More proof it's time for a change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

coming from someone who is completely irrational.....

Who said that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump wouldn't be noticeably different than Obama?

People are giving a big Eff Eue to mainstream politics and politicians. Who is to say what the Super Delegates had been in Bernie's favor. I kinda wish it was him -v- Trump.

Sure wish the GOP had Super Delegates...

Benghazi Report:
Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]


Or Stockholm Syndrome - anyone check on him? See if Anthony Wiener has him hostage or something?

Would you like me to nuke this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet Hilary knows where you can tuck it away....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim thats your issue you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . Fall river was once also a shinny example a great place to live as was new bedford springfield Lynn and other areas in RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face

here is 1 example Polaroid employs 6,700 employees worldwide, more than half of whom work in eastern Massachusetts.
Polaroid will be shutting down two of its three major manufacturing locations in Massachusetts, leaving one location in New Bedford still running. Polaroid also announced last week its plans to eliminate health benefits and insurance payments to some retirees, many of whom live in Cambridge and surrounding areas.the company moved ahead with plans to give top executives millions of dollars in retention bonuses.


you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry in all those areas the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave

many here speak of liberalism as the country's demise if in these past 50 years a republican hasn't sat in the white house or been in control of the both house's ?

13 US presidents since World War ll
7 Democrats and 6 Republicans

jim you do make some valid points the only issue is not all your points and facts represent the whole picture or stand up to closer scruinty. when presented as "the reasons" you claim them to be

yet again you fall back on the black community as evidence of the issues with liberalism lets bring back the 50's I bet those black communities were also a utopia

"you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . "

Liberals, including the ones here, have a REALLY hard time responding to what is actually said. I never said those places were "utopias". I said they were all better when I was a kid, than they are now. I have never actually heard anyone dispute that.

"RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face"

I can say that with a straight face, because liberals are the ones who have been running these cities. If a city is run by liberals for 40 years, and that city becomes a sh*thole, who should we blame? Sarah Palin?

Leadership owns the results, right? Most of our large cities, at least with large black populations, are run by liberal Democrats. And most are sh*tholes that no one would choose to live in.

How can you deny that with a straight face?

How about, instead of insulting me, you tell me, specifically, where I am wrong?

"you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry "

No, I don't. I agree 100% that some cities are not doomed by bad public policy, but by economic issues that they have no control over.

But a lot of those cities were doomed because liberals made those cities very hard to live in for people who want to succeed, and very easy to live in for people who want welfare. Then, liberals compound the problem by telling those on welfare that nothing is their fault, that they are victims of the white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit. That compounds the problem. Well, when that happens, the people who produce will leave, and all you are left with are the ones who need help. That has also plagued many of our cities, and that's a direct effect of liberalism.


"the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave "

CORRECT! But what you don't see, is that in many cases, the people who left, did so because liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable. I know white collar people who would love to live in New Haven or Hartford, but they say it's way too expensive, which it is.

People didn't flee Hartford and New Haven for the suburbs, because one company left. They did so, because liberalism made those cities very dangerous, and very expensive.

Calling me an idiot, doesn't make that wrong.

Jim again I'll make it easy
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.

liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable wow ...

1970 detroit %55.50 white %53.98 black

2010 %10.61 white %82.69 Black

the first and second Great Migrations of African Americans from the Southern United States between 1910 and 1980 increased Detroit's African American population by over 100 times.[1] From the 1940s to the 1970s a second wave of Blacks moved to Detroit to escape Jim Crow laws in the south and find jobs.[15]

The White population of the city peaked in 1950 and then steadily declined due to white flight, net outmigration through 2010.[1] The white population has fallen 95% between the 1950 and 2010 censuses.

Theres a name for it

White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of people of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions.

Liberalism did this? ok

"Liberalism did this?"

Yes.

Skin color isn't what determined who left. Economic health determined who left. Poor whites remain in those cities, and self-sufficient blacks fled.

So, what caused people who could take care of themselves, to want to flee? The fact that city life became unattractive. What made city life unattractive? The preponderance of criminals and people on welfare, which drives up taxes. What made those cities attractive to criminals and welfare queens? Liberalism.

WDMSO, do you admit that most of our horrible cities, have been led by liberals for years? Or do you just deny any connection?

Lots of young people in their 20s (who don't have kids yet) would love to live in cities, if they were safer and cheaper. What makes them expensive and dangerous, is liberalism. Policies that reward sloth and punish hard work.

Except changing slavery, segregation, getting AIDS medicine to huge numbers of Africans, etc...

We don't oppose change. We oppose stupid and destructive change. We embrace beneficial change.

Too many black kids are born to single parent households. Conservatives support policies that will change that. Liberals deny that it's a problem, instead blaming the effects on white cops.

Too many public schools stink. Conservatives support a change to school choice. Liberals oppose that, because it means less money will go to public teachers unions, which means lower campaign contributions to Democrats.

How many changes do you want that conservatives endorse, before you will concede your statement is incorrect?

I think what WDMSO (i.e. whining divisive maligned stupid obstacle) is really trying to say is that liberal policies designed to inhibit small business and enslave poor people distracted Polaroid so much they were blindsided by the digital camera.

They make digital cameras
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I really can't believe you just posted that. What's your addy? I'm going to have this post engraved and mounted on an heirloom quality plaque for your kids...

Add this in to the engraving....

http://www.polaroid.com/products/Z2300-instant-camera
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll make two copies. What's your addy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I understand why you let Hillary slide all the time.....

Or is the part where it says "Digital Camera" taken out of context?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

QUOTE=wdmso;1108826]Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Classical liberalism is closer to that view than modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is expressed succinctly in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. In the classical sense, liberty is the individual's right to live his/her own life in the way he/she sees fit, and is free to do or say whatever he wishes so long as it doesn't deprive others of the same freedom, or so long as it doesn't directly and actually harm someone else. And equality is solely before the law. Classical liberals have no pretentions of any other equality or of equal outcome for all. In classical liberalism liberty and equality (except equality before the law) are actually antithetical--equality of outcome, of view on life, of action or anything other than before the law must be forced and actually limits or destroys liberty.

Modern liberalism is closer to Marxian philosophy wherein equality is expressed in group or collective rights more than in individual rights. Its notion of liberty is that which is regulated by society or, more accurately, by government. It is weighted more toward equality rather than liberty. And its version of equality goes well beyond that of classical liberalism. It seeks to impose an equality of thought and outcome on the masses, breaking down the privilege of the few or of one defined group over another. Its tendency is to limit or eventually to eliminate private property. The modern liberal sees property as owned by the community (the village and ultimately the State). It views personal success as being made possible by the functions of government (the State) rather than by the efforts of individuals.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
[/QUOTE]

Just as current-day "liberals" are not really liberal, at least not in the classical sense, "conservatives" are not really conservative. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" are offshoots of the original classical liberalism, but they both got to where they are today through the founding era of progressivism. One is just more progressively to the "left" than the other. The difference has been described as a sociological one rather than a philosophical one which is based on first principles, or on principles at all.

If there is such a thing as an American classical political conservative, it would, in my opinion, be one who wishes to conserve the founding principles of this country, which primarily includes the Constitution and the constitutional order which was entirely based on classical liberalism.

Modern "conservatives" profess doing so while at the same time often acting like progressives and even like "liberals" but from different sociological or economic views.

If you're really in favor of true (classical) liberalism you should want to conserve our Constitution and fight against its subversion and destruction. The paradox is that such "conservatism" (more properly called neo-classical liberalism) would preserve, or re-institute, real liberalism by "favo[ring] . . . [nationally-defined rule of law]) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical change [in our system of government]" Such a conservatism would restore individual liberty and equality before the law.

Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, what about the majority of large cities that have gone down the toilet, and it has nothing to do with one company or industry leaving? What's the common thread there?

What makes these cities so unattractive, to people who work and make a living? And what makes these cities so attractive, to people who want to commit crimes and live off welfare?

Sure - I pulled my quote off the Benghazi report from Congress.gov - You gotta Hillary memo or something? Private email? Did you strategically message it for her?

Look I understand about Polaroids bankruptcies and how the company isnt really Polaroid anymore and that Polaroid digital cameras are for the most part made in China now .... Vote Trump 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device