need our help the poor the old and disabled We can't just turn our back on them and let them die. Or allow the 1% to raise prices the to point that health care will bankrupt the whole nation either or allow there death panels to kill off the innocent men women and children who are American people and deserve to live just as much as as the 1% deserve to live here too.And we can't afford to allow that 1% to buy a politician like a cheap hooker either to be used to kill our families because we aren't as rich as they are that bull shit.

http://authspot.com/journals/from-the-ground-up/ try this

You know, there is a private message system on this website so you can send a message directly to Misima instead of being passive aggressive about it. I'm just saying because it looks like you two are performing the verbal equivalent of of mutual masturbation and for that kind of activity I'd imagine you two might want some privacy.

Yes, these Left-wingers are following the Progressive imperative: Trample the Constitution and take away the negative rights it provides and replace them with positive rights.

In other words, have the GOVERNMENT choose and establish rights!

Why not keep things in the open? What are you trying to hide? Are you embarrassed about something?

Just seems pointless to post something on an article that does not contribute to the argument. These posts you two are doing do not contribute to any argument and are akin two a couple of snobby little girls standing in the middle of a party in a country bar saying how stupid cowboys are. It doesn't accomplish anything other than to piss the people around you off and make yourselves feel better. Since it is between you two and only accomplishes your own satisfaction without the benefit of doing anything constructive, it is pretty much a form of mental masturbation.

By all means, keep going if you feel you need to. But know that to most people it likely looks sad and awkward.

Well, I see that the exchanges between you and Ted kept up for almost a week before I started posting. Ted thrashed you (and some others) so soundly that I thought I would acknowledge it in the sea of Left-wingers who engaged in the puerile and mindless name-calling.

Many former far-Leftists who repented have explained it well.

The "dream" for these Liberals is compared with the hum-drum of reality, and the "dream" is too beautiful to abandon.

These Left-wingers attribute the purported "failures" of their former idols like Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot to be from the machinations of evil men and not Socialism itself.

This essentially leaves the "dream" intact by ascribing the horror, starvation, brutalization and deaths of tens of millions to evil people and not where it rightly belongs - to the ideology that the Liberals now promote. They only hear the promises of fairness, equality and the end of poverty and do not look at, nor learn from, the reality of their dogma.

Wow, you two play off of each other like a couple of guys who are both simultaneously giving the other a hand job.

By the way Mishima, voting yourself up is a sad and pathetic thing to do. I'm not saying you can't do it, far from that. But it does make you look like you need to give yourself a pat on the back, and that is a sad thing.

I've said more than enough in defense of liberalism and I keep getting the same responses which I have routinely denounced. I kind of feel like grown up of whom the child keeps asking why. After a point the repetition of the question becomes pointless, like the same responses and quotes you keep throwing out there, and answering them is akin to talking to a wall. Congratulations wall. I hope you two continue to enjoy your mutual jerk off on this topic.

"the liberal dream seems to be a child like acquisitive fantasy designed to merely, get presents"

Yes, it is primarily that, and it becomes clear when one asks them HOW all of these wonderful presents will be forthcoming.

The Liberal invariably starts the name-calling and screams that he is "compassionate" and such. But the rare few that attempt a response will claim that the mythical "rich" will pay for everything. This is, in essence, just as you wrote: They believe in a kind of Santa Claus. All the "free stuff" if they just claim that they are good and that they "care."

"I've said more than enough in defense of liberalism...."

Where? Where? I have searched the thread in vain, it seems....

It seems you have searched in vain because you cannot disassociate liberal government with large government nor can you disassociate conservative government with small government. All of your quotes depend on you never breaking the connection you see between the two, and though I will admit that the two are similar, they are not the same thing. When you can see that the two are not one in the same, then the argument you put forth based solely upon quotes from Thomas Jefferson crumbles.

Until then, it matters not how much I refute the concept. You cannot convince a person that an apple is not the same as an orange if that person is incapable or unwilling to look past the single characteristic that they are both fruit.

No, I have been very clear and repeated myself many times. I will do it once again, but for the last time:

The troublesome and dangerous Leftists are those who defer virtually every issue of importance to the federal government. They are invariably against letting states, communities, or individuals make such decisions, or, better yet, simply leaving things alone.

I chose the words carefully. If you chose to respond, I hope you do not distort, project, or make assumptions that are not there. It is clear, to the point, and concise.

"The troublesome and dangerous Leftists are those who defer virtually every issue of importance to the federal government. They are invariably against letting states, communities, or individuals make such decisions, or, better yet, simply leaving things alone."

Give me some examples. I really want to know what angle you're coming from on this.

Castroville, Texas, Spring of 2011, high school graduation:

Student chosen by student body to speak. Says prayer that lasts 24 seconds. Left-wingers take it to courts, up to the Supreme Court level.

Texas v. Johnson, 1989: Supreme Court again to make flag burning a constitutional right, overturning the laws of 42 states.

If you choose to respond, please be sure to refer to the post in which I clearly defined the issue. I hope you do not divert to side issues. Thanks.

"Student chosen by student body to speak. Says prayer that lasts 24 seconds. Left-wingers take it to courts, up to the Supreme Court level."

Well duh, first amendment rights don't prevent a random student from praying at most times because that prayer won't actually impede on anyone else's religious beliefs; however, first amendment rights do prevent that student, teacher, member of administration, and/or public school in general if he, she or they starts praying with a microphone to a large group who cannot just get up and leave and have to sit there and listen weather or not they share the same beliefs. The school superintendent did give a disclaimer that the views expressed by the students were their own views and the student speaker might have been chosen by the other students, but it was still a function put on by a public school and the speakers at that function are acting as representatives of that school even if they are student speakers.

"Texas v. Johnson, 1989: Supreme Court again to make flag burning a constitutional right, overturning the laws of 42 states."

Again, first amendment rights issues. Someone can say or express what they want freely under certain conditions. The two big ones here are that person is a private citizen at the time and does not represent anything of the government and that person is not harming anyone else in the process. Johnson was not harming anyone else, nor was he speaking for the government. Though he could have been charged with accessory to theft since he burned a flag which was stolen by someone else.

Harm is not limited to physical assault.

Well said!

Founding principles of inclusiveness of peoples as the inclusiveness of the various European immigrants for example. Progressivism as per the NOT conservatism of the places those immigrants were fleeing from. Looking for a better, new world, looking for a better new life!

http://current.com/http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad179/thethinkingblue/WHYR...
Better believe I'm a big boy.

Are you afraid to open the link I supplied. And who said anything about endless welfare??
You are only here to cause trouble... so why don't you just take your bubble and go watch
fake news, because your waaay too smart for this crowd.

Have you tried Decaf?

Emotions are all that matter for Left-wingers. You know the old saying that applies:

"Don't ask a Liberal to THINK; he knows how he FEELS."

I guess this applies:

"Don't ask a Liberal to THINK; he knows how he FEELS."

I would rather watching the lefties follow thier hearts then watch you follow your wallet.

Don't ask a rightie to think, his idealology won't let him.

It is a pejorative today. Just thought I would let you know.

Hey! Don't ask questions like that:

"Don't ask Liberals what they THINK; they know how they FEEL."

I know, I know. You have "compassion," blah, blah, blah, blah.

Good for you! I'm also proud to be a Progressive-liberal myself! And to hell with these wrong-winger snake-handler inbreds!

and wrong-wingers neither think nor feel that's all so apparent.

Ah, that's cute, you replied to a different comment of mine instead of the last one in this conversation. Be careful, it could look like you're trying to get the last word while in by placing your response somewhere where I'm not likely to look for it, but you wouldn't do that because it is childish, right?

"there is no liberal who wants less government!!!!! You are lying to yourself. Especially given that it was from Jefferson, the first Republican."

Yes and no on both parts of your argument here. It is true that liberals who want less government are very rare. What liberals do want is a government that helps the vast majority of the people effectively. Also, the argument, "there is no liberal who wants less government!!!!!" is misleading for another reason. Currently there are just as many conservatives for less government as there are liberals for less government. Yes, conservatives are all for smaller government when it comes to monitoring corporations, providing universal healthcare, etc. However, conservatives desire to; make abortions illegal, tell people whom they cannot marry, fund the military (which is a government run organization) like crazy, etc.

As far as Jefferson being the first Republican, that is akin to defending rap today by quoting D.J. Kool Herc's early work. What it currently is and what it started out as are two radically different things (this applies to both the Republican party as well as rap).

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Again, this makes no reference to a liberal government.

"Obama just passed the Affordable Care Act!!! Does that seem like what a Republican founder had in mind when he had nothing to propose?????? You're lying to yourself"

I'm going to put it right out there, this quote of yours in no way, shape or form actually responds to the quote of mine that you were responding to. That quote of mine which you use being, "The point about Jefferson being President when he said this rates a big whoop-de-shit on the who-gives-a-fuck-meter. As a Founding Father, it should be important enough that he said it, the fact that he said it while being President adds no weight to the quote. But let us look at Jefferson's full letter from which that quote originates from."

"whatever, the point is the producing rich will always be exploited by the welfare class if liberals are allowed to have their way too."

Riiiiight, because the rich never exploited the welfare class in order to become rich, nor did the rich ever exploit government made resources to become rich...

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."

Ok, beside the fact that this AGAIN does not specifically say anything about a liberal government, I do have a question to ask. Were corporations, as they exist today, around during the time of this quote and were they considered people? This question is rhetorical of course, and the answer to both questions is no.

"yes so what?? The point is that the lazy and unproductive will try to rip off the ambitious and productive if liberals have their way. America was founded and organized against this!!"

Like during the Great Depression, or like now when the vast majority of unemployed people are willing to work to earn their fair share if only the "job creators" would, I don't know, CREATE JOBS INSTEAD OF DROPPING THEM WHEN THEY ARE EXPERIENCING PROFITS!

"of course liberals are naturally violent, profane and uncivilized. Why steal from the rich at the point of a liberal gun?? why not tell your poor friends to stop buying iphones from Steve Jobs if they don't want him to be so rich?? If Jobs and the CEO are not so important they can make the stuff themselves if they want or buy a cheaper brand."

Again, you seem to be responding to a thought of mine that you did not point out in the my quote that you used. It is not a good habit and makes you look incompetent or possibly mentally unstable.

If you want a response to this, organize it in some manner that gives it proper perspective, otherwise I will treat it as gibberish and move on.

"YES 15% OF OUR LIFE TIME INCOME stolen when if put in private accounts would have been worth 1.5 million for each American, not dog food money like after the massive liberal theft. Ignorance is pure bliss -right?? You're perfectly brainwashed so have no idea whatsoever."

Yes, dog food money... The irony of this is that my surviving grandparents are extremely conservative, but they actually appreciate and approve of social security and would probably give you a good yelling if you threatened to take it away.

"yes and so he prolonged the Depression for 10 years that caused ww2. If BO prolongs this for 10 years will he be your hero too?? Or will it take a world war before you make him your hero??"

This is idiotically ironic considering that unregulated banks and stock markets got us into the depression and unregulated businesses helped to keep us in it. We were slowly climbing out of the depression before the second world war hit and would have successfully gotten out had the second world war not occurred. Now, though the depression had a worldwide influence that helped trigger the second world war, it cannot take all of the credit. The world war prior left Germany a torn nation and the victorious failed to do something that would have done much more to prevent the second world war than avoiding the depression, nation building. From many a German point of view after the first world war, their world was shit. And it was more so once the great depression hit. One's world being shit tends to do two things, it makes people desperate (and desperate people can do horrible things) and it makes them tend to cling to anything that might give them hope (no matter how horrible that is).

"dear, Hoover was not acting as a conservative when he raised taxes on starving people to build a worthless dam. Only a liberal would be so brainwashed as to call starving people a social welfare program."

First off, President Coolidge signed the paperwork to commission the Hoover dam. So claiming that Hoover raised taxes to build the dam is not very accurate and claiming to makes you look like an idiot.

Oh, and about Hoover increasing taxes on the starving... "Prior to the start of the Great Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed and seen enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24% (under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge). When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in history.[56] The Act increased taxes across the board, so that top earners were taxed at 63% on their net income. The 1932 Act also increased the tax on the net income of corporations from 12% to 13.75%."

For more information about the Revenue Act of 1932, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

"Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro were liberal communists!"

Ok, you not knowing the difference between socialism, communism, and liberalism was cute at first, but it is getting old now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You get extra credit if after reading those you can distinguish between liberal, communist, and socialist!

"yes odd isn't it how Jefferson was right . No matter what rationale the liberal use to take power from the people it always ends up the same in the end, as a liberal dictatorship. Why not read the Jefferson quotes again for comprehension"

What is odd is that you have yowled and screeched about how Jefferson was anti-liberal in place of anti-big government (and yes there is a very important difference between the two) but you have yet to prove it.

"yes this is why our liberals spied for them!!"

Ok, gimme names.

"how pathetic to make distinctions between Hitler Stalin and Mao when they were all liberal killers. Jefferson did not make distinctions between all the governments in history he studied . He created America on the idea that if they were they were big they were liberal and so they were or would be very bad. And this was without seeing your liberal friends grow into Hitler Stalin and Mao from modest bleeding heart beginnings"

I know, how pathetic it must be that I point out valid differences between two mass murderers/genocidal maniacs... You know why I made distinctions between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? It is because they were in fact different. Yes, they all murdered an insane amount of people, but each of them did so for different reasons and for a different set of beliefs and none of them did so for liberal ideals.

Also, claiming that Jefferson created America is akin to claiming that Al Gore created the internet. He was one person amongst many who helped the idea become a reality, but ultimately he was just a man (in the gender neutral sense of the word) as we all are. Jefferson was only a piece of the whole that was/are the Founding Fathers, so I would suggest you stop trying to use him solely as an example to attempt to prove your point. As it is, you seem so infatuated with him that I would not be shocked if you would be inclined to dig up his body just so you could suck his dick.

"dear it was 100% about the way liberal government operates. Liberalism has no boundaries short of mass murder. It must grow like a cancer to survive"

You didn't answer my question, rhetorical though it was... curious.

"you mean the American Revolution was a revolution for big liberal government after all. You mean the Constitution which was designed to limit the Federal government to a few enumerated powers was not real??? Who knew??"

Aw, this is by far the cutest thing you've done so far. You're mimicking my sarcastic style. Personally, I thought that the constitution was to prevent this nation from becoming a royal hierarchy and was a set of rules to prevent one specific group from gaining unfair power over a vast majority by securing the rights of all men. Of course, women and slaves were not necessarily considered covered by the constitution when it was first written, so I guess we should still technically have slaves, and women technically shouldn't have the same rights as men.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

The irony of you using this quote as evidence that liberal government is bad is hilarious when one considers that things like the Patriot Act were thanks to a conservative president and some of the greatest threats to our right were passed with a conservative majority congress.

"that's the perfect one to show how liberalism must grow like a cancer. Remember Hitler Stalin and Mao? Did Hitler announce he was going to kill the Jews and invade Russia in 1930?? They all cared for the people until they had established big liberal government. Then they could kill them for their own good."

You really are keen on proving the fact that you don't know the difference between liberal, national socialism, and communism, aren't you?

"you are lying to yourself. Powerful and liberal are identical. Do you think our government becomes more powerful when it controls the entire health care industry. A child could follow the logic. Why not ask your Mom to help you along here??"

Do I think our government becomes more powerful when it controls the entire healthcare industry? Good question, Let's look at England, France, Canada, Sweden, etc. There are a lot of nations with government run healthcare that have a government that is no more powerful than our own was before Obama enacted his healthcare bill (which was heavily butchered by conservatives) which won't even come into full effect until 2014. So do I think government becomes more powerful when it controls the entire healthcare industry? It doesn't if the people actually pay attention to what their government does. This is especially true when the government is a government of the people elected by the people.

By the way, "Powerful and Liberal are identical," is an amusing statement. Some of the biggest attacks on the rights of the people have come from a conservative government or a conservative element of the government. I've already mentioned Bush Jr. and the Patriot Act, but for fun I think it would also be good to put McCarthy out there with his communist witch hunts and the blacklisting.

"his point was that in history all governments had been big and bad. That's exactly why he wanted small conservative government. Welcome to your first lesson in American History. See why we are 100% sure that liberalism is the absence of intelligence or knowledge."

You're still confusing big government with liberal government. Not all liberal governments are big and not all conservative governments are small.

"dear, BO just passed Obama care. It was very energetic government and so very liberal government!! How can this be over your head? Are you two???"

Yes, Obama just passed Obama care... in the sense that the vast majority of the ideas in the original bill were ideas that first were pushed by CONSERVATIVES, and Obama actually gave credit where it was due by naming the conservatives who came up with those ideas. The twisted irony here is that those very same conservatives butchered Obama's healthcare bill, not because they disagreed with the policies that they had once supported, but because they were not the people making it happen. So to shoot your question right back at you... How can this be over your head? Are you two?

"again that is exactly the opposite of what Jefferson and our Founders felt; so they started a revolution. Too much means too liberal!!! OMG!!!"

Doh, and here I thought that they started the revolution because they thought that a royal hierarchy which taxed them without allowing them representation in that government was a bad thing. Oh wait, that is why the revolution started! It had nothing to do with a liberal government, it had to do with being under the thumb of a King who taxed them and did not allow them a voice within that very same form of government.

"no dear, a conservative government is designed to cut taxes so government gets smaller and less powerful!!! OMG!!"

Again, you are ignoring a perfect and very recent example that is contrary to your statement. Bush Jr. did manage to cut taxes during a time of war (which is incredibly stupid) yet government managed to get larger and more powerful. OMG!!!

"dear, Jefferson was opposed to government and so founded America. Obama has no resistance to government. He wants more and more government. He loves it he does not resist it?? OMG is that really over your head??? If you're a HS grad I'll eat my hat!!"

Two things. First, highschool is a very shitty place to learn American History. A good read on that topic that I suggest is "Lies My Teacher Told Me." http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868

Second, just out of curiosity, what'll you do if I'm a college grad?

"BO is liberal and he wants much larger government. FDR was liberal and he wanted much larger government. LBJ was liberal and wanted much larger government. Stalin was liberal and wanted much larger government!!! OMG!!!"

Here is where this specific argument falls apart. BO, larger government of the people for the people. FDR, same deal. LBJ, same deal. Stalin was a communist dictator and his government was not of the people for the people but was of him and suppressed the people to keep them from rising against him.

"too stupid .The soviets controlled the economy and everyone starved. Jefferson knew it before Stalin and you still don't know it. Here, the liberals control health care and it is 3 times more expensive than it ought to be. See why we are sure liberals are brainless?"

People starved when the soviets controlled the economy because all of the wealth stayed with those who were dictators. People in the United States starved during the great depression because all of the wealth stayed with those who bore their fruit off of the sweat of their workers' backs. It is the same concept, the difference is that in one regard the ones with the power and money are the government and in another case they are people who today hold our government in their pocketbook.

And FYI, the healthcare in this nation has been atrociously more expensive than it is in nations with government run healthcare for decades. People get the healthcare that they need in England, France, Spain Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. and they don't go bankrupt doing it. We literally have families that go bankrupt in our nation because someone gets appendicitis, and until 2014, we don't really have a government run healthcare system. If you want to keep on the government run healthcare discussion then I'm game. But I'll give you fair warning, roughly half of my family lives in Canada, so I know what actual government run healthcare is like, and both of my parents, work in a hospital, so I know what healthcare here is like and I know that it is not yet, nor has it ever really been, government run.

"actually you are the one who is arguing against Jefferson and American principles!! Whooops!!"

You keep saying that, yet you're not providing any supportive evidence that Jefferson was against liberal government, you're just supporting evidence that Jefferson was against big government. For some reason you seem incapable of realizing that big government and liberal government are not necessarily the same thing. Also, you did not address my point, petty though it may have been.

"yes dear all government because theretofore all government had been big and liberal"

... wow. Here you are making the argument that liberal government is bad because it is big government while conservative government must be good because it is small government, all the time you are using quotes from Jefferson to try to support your claim. I provide a list of parties that Jefferson is disgusted with and is therefor against, and on that list are the following conservative parties are the Tories and REPUBLICANS. It seems kind of important that Jefferson lists conservative parties amongst the others as ones he does not like especially when he is in favor of small government and the conservative parties are suppose to be as well.

"dear taxes are based on income not wealth. Yes they can afford it but you can't since they create jobs with it. Jobs don't come from the Girl Scouts."

Oh, taxes are based on income and not wealth? So why does Romney pay the same tax rate as a guy who make in a year, what Romney does in an hour? Just saying, it seems kind of stupid that Romney gets that much money and pays that little in taxes when one of his most successful businesses made it's most money by buying struggling companies and then gutting them, laying off and firing hundreds of people in the process. I suppose it's good that he is paying a lower tax rate to not only not employ people, but to destroy their jobs as well.

"Actually, I've been to college. Derek Jeter gets 25 million because of the free market not a union. A business has to offer the best jobs at the highest pay or lose its best workers and go bankrupt just like it has to offer the best products. Capitalism makes jobs and products better, not unions which only a small % ever belonged to anyway. Econ 101 class one day one"

Derek Jeter gets $25 million because of the free market... this is one of the more retarded examples I have seen. Prior to unions, most jobs did not offer healthcare for full time workers, and most factory jobs would not offer compensation for injuries attained while working on the factory floor.

"again the free market make them get paid highest amount possible."

Yeah, the market makes them get paid the highest amount possible... that's why Walmart's workers are paid a miraculous wage of (insert state minimum wage for any specific state) while the people who actually own the chain get millions of dollars a year to sit back and cash in on an idea that their parents started.

"Having kids unemployed is stupid and wasteful. This is the source of crime guns drugs and gangs and chronic unemployment."

Right, and when kids were employed to work in textile factories during the industrial revolution, no one ever committed a crime, no one ever used drugs, and no one was every in a gang. You have once again provided a retarded statement. The gap between the wealthy and the poor is the source of crime and gangs, not unemployment and not poverty on it's own. Crime is most rampant in nations where there is an enormous difference between the richest and the poorest. On the other hand, nations where there is little economic difference between people tends to have the lowest crime rates.

"far better to eliminate the taxes altogether so business is more competitive with lower prices and is free to concentrate on business rather than evading and avoiding taxes. GE has 1000 people working on taxes. Its just liberal waste!!"

Because businesses create more jobs when taxes are cut, which is demonstrated through the job growth that we saw via the Bush administrations run where taxes were cut. It is a shame that real life seems to contradict what you are saying.

"wait till you've had econ 101. do you think you're fooling anybody??"

I've found that economy and critical reasoning courses tend to counter or not support your claims..

"actually 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. With a Balanced Budget Chinese and Japanese must buy our products not our debt!! Surprise!! You're still in HS but have plenty of time to learn."

Yeah, the Chinese and Japanese don't have to buy anything, and one thing that they have going for them is that they tax the living shit out of any products we want to sell over there via tariffs, where as here, we hardly have any tariffs on products made in other nations. It is one of the reasons why you don't see many cars made in the United States in either of those nations, but for some reason you see a lot of Japanese cars here in the States.

"Most recent study just came out showing they make 48% more than private sector counterparts plus huge job security. You could cut their pay in half and hire 4 million with extra money. Simply way to end recession tomorrow!! but of course liberal are too slow to see how deadly they are with their bleeding heart waste"

I'd like to see that study, why don't you give us a link. In the meanwhile, here...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/03/03/are-teachers-overpaid/
Teachers get overpaid my ass.

actually dear liberal bleeding hearts organized much of the federal government to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. Ever heard of Fanny Freddie, Federal Reserve?????? Now even you get the basics of the housing crisis.

Ever hear of balloon loans, a practice that was no legal until Bush Jr. was in office? It's the loaning practice where you foresee what raises you will get in the future and incorporate those into your loan interest, so instead of having a flat interest rate, your interest rate gradually increases as the years go by. It's a good thing that raises are 100% predictable, and it is also a good thing that most people looking to get a loan to buy a home also know how to maneuver through dozens of pages of fine print to make sure that they are signing a simple and strait forward loan agreement.

"if the liberal bleeding heart is not taxing money away wasting it on one shot welfare payments the private sector will have it to create jobs"

Again, this is bullshit. The private sector experienced record profits under the Bush administration while paying an all time low on taxes AND JOBS WERE LOST!

"America has the most private and the most wealth!!"

You are either the most retarded person I have held a discussion with for a long time, or you are the most blatant shiller of bullshit. Yes, America has the most private and the most wealth, the problem is that the vast majority of that wealth is held by a very small portion of the population. If you ignore the top 1% and focus on the majority of the American public, then we are really not a very wealthy nation. Your claim akin to saying, "This orchard produces the most fruit!" when most of the trees are barren but a few somehow seem to hold enough fruit to make up for what the hundreds of barren trees are lacking.

"If SS was private most would have $1.5 million in the bank. This would mean tons of new investment capital and tons of new jobs. In Econ 101 you learn S=I. Saving equals investment"

If Social Security was private, it would have tanked with the economy during Bush's reign (you know, that time not too long ago when a conservative was in office doing all the things you claim help the economy grow, yet for some reason it still went down the proverbial shitter), and millions of people who depend on Social Security would have been up a creek without a paddle.

"Cant say if your more profane or dumb, but either way perfectly violent and liberal, but hopefully not forever."

Oh, I am very much a profane person, though I find if funny that you are still equating profane with violent. I think it has to do with the limitation of foul language over public media yet how we portray violence over said media is not limited in such a manner. Because of this people confuse what is taboo, the use of swear words in media, as something as bad as, or worse than, actual violence.

I do have to say, joining you in this argument is reminding me of a debate I once had with a guy from Texas about which car company designed better vehicles and why. I was claiming that Toyota's were typically more reliable and in general the better vehicle, and the fellow I was debating was arguing for Chevrolet. We started getting into the details of belt timing and forced air intake and the fellow I was debating was running out of information to support his claim, so he started using a tactic that was frustratingly stupid. Every time I threw out a point, he would say, "Chevy," like it was a magic word that perfectly countered the argument that I made. I bring this up because I just noticed that your Jefferson quotes seem to be your "Chevy."

Oh, I also have some light reading for your pleasure.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/04/the-founding-liberals/

Have fun.

Why regress to vulgar comments?

Excellent! Please keep posting.

The crux of the issue with the Liberalism of today is that the troublesome and dangerous ones are those who, in virtually every issue of importance, defer to the federal government to solve, manage, regulate, tax, bureaucratize and otherwise take over. Modern Liberals are for the centralization of power, and freedom-lovers are for its decentralization.

"Through Madison he wrote the Constitution."

Yeah, those 11 other people who helped write the constitution didn't really help... they just wanted the credit for Jefferson's work. Its alright though, you're usage of language suggesting that Jefferson was the sole creator of this nation and the constitution just makes you look like a hardcore groupie, and thus I refer to my previous statements about you probably being willing to perform fellatio upon his remains since you hold him in such a godly esteem.

As far as the history lesson goes, I'll stick with what I've learned via history courses at the U of O.

"He had surveyed all of human history and concluded that no matter what rationale was used to consolidate power in a liberal central government that government would in short order devolve into something evil. Accordingly distinctions between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, King George, Hannibal, Louis XVI, Caesar, Attila the Hun, Suleiman The Magnificent, King Tut, and Charlemagne were not necessary."

I state it again, not all big governments are liberal and not all liberal governments are big. For some reason you cannot make this distinction nor do you seem able to even put up a feeble attempt to prove otherwise.

Now, given your short reply, I can safely presume that you did not bother looking at any of the links I posted and as a result you obviously did not address any of the key points I made in the previous argument. If you are not going to bother addressing them with anything other than repetitive tripe which I have already pointed out as not supporting your own argument, I will have to conclude that you are an ignorant tool, or a troll (though I doubt a troll would normally go this far).

I regress to vulgar comments because vulgarity is part of the art of language and it is a part that I choose to make use of. The words that are considered vulgar are only considered as such because people choose to take offense to them, and if I use them then one can conclude that I am likely using them to be offensive. If you think I should stop using vulgar language on an internet forum that has few rules about offensive language, then don't take offense to the language. After all, words are only words and they should not hurt unless they are either true or unless they are being hurled at you from within a heavy dictionary. That being said, ignore it, bitch about it, or fucking deal with it.

Now, as for the crux of the issue...

"in virtually every issue of importance, defer to the federal government to solve, manage, regulate, tax, bureaucratize and otherwise take over."

One of the greatest strengths of this nation is also at times one of it's greatest weaknesses, that is our nations great, pain in the ass, bureaucratic procedures which require things to be made into law. It suck because when something bad gets passed, it can be really difficult to get it revoked. However, it is designed to put new ideas through the ringer before being made into law by making sure that political figures, who are chosen by the people to represent the people, can make sure the law represents the best interest of the populace to the best of their abilities.

We (liberals) tend to want taxes to fund things like roads, public education, power grids, sewer systems, and a slew of other things that largely depend on federal funding because states tend to not want to foot the bill (even though those are basic needs for a functioning society) nor do people who own a vast majority of this nations wealth (even though most of those wealthy people in industries of production make use of those resources in order for their businesses to flourish)

We (liberals) tend to want the federal government to regulate water quality, food quality, toxic materials and waste disposal, basic educational standards, etc. because history has shown that private industries and corporations tend to pawn subpar, and potentially dangerous products on the public while disposing of toxic materials in the least expensive manner possible even if such a manner of disposal is dangerous to the environment and consequently the people who live in the immediate area.

We (liberals) want the federal government to manage serious disasters because if the federal government does not things like the earlier days of the Katrina incident happen. We also want the federal government to be represented by people who do not do a half assed job and then use their own incompetence as an example of how federal government does not work.

"Modern Liberals are for the centralization of power, and freedom-lovers are for its decentralization."

Modern liberals are actually for the decentralization of power. At this moment, both major parties are deeply within the pockets of lobbyists. The majority of those lobbyists represent the special interests of businesses and the wealthy, and those who do not are severely underfunded by comparison of those who do. Most of us (liberals) do not want political figures who serve the best interests of the corporate elite because the corporate elite is willing to line their back pockets. Instead we (liberals) want a fully functioning government where political lobbyists have very limited funds and have little to no influence over any politicians when compared to the influence the public should have over politicians. And that right there is what started this whole damn argument. Norquist is one of those very lobbyists who encourages political figures to pass legislation and law that is against the will and/or best interest of the general public of the United States. He should have no more influence in the political world than Bill Gates or John Doe, yet he holds almost an entire political party to the whim of his special interests.

By the way, you need to tone down on your passive aggressive language. Referring to us as "Modern Liberals" and then using the words "freedom-lovers" to describe your own side is a basic jerk off tactic that makes the argument, "Modern Liberals are different from freedom-lovers and therefor don't love freedom." It is akin to the Pro-choice vs Pro-life. By referring to themselves as Pro-life, anti abortionists make Pro-choicers look like they are pro-death, which is kinda ironic since most people who are Pro-choice are anti death penalty yet most Pro-life people are pro death penalty.

On a final note, I'm going to point out that voting yourself up is about as tasteless as making a speech and then afterwards you applaud yourself and say, "Wasn't that a great speech folks, give me a hand!" I feel fairly confident that you voted yourself up, as well as Tedbaiamonte (which is in no way tasteless because you are showing your support for someone else's performance) because recently no one has voted either my comments or Tedbaiamonte's up or down. I do suppose that someone else could have voted you up, but given the timing of your comment and the sudden votes on my comments and Tedbaiamonte's, I rather doubt it.

I believe I saw Ted using vulgarity first so shove off!

Thanks for the confirmation that Left-wingers want to centralize power in the federal government and remove it from communities, counties, towns and states.

I knew it all the time. It is the stuff of Statism.

Thanks, comrade!

Your missing the point as usual a conservative or libertarian whatever you are. Grover is not elected by anyone!

No, but It seems like conservatives would be happier in Haiti than America. People should be able to buy the products they build with a decent wage that they have earned. The founders supported a nation where people worked to earn a living, not sit around, bullshit, and skate by on the money they have taken by putting workers out.

Well, do you believe the big corporate profits come from hiring good workers, as in the American tradition now abandoned, or do you believe the truth, that is, big corporate profits are now arranged by keeping workers near desperation?

Or is it, how small can government actually become? Taxes and government payroll are their smallest in many years... and most government reductions are taking place in the wrong places like agriculture and education.

That is where we disagree. American workers should not be paid as little as Chinese workers are now paid. Chinese workers should not be paid as little as Chinese workers are now paid. If you pay someone for their labor they should be paid enough to purchase the products they make, otherwise how do you sell them?

Wait, are we calling him a freak as a majority (meaning both as our use of words and meaning the majority of us) or did one person use the word freak to describe this guy once, suggesting it is being used as a generic insult, and the rest of us (liberals) just think he is an asshole (to put it mildly)?

Violence... Damn, why didn't I think of that?

Quick every liberal who, according to stereotypes doesn't own a gun because they think the first amendment is akin to holy words while thinking that the second amendment is an outdated abolishment that should never have come to pass, grab up the guns that you don't have because you don't believe that they are necessary, relevant, and/or safe to the general populace and strike out violently against those whom we think are metaphorical dick holes, asshats, cunts, or just in general douche bags!

Oh, you meant emotionally violent or emotional violence, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary...

violence:
n.[mass noun]
1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
>[LAW] the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
2. strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force: the violence of his/her own feelings.

violent
adj.
1. using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something: a violent confrontation with riot police.
>[LAW] involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force.
2. (especially of an emotion or a destructive natural force) very strong or powerful: violent dislike | the violent eruption killed 1,700 people.
>(of a colour) vivid.

Hmmm... given that, I'm not sure how the violence escalates when you refer to someone as an asshole in an insulting manner when they were previously referred to as a freak in an insulting manner. It doesn't seem to yield or advance in the apparent distaste for the individual but is just using different terminology of a nature that is considered more vulgar by societal norms. One term is really no more insulting than another, it is the implied meaning and personal weight behind the word. Unless my meaning and personal opinion are explained in great detail as to why I am choosing one specific word over another, or unless my tone, body language and mental state are being portrayed over these written words (which is pretty damn near impossible) there is no real basis to claim that moving from the word freak to the word asshole is a violent liberal escalation when used to describe this turd bucket.

As for a reason to our immediate negative feelings and expressions towards Norquist, I cannot speak directly for others, but I can speak for myself. He is a parasite who hampers the political process that is meant to represent the millions of voters by forcing the political agenda of the wealthy few upon us. The Bush Tax Cuts did not provide any great benefit for the middle and lower class. Sure we, the middle and lower class, got a little bit more back in taxes, but it really was not anything significant. The top 10% or so, specifically the top 1% got insane tax breaks, and we're not talking about people who busted their asses to get to the top and then lived like poor people because the government was taking 99.99% of their income. We're talking about people who work just as hard as the majority of the working class and after taxes could easily afford a few nice houses and a vacation home in some other country to vacation in. People who make that much money do not need a tax break, and if they claim that they do it is more likely that the need to know how to live within their limits and not try to waste their earned fortunes on private jets or whatever it is that gets them into debt when they have that much money.

So here we are with a deficit, a lot of people who have been laid off to increase profits (note, not so the companies can stay afloat, but to increase already existing profits), families that cannot find work to adequately feed and shelter themselves (a temp job flipping burgers at McDonald's does not feed a family of four), conservative politicians bitching about how we need to cut welfare (which many families are dependent upon) and let corporate America create jobs (because for some fucked up reason a B-list actor became president and sold a bullshit idea that wealth trickles down) all the while shrinking government and government jobs because they (conservative politicians) do not want to raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this nation (quite a few of which have gotten wealthier during a time of economic recession).

Now I'm sorry if I, as a liberal, am being violent against Norquist with my language, but here's the thing... I may, in fact, be using "violent" language when addressing this guy. If I had to compare it to an actual act of physical violence, I'd say that my words are the rough equivalent of getting into a bar fight over a legitimate complaint against another patron. But Norquist, and what he does, is an entirely different kind of violence towards the United States citizens. It is not limited to effecting a small group of people nor is it as strait forward or potentially short termed. His verbal violence is more akin to a violent date rapist. His nice words are akin to buying you a drink at the bar. Words like "individuals" and "liberties" mask the verbal rohypnol which will leave the majority of people defenseless against the political and economic raping that they will receive later.

Now to directly move onto a couple of other things you said.
"now isn't that very stupid given that for the first time in modern history they are paid enough not to starve to death and in fact to now buy more cars than we do."

First, do you mean that they get paid enough to now buy more cares than we can, or that they actually buy more cares than we do?

Second, your example is EXTREMELY relative. There are still numerous Chinese corporations that force employees to work slave hours for slave wages (yes I realize the inherent irony in the term "slave wage"), cram them into dorms that make most college dorms look spacious and well decorated... oh, and these places are such an improvement that some of the companies have put nets around the buildings to catch workers who would jump to their death. Let us re-examine that. Rather than improve working hours, conditions and pay to a point where it is tolerable, some of these corporations have decided that it is better to just put a net out to catch the jumpers so they can be put back to work. I think that makes a pretty powerful statement that there are a lot of Chinese workers who are not only underpaid, but are insanely overworked.

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2010/09/picture-of-the-day-workplace-suicide-nets-in...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092277/Apple-Poor-working-conditions-in...

http://www.alien-earth.org/gallery/item.php?keyid=435&category=9

"that's 100% insane of course. People make jet planes but can't buy them. In China they make Iphones when most can't afford to buy them. No one bothers to make anything they cant sell to someone somewhere. Ask Mom to explain. Thanks"

I have a better idea, let's ask the Ford Motor Company. During the rise of the unions, Ford managed to dodge (pun possibly intended) unions by paying employees enough money to actually be able to afford a brand new Ford vehicle. After all, we're not talking about specialty vehicles that require technical training costing thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, to operate. We're talking about products that fulfill everyday needs. If I have a job building houses, I should be paid enough to afford to buy a house that fits my needs. If I have a job building cars, I should be paid enough to afford to buy a new car that fits my needs. If a company makes a product that is meant for private middle class customers to purchase, then it should pay it's employees enough so that they can reasonably afford the product that they themselves are producing.

http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=30247Cached

I just realized something, you either lack the basic ability to use proper citation methods, and you do not seem to be able to use sources... interesting. Well, on with the show.

"Conservatives own guns as Jefferson said to protect themselves against liberal government but they have never used them. The ghettos and jails conversely are very violent and very very liberal which is why the liberals always conduct voter registration drives there. Also, intellectual liberals are naturally violent, much like Hitler Stalin and Mao, because they are sure of their moral superiority. We see this in your emotional style of debate. You're as positive as Hitler that you're right so you don't need to reason."

Yeah, I'd like the actual quote from Jefferson where he says the second amendment is to protect people from a LIBERAL government. Note, not a government of any political leaning that is out of control or goes against the will of the people that have elected that government, but a liberal government.

As far as ghettos and jails being very violent and liberal... yeah, that is a yes and a no. Poor areas tend to be liberally slanted at the moment because of the politic that the liberal side clings to at the moment. During the great depression the conservative side was the side that clung to the values that drew the poor votes because the conservative side supported the poor with work and welfare that was sorely needed. Crime tends to be more rampant within poor communities because of socio-economic factors. Some steal for food, some steal because media portrays an unrealistic lifestyle that is not attainable for virtually every poor person unless they do things that are illegal. Now it is folly to think that all people of any class are effected in such a way by the media and the images portrayed by the media or that the socio-economic standards set up by various media outlets are the only factor. However, it is also folly to dismiss the effect off hand simply because it does not effect everyone who falls into the category of lower class.

As far as how liberals ALWAYS conduct voter registration drives in the ghetto, well duh. The ghettos tend to consist of voters who will usually vote liberal, they do not usually vote because they do not know how to register (and therefor have not). The fact that criminals, and we're talking thug criminals mind you, not white collar criminals who manage to steal or embezzle millions of dollars and financially fuck a multitude of people over at one time, is beside the point.

FYI, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were less liberal and more fascist. There is a difference. But look on the bright side, I didn't counter your Hitler, Mao and Stalin comment with something along the lines of, "Hi pot, I'm kettle. Wait... the hell did you just call me?"

"well if your first thought or reaction is to be verbally violent and stupid then next would be street violence, not intellectual debate. Why should a morally superior liberal have to debate the mere ideas of our Founders??"

Yet here we are, having what I can only presume is intel-fucking-lectual debate and it has not (nor will it from my end) escalate to street violence. As far as the "mere ideas of our Founders," I don't recall the Founders of this nation being against taxation WITH representation or being against one political part or another. But getting to the point, we're not arguing with the ideas of our Founders, we're arguing against an interpretation of the Founders ideas that you seem to hold.

"I just asked 10 people; they could choose either direction but all felt it was a verbal escalation from freak to asshole. They did not say it showed a Nazi like level of bigotry about your moral superiority such that debate would be beneath your very exalthed status.."

So, if some guy was an asshole and happened to have an arm growing out of his head, calling him an asshole first and then a freak next wouldn't be considered escalation because ten people whom you asked thought that freak was a less offensive word than asshole?

"actually the agenda of freedom from big liberal government is the basic agenda of our founders."

Yeah, gonna need a quote from the Founding Fathers on that to support your statement.

"How did you get the wealthy involved? Are you opposed to the basic agenda of our Founders? Would you be happier in Cuba?? Would you have wanted to spy for Stalin too?"

How did the wealthy get involved? The top 20% that have over two thirds of the nations wealth pay a proportionally insignificant amount in taxes and you're asking how the wealthy got involved?

"85% of Bush Tax Cuts Went to Middle Class, Not the Rich ...
commonamericanjournal.com/?p=30247Cached "

It is interesting, because I looked into the sources for that particular article (actually the only source which was a CNN article) and it should more accurately say that 85% of the tax cuts went to families who made $250,000 a year and less. First, $250,000 is a hell of a lot a year for the average family, and I do not know a lot of middle class families that live on that much a year (I sure as shit do not know any lower class families that live on that much). Second, the 15% remaining was categorized as millionaires and billionaires.

According to Wikipedia, "There is a wide disparity in the estimates of the number of millionaires residing currently in the United States. A quarterly report prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of Barclays Wealth in 2007 estimated that there were 16,600,000 millionaires in the USA." So what is $81.5 billion divided by 16.6 million... if the taxes went out evenly then each millionaire family got a $4,909.64 tax break. The population of the United States was roughly 302 million in 2007, so 85% is roughly 256 million, $463 tax break... $1,808.59 on average. Of coarse, people who make more money get more money back because of how percentages work, but the question I have is, why are such a small portion of the population that owns so much of the nations wealth getting any Goddamn tax cut?

"You +1'd this publicly. Undo "

I can only guess that you mean I voted up this original thread. I agree with this thread so I voted it up. Undo? As in you're telling me to undo my vote? If that is the case, fuck you. I have the right to vote however I deem I should vote. This not only applies to political elections, but to blogs where ultimately my opinion, as well as yours, amounts to little more than cat piss on a hot road in an Arizona Summer.

"actually they are the ones who create the jobs and new products. The more money they have the more they can do it!! Did you think the Girl Scouts did it?? Also, the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes, it was 18% under Reagan."

First off, bullshit. If trickle down economics worked then job creators would have no stress to create jobs right now because even though they are laying people off, many are experiencing outstanding profits. Curious, they are earning such great profits during a recession... yet they are laying people off thus they are not creating jobs but doing the exact opposite.

Oh, and about Reagan's 18% tax rate for the top 1%, it was 28%, down from 70%. 18% was the average tax rate. But beside the clerical error, what I find amusing is that you are using lower federal tax rates as an example of success when the Reagan recession quickly followed his tax cuts. Though it could have been economic coincidence, it does tend to suck the wind out of that argument.

"pure class warfare gibberish. Who said they don't live within their means??"

So... the top 1% who claim that they need these tax breaks are doing so because they are just greedy then?

"of course that's stupid. A lot got laid off because the liberals organized much of government to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!! Are you really unaware of that. Interesting what we find when we get behind your anger and arrogance"

... People got laid off because liberals organized the government to get people to buy homes that the Republican free market said that they could not afford...? Just to make sure I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, the liberals organized a lot of the government to get people into homes which they could not afford, was it the liberal organization of much of the government, or the fact that these people were trying to get into homes that they could not afford that got vast amounts of workers laid off? I feel like I'm communicating with a crazy person who is saying, "You need to connect the dots to see the picture, let me show you!" and then connects the dots in a random and chaotic order...

"well lets thank the great liberal recession for that and lets use it as an excuse for an even larger welfare state!! In fact, let the liberal manage health care they way they managed housing."

Yeah, if you're referring to the housing bubble that popped, that was not so much a liberal fuckup as it was a conservative one. Massive deregulations under Bush Jr. lead to balloon loans and illicit loaning practices from banks.

"we did cut welfare under Clinton and 66% disappeared form the rolls!!!"

Yes we did, and you know what, unemployment was down when Clinton was in office. It kind of makes sense, employment is up, more regulations were in place to keep corporate interests from screwing people over, so welfare was not quite so necessary.

"actually capitalism was first described by Adam Smith in 1776. Sorry. Jobs did trickle down from Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. They have not trickled down from a growing welfare state in which Bush 43 introduced the first $2 trillion budget and the first $3 trillion budget and least of all now under BO's $4 trillion dollar budget."

Yeah, trickle down economics is not the same thing as capitalism, it is a very small theory of capitalism that very often tends to be ineffective in todays world. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are wonderful, and extremely rare examples (though with the wages apple employees at the assembly plants get paid in China, we might want to take Steve Jobs off that list). As far as trickle down failing when Bush Jr. introduced the bailout, as well as Obama, yeah, it was more or less a failure, but that was just as relevant a sample of trickle down economics as any other.

"the size of the welfare state has gone from $2 to $4 trillion from Bush to Clinton. 1+1=2. It seems you became arrogant profane and very self-assured long before you learned anything."

So, a welfare state increase under Clinton while the economy grew AND while Clinton cut 66% of welfare...

"its violent language from a violent liberal. When you learn to value thinking the violence fades. Democracy is debate not profane violent language"

Really? Wow, then Dick Cheney must be one hell of a public liberal and Richard Nixon must have been one hell of a closet one!

"dear, his idea is the basic American idea!! Think about that over and over please."

How is it the basic American idea? Show me something specific that supports your idea that what Norquist says is the basic American idea.

"actually if you look at history as Jefferson did it was big liberal government that was the source of evil. He knew that without seeing the great 20th Century liberals: Hitler Stalin and Mao. How is it that you still don't know it?? Welcome to your first lesson in American History. This century starts out wonderfully too with the great liberal housing recession brought to you by bleeding heart liberals."

First off, I find it odd that out of all of the Founding Fathers, you are only using Jefferson as an example. Second, put up some quotes of Jefferson saying that big LIBERAL government was the source of evil. Claiming he was is one thing, but being able to prove it is another. Here, I'll give an example of how that is so.

George Washington was of the opinion that trained otter clowns were a threat to the religious freedom of this nation!

Notice, there is no quote, no citation to back it up. But your comment will be viewed as such malarky unless you can either prove that George Washington was NOT of the opinion that trained otter clowns were a threat to the religious freedom of this nation, or unless you put up a quote or citation that specifically says Jefferson viewed big LIBERAL government as a source of evil. Not big government, big LIBERAL government.

"the instant China switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism, 10's of millions stopped starving to death. Can the liberal grasp the meaning of that? They became Jeffersonian Americans and in fact admit to it."

You keep on using that word liberalism, I do not think you know what it means. F.Y.I. liberalism and communism are not the same thing, kinda like trickle down economics is not the same as capitalism. Yes, after China switched to a mix of a communist/republican nation as opposed to a pure capitalist nation, a lot of people stopped starving to death, but they are not what most would consider Jeffersonian Americans. Technically, I don't think most would consider them Americans... mostly because they live in China, not the United States of America.

"that of course is a typical liberal lie. 80% of corporations are private and have no authority to force people into jobs. People take jobs only if the are better. In China they are far far better than ever. As soon as they switched to Republican capitalism 20 million could buy cars whereas under liberal regulation that many starved to death , slowly!!! Do you think its nice to starve to death? Where is your morally superior bleeding heart??"

A whole 80% of the jobs are private and have no authority to force people into jobs...? So does that mean that 20% of the jobs are not private corporations and have the authority to force people into jobs? As far as my "morally superior bleeding heart," it is concerned with the fact that people in China are overworked, underpaid, and have few rights as workers even though they now have jobs to support themselves. Any company that puts up suicide prevention nets instead of looking at WHY workers are jumping off of their building and fixing that problem has huge issues as does a nation in which that is an allowed method of treatment for such a problem.

Just to be clear, you are either one of the best trolls I have ever seen, or you are an idiot.

Given how you do not really know the difference between basic concepts like liberalism and communist, trickle down economics and capitalism, how you think that Mao, Hitler, and Stalin were liberalist and not socialist military dictators, and how you think that Jefferson (who if I were to read these post I might be inclined to think was the ONLY founding father) was against liberal (which at this point I assume you mean socialist or communist since you do not seem to be able to distinguish the different terms) everything. It also does not help that you seem to have no understanding of how to actually quote other people in even the most generic fashion and for some reason you choose to distinguish your own comments with *****. Why is beyond the thinkings of a reasonably not insane person.

Here we go into the breech...

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

This quote can be used to make a case against big government, but it does not really make a case against liberal government.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

The point about Jefferson being President when he said this rates a big whoop-de-shit on the who-gives-a-fuck-meter. As a Founding Father, it should be important enough that he said it, the fact that he said it while being President adds no weight to the quote. But let us look at Jefferson's full letter from which that quote originates from.

"TO THOMAS COOPER, ESQ.
Washington, November 29, 1802. Dear Sir,—Your favor of October 25th was received in due time, and I thank you for the long extract you took the trouble of making from Mr. Stone's lette1. Certainly the information it communicates as to Alexander kindles a great deal of interest in his existence, and strong spasms of the heart in hL favor. Though his means of doing good are great, yet the materials on which he is to work are refractory. Whether he engages in private correspondences abroad, as the King of Prussia did much, and his grandfather sometimes, I know not; but certainly such a correspondence would be very interesting to those who are sincerely anxious to see mankind raised from their present abject condition. It delights me to find that there are persons who still think that all is not lost in France: that their retro- gradation from a limited to an unlimited despotism, is but to give themselves a new impulse. But I see not how or when. The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there, and all means of a general effort taken away. However, I am willing to hope, and as long as anybody will hope with me; and I am entirely persuaded that the agitations of the public mind advance its powers, and that at every vibration between the points of liberty and despotism, something will be gained for the former. As men become better informed, their riders must respect them the more. I think you will be sensible that our citizens are fast returning, from the panic into which they were artfully thrown, to the dictates of their own reason; and I believe the delusions they have seen themselves hurried into will be useful as a lesson under similar attempts on them in future. The good effects of our late fiscal arrangements will certainly tend to unite them in opinion, and in confidence as to the views of their public functionaries, legislative and executive. The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former. Our adversaries say we are indebted to their providence for the means of paying the public debt. We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole.

The places of midshipman are so much sought that (being limited) there is never a vacancy. Your son shall be set down for the 2d place, which shall be vacant; the rst being anticipated. We are not long generally without vacancies happening. As soon as he can be appointed you shall know it. I pray you to accept assurances of my great attachment and respect. - Thomas Jefferson"

Hmmm, If you look at the whole instead of the small piece you gave, it does not really appear to be a quote against liberal government.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

How about giving work to people who are willing to work but cannot find a stable and/or adequate job? Also, you're use of this quote simply furthers the idea that you really don't know the difference between liberal, and socialist or communist.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

This quote is taken out of context from Jefferson's letter to Colonel Carrington, May 27th, 1788. The quote is about the constitution prior to it's ratification and is specifically aimed at a concern that liberties would be lost or tossed aside in the forming of the new government and the ratification of the constitution. So like the previous quotes, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM, OR COMMUNISM.

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

Are you retarded? That is, at best, a bunch of separate Jefferson quotes strung together to fit an agenda. Though I cannot find any documentation to support that Jefferson even said anything after the first part of this quote (which is word for word the exact same as the prior quote you gave).

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government."

You're a dipshit and a deceptive asshole who is using an edited quote for your own purposes. The quote from Jefferson's Inaugural reads,

"Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration"

Let us look at what you left out. "Which shall restrain men from injuring one another," this does not just speak about bodily injury, this can be interpreted to mean to protect people from unfair dealings. As far as, "and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned," after some point the 0.5% of the population with roughly 40% of the nations wealth stopped earning that wealth. There is nothing that such a select few can do which justifies them possessing such a large portion of wealth. Sure, people come up with the idea for something marketable, and they deserve more money for coming up with the idea and selling it then the workers who assemble the product in a factory, but those workers deserve their due credit for making that product and thusly they deserve a fair cut of the payment. Since the pay difference between a decent middle class salary and a CEO's salary is so insanely huge despite the fact that the CEO hardly does anything that someone else with a business degree could not do, I really don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that taxing those who make up the top 0.5% a hell of a lot more is not taking from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

"that of course is 1000% gibberish. FDR was 100% liberal and 100% in support of poor with work/welfare scams while conservatives were 100% opposed to all the very liberal New Deal make-work scams. You don't seem smart enough to know what you don't know/"

Yes, FDR was 100% liberal and gave us Social Security. FDR also implemented a lot of his... how did you put them, "work/welfare scams," into effect AFTER THE FUCKING DEPRESSION. Tell me, what fucking liberal president more or less commissioned the Hoover Dam? What's that, it wasn't a liberal president? It was President Coolidge, a republican president? Wow, I guess you're an idiot for missing that huge example of a conservative creating social welfare jobs for thousands of jobless workers.

"Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro were liberal communists!"

Aw, how cute, you're bringing in new names you didn't use before in order to make your argument look more valid. Its like you're putting up a little fight.

First I'll take on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro because they were all members of the communist party of their political nations. Literally, Castro belonged to the Communist Party of Cuba (note how the word liberal is not in the party title, watch for the pattern moron otherwise you might miss it). Pol Pot belonged to the Communist Party of Kampuchea, Mao belonged to the Communist Party of China, and Stalin belonged to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. However, in all of these examples there is one thing you need to keep in mind... THEY WERE ALL COMMUNIST DICTATORS. True communism and/or socialism, which is not the same thing as liberalism, is not run by dictators. Technically it is not even a political system but an economic one.

As for Hitler, despite the fact that his political party was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party, it is identified as a party that was/is as far right leaning as Socialism was/is left. Hitler was no more a liberal than a Hugh Hefner was a virgin.

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

Yay, a Thomas Paine quote from Rights of Man, a work critical of French Monarchies during Frances own Revolution. Wasn't he charged for libel, specifically because of that work?

You know, it is funny, I ask you for quotes proving that the Founding Fathers were against liberalism, as you claim, and when you respond specifically to that the first thing I get are quotes that you've already used in other responses (pretty much all of which do exactly Jack and shit to support your argument). I also notice that you are not citing these quotes you are using to support your arguments. Let's take a look at the first new one.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

Another Jefferson quote, what a surprise! There is nothing here about liberal government. It is a quote about how governments with power have, and do, deteriorate over time. However, a powerful government does not mean or even hint at a liberal government.

"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is"
Thomas Jefferson

Another Jefferson quote? Will the diversity of your quoting knowledge never end? Same problem as the previous quote dumbass. A bad government does not have to be a liberal government, nor does anything within the quote suggest as such.

On to the next quote, let me guess...

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Thomas Jefferson

Oh dear, how ever could I have known... And you know what the problem with this quote is when it comes to your argument? I'll give you a hint, an apparent pattern is forming and it has something to do with the problem that the last two quotes had as far as supporting your argument goes...

"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government."
Thomas Jefferson

Again, too much government does not mean a liberal government.

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."
Thomas Jefferson

No mention of liberal government. Consolidation of power and corruption can happen in any government, not just a liberal one.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Thomas (you guessed it) Jefferson

Nothing to do with a liberal government. If anything it is speaking out against government which is appointed by the church or through a royal lineage.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
Thomas Jefferson

It is not that these quotes do not support your idea that make me think you are an idiot or a retard, it is that you are using quotes ALL FROM THE SAME FOUNDING FATHER THAT DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR IDEA!

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
Thomas Jefferson

Same problem as before. Governments getting too large is not strictly a liberal government trait.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
Thomas Jefferson

This might be the closest I have seen so far to making your case, but it falls short. Given the time period, this is more likely to refer to what would happen if Washington acted like a King. In todays political atmosphere you might be able to pass off the argument that this is speaking out against communist/socialism, but those are not the same thing as liberalism.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

You used the same quote twice. This is not helping convince anyone that you are not an idiot.

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

Interesting, but in context the quote does jack shit to prove your argument. This quote is a letter expressing Jefferson's point of view on September 6th, 1824. A quote from a letter of Jefferson's on August 10th, 1824 sheds a bit of context on this quote.
"Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object."
Jefferson was not disgusted with liberal government, he was disgusted with all government as it had become an unnecessarily complex mixture of different parties that all served the same purpose.

You have more quotes, but given that all that I have looked as have been pointless in proving your argument and given the fact that I am bored pointing out the same points over and over and over and... you get the point, I'm going to move on past the Jefferson quotes for now.

"pure goofy liberal lies!! The top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 50% pay just 5%."

As of 2007, the top 1% owned roughly 35% of the nations wealth. The next 19% owned roughly 50%, and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15% of the nations wealth.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The top 1% can afford to pay 40% of all federal income taxes if they own 35% of the nations wealth.

"Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

No shit democrats oppose. Unions were, and still are, detrimental to making sure companies and corporations treat their workers fairly. Prior to unions, numerous corporations and companies had unsafe working conditions and paid their employees wages that they could barely live on. So yay! There are 10 million jobs were workers have no rights or have to means to uphold their rights!

"make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Again, no shit. Without minimum wage jobs you get people working for wages that they cannot support themselves on. ALso, the argument that minimum wage drives prices up is bullshit. If it were the case then inflation would be keeping pace with minimum wage, not passing it and then lapping it again on the track. Horray, 5 million people would have jobs that don't even pay enough for them to buy a fast food meal after working two hours!

"end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Or up regulations and tax United States companies for importing jobs over seas and offer tax incentives for keeping jobs within our borders.

"make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Uh, that does not create jobs, it just makes sure that the dollar does not depreciate quite so quickly... So, no 2 million new jobs...

"make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Again, does not create new jobs. Also, I don't see conservatives really pushing this one either.

"send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

You forgot that the conservatives who are against illegal immigration but also employ illegal workers to take care of their lawn. They oppose this as well, but only because United States citizens cost more to employ.

"cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Government workers is pretty general. Transit workers, teachers, and the like are already underpaid most of the time. Also, I don't see many conservative politicians voting to cut their own paychecks, and cutting the pay of government workers does not really create jobs.

"end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Like the banking regulations that Bush nixed which allowed banks to give out bad loans and balloon loans? Brilliant! Lets get rid of more regulations that protect customers and employees.

"restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

How does that create jobs?

"reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Not only does this not create new jobs, it cuts people who require those services (you know, people who were fired, people who work shitty paying jobs and need to feed their families, and people with health problems that cannot afford medical treatment) off at the proverbial knees.

"privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose"

Privatizing neither works, nor do either create new jobs.

"Amazing how you've been brainwashed isn't it?"

Hi pot, I'm kettle. Nice to mee... the fuck did you call me?

"The founders supported a nation where people worked to earn a living, not sit around, bullshit, and skate by on the money they have taken "

You are referring to people on welfare, right?