Snappy comebacks for your conservative relatives

"the founding principles are in fact liberal"

They are "liberal," yes, but CLASSIC LIBERALISM. There is a huge difference between that and today's "liberalism." Before you respond to this - if you so choose - please first look up "classic liberalism." There used to be a nice summation in Wiki, but please choose any, of course. You will note that people like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek refer to themselves as "liberals," and that "liberal democracy" is quite different from what has evolved.

Today's Liberals, the Modern Liberals, are not a whit like our Founders.

Currently the government IS run to benefit "it's shareholders" who are also known as "Senators and Congressmen." THEY get all the benefits which they reap from the work provided by the working class. So in essence, for now, it IS run as a corporation. They make the decisions that are BEST for the "Shareholders of Corporation Congress," while in the meantime, the rest of us citizens are treated like the minimum wage cashiers at "Corporation U.S. Congress."

OK, after reading lots of replies in this thread, I see Mom just didn't realize how rude some uncles could be. Carry on. I'll keep Mom busy in the sun porch with pictures of all the kids....

Awesome ...

It's like the crazy uncle EVERYONE dreads dealing with during holiday dinners.

So very true ....

You are wrong on every count. I know about FOX news. I have seen it many times. I have seen Rachel Maddow, etc.

The PAT response by Left-wingers to disagreement is as I wrote: They accuse the person of watching FOX. It is not just a coincidence that virtually every Left-winger responds like that. It means they are all parroting some source. It is the chic thing to say, the standard "put down" that Leftists use, and they think that it is clever, but it is mindless because it says nothing. It tells the reader about THEM, that they are copying what the think is clever from the TV.

As far as the BORG goes, I coined it myself, about 3 years ago, and I did it on another forum. It fits perfectly: Left-wingers will never disagree among themselves, no matter how outrageous. Heck, on different forums, Leftists have wished me dead and to have cancer, and no other Liberal ever criticized that, and they even up-voted it! They hate me, and that is fine, but I never see them disagree among themselves. And any liberal who has a rational exchange with me starts getting downvoted and even attacked. Yes, the BORG.

"when you say that "The country is based primarily on negative rights," I fail to see how the protection of it's citizens is negative in any respect at all."

This show that, like a Liberal, you really do not understand our Constitution. Not at all. Understanding of that concept is necessary to understand our form of government, but Left-wingers want to tear down and rebuilt what they do not even freakin' understand!

It consists primarily - if not totally - of negative rights. Lefties like positive rights.

Negative rights are what the government cannot do to you. It cannot summarily take your property, imprison you without a trial, put up soliders in your house, take away your gun, stop you from speaking out against it, etc. Remember, I am referring to the Constitution here.

The positive rights that Left-wingers clamor for are rights that are created, bestowed, or given by your all-loving GOVERNMENT. Not Natural Rights, but GOVERNMENT-CREATED rights. Like the "right" to a decent standard of living, the "right" to a job, the "right" to medical treatment.

I will not tutor you anymore on such subjects. But this is the problem with Left-wingers. They do not even understand what they want to destroy.

"the governments function is to operationalize the Declaration of Independence. It just happens that those individuals are labeled liberal because, in truth, following the tenets set forth by the founders are in fact liberal."

That is classic liberalism. As I wrote, I will not tutor you any more. Just go to Wiki or any other source (Wiki is good on this one) and look up "classic liberalism." Entirely different from today's Liberalism, of course.

And the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration is NOT a call to the welfare state, even though that word, "welfare" is there. It was the country as a whole. Left-wingers focus on particular groups of people and go far beyond what should ever be the responsibility of government.

Mr. W, pity poor Mishima. Fox doesn't allow viewer comments on their 'news' site, so he has to come over here to spout. Which is fine for us, since we get a a FAIR AND BALANCED view of things. This of course is not the case at Fox.

Mishima, how about we take this conversation over to Fox's news site? Oh...that's RIGHT...Fox doesn't allow listener/viewer comments on their site. So you come over here to be 'fair and balanced', but we can't offer alternate viewpoints at Fox's site.
Just remember to thank Current, not Fox, for your right to hold forth.
I am not saying I disagree with all you write, but...there is a difference between Fox and other news outlets, and their tight control of the content on their site should tell you what that difference is.
Remember: Freedom is always only one generation away from extinction. But, a great center-right president once said that, as I am sureyou know.

My comments were about the deceitful and dishonest Rachel MadCow.

There are many non-Leftist sites that have discussion boards. I participate in some, by the way......

Your name-calling devalues your work. You'll make lots more headway without it.

I look at the name you use and I cringe. I know that it would be hopeless to do what YOU think I "should" be doing. All you want me to do is to come around to the leftist worldview. I cannot betray my country, even if I could get GOVERNMENT benefits as Obummer promises. I just cannot do it.

Fox is the banner mainstream news organization in the USA for conservatives. Same with NBC for liberals. NBC (and all other main sites like CBS ABC etc): comments allowed. Fox: NO COMMENTS ALLOWED. Not fair....Not balanced. Don't deflect with your asymmetric comparisons - you're smart enough to know what I'm saying. What was it you said above about deceitfulness and Ms. Maddow?

You hold forth on other sites as well? Really? That's amazing. Where in the heck do you find the time, assuming you comment as profusely as you do here? You might want to think about going outside for some fresh air. You might awaken your inner liberal.

Hey, a quiz: which president boasted about having freed the poor from paying federal taxes? Answer: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

President Obama is far more like Ronald Reagan than any of the horrifying Republican alternatives on offer today. I see you can't let go of the name-calling. The Gipper would be ashamed of your conduct.

The truth will only confuse him.

You might well be right. However, change remains possible for everyone. It's always worth a shot to try to talk someone down off an extremist ledge. Like President Obama says: we rise or fall as a nation, and Mishima is, presumably, an American.

And it's always wise to look in the mirror...it took me years too long myself (partly via inattention) to realize what the Republican party has become - they had me sold on the old myths. But when Mr. Obama came along and was subjected to the protracted viciousness he has had to endure...well, I'd finally had enough. Conservatives would call my taking up Mr. Obama's cause 'white guilt'. I'd call it 'American responsibility'.

"people are actually attempting to enlighten someone who refuses to be enlightened."

That is classic Marxism, reworded in today's language, of course. Used to be referred to by Karl as "critical consciousness," and today's Left-wingers at universities refer to "deconstructionism" and the like. Essentially all the same.

{Mishima mentioned the Constitution of Virginia as evidence that the federal government is founded on Christian principles (NOT), }

Lies. I never said we were "founded" on Christian principles per se. But have you read Montesquieu, Locke, and Blackstone, or even some summaries of them? They all are Christians, and the favorites of our Founders. There is other research, carried out in 1984, that went through 10,000 pages of collected documents of our Founders' writings. The purpose was to quantify the references. The Biblical references were #1.

All this means is that the Founders were Christian, they wanted to not ever have a national church, and many of their ideas and premises had a Christian base.

Notice the times that these posts hit your computer screen. I did not even have time to do one of the typical Left-winger's Google searches. I just pulled everything out of my head because I UNDERSTAND this. I do not parrot TV like the Left-wingers do, then, when I am challenged, go do a Google search and cut and paste. I KNOW this stuff.

Sorry.

And notice how he wrote a 'dissertation' on even more of that selfsame drivel and totally ignored your question?

Spot on !

My God do you see that completely vacuous expression on the REAL turkey?????

YEE HAA !! Thats the ticket.

Then why are you going on line and talking politics?

Wow....just wow!!! Even I took a break. Had a great day too. Looks like you spent a good part of yesterday trolling Current. Hope you had fun.

I have yet to see one single state sign anything saying they wanted to secede. I have seen some dumbasses that say they want to. But they are teabaggers that need to get a clue as to whats best for the country and it's not a republican president.

Umm which governor is wanting to secede can you name one??

Sounds like you've been duped by Faux News and Conservative Talk. Take a hard look at what unpatriotic things you are saying and following.

No, people just have petitiions. Anyone who is involved with these movements - I was in Alaska - know that virtually no person wants to really secede. It is simply a way to protest the freakin' federal government.

Then you lied when you said the states wanted to secede. There are a few people that are brainwashed and feel they are not being treated fair and they want to leave. Well I say Buh By to those people they think they can do better some place else let them leave and never come back.

Stop the "liar" crap. It is distasteful and ugly. I know that there are movements to secede. I do not know the details, nor am I particularly interested. No lying. It is not very important except for one thing: To point out Left-winger mindlessness following of their media. The Left-wingers keep saying this is a reaction to Obummer's reelection. The Liberals say those who take part are racists.

The truth is that these movements have been going on for a long time.

Your LEFT-WINGER media has now decided that it is mediagenic to broadcast it, and the Leftists are running around, making assumptions, screaming racism and radicals on the right. And they are making a mockery of themselves because - for the SIXTH time - these have been going on for decades in many cases.

Heck sir, I just don't know why I would think that? Maybe it's the talking points that are repeated on those stations and talk shows?
Maybe by some chance you are not watching American TV. You said you don't get it, so maybe you're some foreign troll.
More likely you watch, read, or follow something that does follow those sources.
I am not brainwashed buddy. You are. But it's going to be hard for you to accept that so I'm not going to keep trying to show you how you are wrong. One day you'll have to accept that fact and that seems like a task too monumental for me. Enjoy your Thanksgiving =D

"Maybe it's the talking points that are repeated on those stations and talk shows?"

As I wrote, I do not get American TV. But one of the following has to be true:

1. You are watching FOX and such shows. You seem to know what is on them.

2. You are parroting what Rachel Maddow and her ilk are telling you.

3. You have picked up, and are copying, the talking points that Left-wingers use.

You are so firmly entrenched and inculcated with the Left-winger ideology and dogma (and talking points) that you cannot even imagine that a person can get their information from some other source. (" you watch, read, or follow something that does follow those sources. ") You cannot think outside of the LEFT-WINGER box.

Then stop lying and show some proof of what you say.

Facts don't matter to him. He is a republican't and facts are a bother to them.

you can google secession movement and the name of any state

you do it. i ain't an errand boy for left-wingers

It's been going on for longer than decades. I'm pretty sure the south wanted to secede. It was then made illegal to secede. People who don't understand democracy and the concept that we are a functioning republic have been asking to secede forever.

It seems that one 'Mishima' does not receive/watch FOX poisoned news, nor does he watch the Rachel Maddow show, something significantly different.
He (Mishima), knowing little about them, equates the two. A mistake.
One of the information pipelines is sane, the other is not.
Woe to them who cannot distinguish the two. ;)

you sound just like the people you are trying to belittle. Get a life...you fail to see the mote in your own eye

Obviously you didn't read this article before you began your rant. No state has started procedings to seccede from the union. It's only an online petition for those who want to bend the president's ear. Not an actual petition for another civil war (remember how that worked out?)

There is a real fun thing on the internet called EteRNA . It is a science based puzzle that helps you work with about 50 thousand other players to make the world a better place by learning all the possible secrets of RNA. You are prolific and attentive. I think you would like it. In fact I think you may already have been dabling in it. Try it out. Just search the word Eterna.

That sounds like it will work !

Not true. I knew a lot about the secessionist movement when I lived in Alaska. It started in 1973. It was simply a kind of protest. Virtually nobody really wanted to secede, of course. I refer to reality. I saw it up front, and did not form my thoughts based on how the television told me to think.

I do sometimes see FOX and Maddow, but I do not have American TV in my house. Maddow is deceitful and a liar. The classic one was when the market dropped suddenly. The DOW was around 14,000 and it dropped to below 7,000.

Maddow told the viewers that people who invested in stocks lost half of their savings.

That was a manifest lie. A deceitful statement made for malevolent political purposes. I remember being actually shocked, thinking that Left-winger minions watching this would actually believe her deceit and perfidy.

Can you catch the lie, the deceit? Do you see it?

If I am so ....(whatever), why bother to respond to me?

Movements to secede started before there was any freakin' internet. Try to look into these things, and not just parrot what the Liberal media tells you.

I looked a bit. Mostly got Swiss watches. 16 million hits. Did not find it. If you have a link, let me know.

I like TED. I have seen a good number of talks on TED and recommend it to others.

I really can understand your perception of me, but it is based on a number of misperceptions.

I hope you will be able to discuss it, and that you did not post what you did as an attempt at a "sophisticated" manner of insulting and attacking.

First of all, the Left tends to look at policy and political ideas in terms of morals. If one does not agree with them, one is bad, evil, immoral, hateful. Take a look at the posts to me and other Conservatives.

Conservatives tend to look at Liberals in terms of logic.

So, I think that you are viewing my statements through a lens of your concept of "morals" (or "love-hate," etc.), and that is not valid for a multitude of reasons.

Next, you may not choose to believe it, but I compartmentalize. Not via effort, but naturally. When I walk away from discussing politics, I simply go to something else and completely forget. I do not carry it with me.

Next, I do not have hate, but anger at Liberals for destroying our country. That is reasonable and even healthy. To be otherwise would to be blase, not caring, indifferent, and not feeling part of the nation/society.

Finally, I have tremendous love and appreciation for our nation and my own life. If something went amiss - like with health, family, friends, work - I would attend to it. Everything is going extremely well. I now have more time because my children are grown, and I want to pay back the bounty and liberty passed on to me by those who came before. I do not call that hate at all.

I can only go by what you write, Mishima. Based solely on what you have written, I have made the evaluation I made. If that's a bad thing, so sorry. You get what you put out.
Do you really really think your angry, cruel statements are going to have even the slightest positive effect? If so, you don't know Humankind very well. Good journey.

I'm glad you've admitted you're angry.

That's a good first step.

Rick Perry has already come out and said, it aint going to happen. By the way, all of these petitions are as valid as the petition for Austin to secede from Texas.

So, the answer is you can't prove it. That's not a Rachel Maddow statement, its mine.

Mmmmmm...I'd like to see that quote. I don't believe she said that, or at least, not they way you quote. I do believe that depending on individual circumstances, people lost anywhere from 1/4 - 1/3 of the value of their 401k's in the first year. More was lost in 2009, although I don't know how much.

Misinterpretation. It is justified and appropriate anger. That is the kind of anger that one does not want to end or abolish, of course. It is the anger that results from the attacks by the Left on the country that has given them (and me) liberty and prosperity.

On these threads, you and some others may be responding to the present economic situation, and even "Bush." My quarrel with Left-wingers was from before that, and it has almost NOTHING to do with today's economic situation. The Left-wingers have been trying to destroy everything decent, honorable, righteous and great about the United States of America for over a half-century.

Before the Cold War, and since the early 20th century, the Progressives wanted to end our republic and Constitutional form of government, but they did not DISPARAGE, DEMEAN AND DEFILE America. That started with the New Left (and just a bit of the Old Left) during the Cold War. The New Left and today's Left-wingers direct their vitriol and malevolence at America in every way conceiveable - the culture, the religious organizations, states' powers, the very Founding itself. Our Founders, according to the freakin' Leftists, are to be viewed through the lens of race and genocide and greed.

Yes, their attempts to poison our youth with this cancer does make me angry alright.

"Do you really really think your angry, cruel statements are going to have even the slightest positive effect?"

You are assuming that you know what my goals are. That is not possible. You do not know me. I am not here for the same reasons you are here, so please do not make any assumptions about my motivations and goals.

"So, the answer is you can't prove it. That's not a Rachel Maddow statement, its mine."

Can't prove what? Please reference your posts. Thanks.

Maddow did. I can actually remember where I was when she carried out her deceit, misleading her followers.

" I do believe that depending on individual circumstances, people lost anywhere from 1/4 - 1/3 of the value of their 401k's in the first year. More was lost in 2009, although I don't know how much."

Let's just assume, for the sake of seeing if you understand what I wrote, that Maddow or someone said that when the DOW suddenly dropped from 14,000 to under 7,000, that those who owned stocks lost ABOUT 1/2 of their savings (assuming they were in general stocks, overall, etc.). Is it wrong and deceitful to say that to the public?

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, Mishima.

God Bless.

How do you have the nerve to tell someone who is calling out your bullshit that it is "distasteful and ugly" when you have been calling everyone (including the sitting US President) names. The only thing that is distasteful and ugly is your continued presence on this site.

I would prefer to stick to concepts. Perhaps you could propose some topic of interest.

TED talks are the best!

Simply not true, eh? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/14/hannity-and-drudge-give-credence-to-post...

For all your ranting, you forget the tenet - "..life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." This has already been debated and shown in courts, in congress, through countless lawmakers and processes to include the rights you would deny. Shame on you for being so unpatriotic.

It is not mean that the government is to provide health care in that pursuit. It meant that the person and property would be protected in order for the person to pursue the happiness he sees fit. Do you know that the "pursuit of happiness" was initially the "pursuit of property?"

lol... again, you are misinformed.. It did not say property. That was what John Locke said in his treatise and he clarified it to mean "life, liberty, HEALTH, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things", and Jefferson drew inspiration from it, but changed it to pursuit of happiness because Ben Franklin and him agreed that property was not the right idea they wanted people to think of, before the draft was even made.

I know you did not say property. Can't you freakin' read? I said that it is not government duty to provide things like health care and such. The primary duties, as our Founders envisoned it, were to protect life and property. Got it now?

First of all, I do know how to read but you don't it seems. I was responding to your question asking me if I knew that it originally said property. LOL looks like you don't know how to read...

Second, you said it yourself... LIFE! Can't have life if healthcare costs are so high that people can't afford basic healthcare. Silly brainwashed person.

Wrong....it IS the function of the government to provide for the welfare of the PEOPLE. Read the Dec. of Independance and the Constitution. I also noticed you post a picture of St. Ronnie who is a TRAITOR. Tells me your a fool'

"LIFE! Can't have life if healthcare costs are so high that people can't afford basic healthcare."

Absurd. That is an illogical stretch that would require an imagination so extreme that... (never mind).

Protection from others' harming one's life, not getting medical treatment. If you think that medical care is part of the "welfare clause" in our Constitution, I sincerely suggest you re-read some discussions that were taking place at the time. It has no relation at all, absolutely none.

"....it IS the function of the government to provide for the welfare of the PEOPLE."

For the entire country, all of the people, not special groups. If we look at it logically or sensibly, then, the Left-wingers are saying that the "general welfare" means medical care. It is absurd and totally incongruous with the intent during the Founding. First of all, just take that to its logical extension: It would mean every personal need to make us feel good and be healthy. Do we burden the taxpayers with giving people counseling, for example? How about $ for fitness clubs? Heck, one cannot really be healthy unless one exercises. Let's add juicers and vitamins while we are at it. Have the government pay for massages. Heck, they actually do that in Europe, at least the freakin' socialized medicine where I lived.

The "general welfare clause" was not even discussed much at the Convention. The ORIGINAL phrase was, in part, "the legislature shall fulfill the engagements and discharge the debts of the U.S." Later in the convention the phrase "common defense and general welfare" were added and INITIALLY REJECTED! That was because the delegates considered it REDUNDANT!

It was Sherman who was largely responsible, and he spoke to it and said that "the objects of the Union...were few." He referred to four objects: Defense, internal disputes, treaties, and "regulating foreign commerce, and drawing revenue from it." CONTINUING..."All other matters....would be much better in the hands of the states."

David Ramsey of South Carolina explained this part, referring to the "general concerns of the UNION," not individuals.

Madison said concerning the general welfare that "the general purposes themselves were limited....to understand these terms in any sense, that would....give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supercede all the powers reserved to the state governments."

All the GENERAL WELFARE clause is the ability of the central government to collect taxes for things ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the preservation of DEFENSE, STABILITY, AND LIBERTY.

"it’s to help as many people as possible live long, healthy lives and to fund the programs that make that possible."

Why is this inconsistent with "...the general welfare..."?

Why was it changed?

To conceive of the government as being responsible to pay for medical treatment as part of the "general welfare" clause is quite absurd. I explained it above. It is obvious that it was not anyplace near the conception that our Founders had.

But Left-wingers want a welfare state, a Europeanized America, and they want to attack the free market and have the central authority manage and control the economy and the society, so - from that distorted and UNAmerican worldview - the Left-wingers think that we not only have ObummerCare with insurance, but these traitors will eventually demand UNIVERSAL healthcare.

"Why was it changed?"

Why was what changed? Please reference your posts. Thanks.

It was found by deists on deist principles. Facts.

America’s earliest settlements were Protestant enterprises.

In the First Charter of Virginia, the colonists declared goal was to “spread the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness.”

The first six words of the Mayflower Compact: “In the name of God, Amen.” It also contained the purpose, “having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith.”

The goals of the Charter of Maryland in 1632 included, “extending the Christian Religion.

“We all came into these parts of America…to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
-New England Confederation, 1643

“The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses [are to] be a rule to all the courts.”
-New Haven Colony, 1644

Quakers in North Carolina, 1653 stated their purpose, “the propagation of the Christian faith.”

In Rhode Island in`1663, the charter had that the goals were to be “grounded upon gospel principles.”

The charters of Georgia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey included statements of Christian goals. Preamble to the Connecticut one: “there should bee an orderly and decent government established according to God…[and to]… preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” In the New Hampshire one, they included, “in the name of Christ.”

In the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639, the assembly declared: “The word of God requires…to preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

HAHAHAHA!!! That proves it.
You clearly want to be a British colonial citizen. Everything you said were principles and charters laid out by the British rule prior to the foundation of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

Just for your information, while we might be celebrating Thanksgiving today, for the arrival of the pilgrims the New World, the USA was founded in 1776, when we declared independence from all these charters and the religious authority of the Anglican church, and implemented the constitution, which included the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion which has been shown to include freedom from religion in governance.