WTH are we becoming?
 

Used to be the USA was known as the land of Freedom, Opportuity and Compassion.
A days pay for a days work.

Seems the Progressives want us to become the land of FREE milk and honey all
on the backs of the workers. Freakin bunch of ninnies, now put your gloves on
children it's cold out, don't eat too much sugar, sit on your tail, we will take good
care of you and give you the latest Iphone and 52 in TV. All you have to do is
vote for us to be in power and then we will tell you what's good for you.

Too bad Obama didn't move to center rather than have his own, can't we just all
be fair, agenda. Like it's fair that the people who work provide free stuff for the people who don't want to work.

For the most part Obama has led from the center and that's been the problem. Had he led from the Left the GOP would have been in a position of forced compromise and taken some ownership over governance the past three years.

Instead he's led with middle positions which left himself open to attacks from both sides.

When people claim that we're becoming less free perhaps they should think of what else could be. Remember that regulation tends to be reactive, at times perhaps over-reactive for sure, but it's a response to forces the individual can't defend against.

Sugar...Hasn't it been big business that's infected our food supply with high-fructose corn syrup primarily because it's cheap and leads to larger profits? I'd note that consumer choices here have perhaps led to a few more options but not really modeled the macro behavior of producers. If anything they've just become more skilled at hiding where their profit margins come from.

-spence

We are either well on our way, or are already at the desired end result.. those that truly run/own the country, be it hiding behind the tag left, right, liberal, conservitive, etc. want.. a Nation Polarized and Divided.. how else does the all powerful conquer, than to divide... FOX... MSNBC.. blame them all.. oldest political rule in the book.. divide and conquer.... unity and an informed and educated electorate.. .that would never work for the owner/rulers..



keep stirring the pot..it's boiling over.

but know this.. there is not a decent human being left involved in politics...with possibly one exception.. and most would say he is a loony...due to the preachings of both the left and the right... I'll pass on mentioning his name.. would only make the pot spew all over the stove top :rolleyes:..after all god forbid anyone has an opinion

It is not out of Constitutional bounds for government agencies to inform the public about the dangers of food additives, and leave it up to individuals how to deal with it.

God forbid ways of cutting costs to make a better profit.
Let the buyer beware, people CAN educate themselves if they choose.
There must be a Govt. flyer somewhere that gives people that information. :hihi:

Come on Karl, tell us his name, or at least PM me.:D
I know one guy too, but he doesn't play the game and could never
make it to the top either.

S#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g nutritional value out of food to cut costs then marketing in often misleading ways to increase revenues helps nobody but the shareholders.

-spence

Actually, it "helps" out quite a few others such as the employees, the retailers and their employees, the governments in tax returns, but I get your point. I have been avoiding foods with high fructose corn syrup for years, and I have informed my family and friends of its reported dangers. I, nor they, have not had a problem getting nutritious food without the stuff. In fact, my major problem, and I'm not wealthy, probably lower middle-class, is too much good nutritious food. Overeating is probably as much or more of a problem in this country than the particular foods we eat. And making boogymen out of "evil" corporations and victims out of an ill-informed public in order to unconstitutionally regulate us is far worse than the dangers of high fructose corn syrup.

That's why I said, let the buyer beware and anyway aren't you supposed
to be keeping the Dow over 13,000? :)

I think a leftist position on health care would have been for single payer a line that Obama avoided. Many of the controversial provisions of the actual bill have been proposed by Republicans over the past several decades.

Also supported by many Republicans as a matter of national interest. Of course, I'm taking a relative view here recognizing that some would say those same Republicans had shifted to the Left.

Not sure there is one, the spectrum sort of falls apart here.

I think the desire to raise taxes is born more from a matter of need to pay the bills that a punitive effort to soak the rich. The 250K threshold is there precisely because there is concern over economic impact.

What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?[/QUOTE]
By that I meant we would have increased joint ownership over policy rather than simple opposition.

Unelected regulators are still appointed by elected officials and their bias shifts along with the electorate.

I'd note that polls pretty consistently show a majority favoring much government regulation that you'd probably find unappealing.

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence

By that I meant we would have increased joint ownership over policy rather than simple opposition.

That could be said for all administrations. Everbody acquiesce to the Presidents wishes to create "joint ownership" over policy. So what's the point of parties, of opinion, of alternate policies? After the election, the President rules as he wishes. Pretty much the preferred outcome of progressive ideology. And if the President's policies are damaging?

Unelected regulators are still appointed by elected officials and their bias shifts along with the electorate.

As I've said before, both parties and the SCOTUS are in for this administrative system. And though the regulators are appointed by elected officials, they are basically on their own with nudges by the President to rule without the advise or consent of neither the people nor the elected officials. They are fiefdoms with legislative, executive, and judicial power-- Madison's definition of tyranny.

I'd note that polls pretty consistently show a majority favoring much government regulation that you'd probably find unappealing

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence[/QUOTE]

On the one hand you're saying the individual isn't very responsible, on the other hand we should be persuaded by polls that show a majority of individuals favoring something. One of the main objectives of early progressivism in this country was to shape public opinion through education, propaganda, creating a public will, and then presenting the administration that carries out that will. Woodrow Wilson said in his 1886 "Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

Under a system of individual responsibility, the individual should bare the weight of poor individual decisions. The progressive nanny state does not allow individuals to suffer their free choice to destroy their own life. The State must regulate individuals in such a way that individuals are free from harm. Thus individuals will have the protection of a proscribed "effective" liberty rather than suffer the dangers of far less limited Constitutional "legal" liberty. Woodrow Wilson also said in his 1887 "Socialism and democracy":

"The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory. . . For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialsim and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be; limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

I didn't read the whole thread but the only way I know how to answer the initial question...

"WTH are we becoming?"
The only answer is "Pathetic".

A country that posts random rhetoric on a fishing site on the interblab :huh:

this reaches a whole new level of creepiness...

you could justify virtually anything on this basis....particularly if you believe the individual is subordinate to the state and not the other way around.....

I'm pretty sure that most of the planets evil dictators and oppressive regimes have operated under this premise.....depending on your definition of "poor individual decisions"...right?

It's only creepy if you take some irrational view that the Government is trying to control every aspect of our lives. The simple fact is that the mundane decisions of the mass might not always drive a positive result as there will always be biases.

To be honest I don't think most people are really aware of how their lives are really shaped by others.

-spence

Ya, but that parts fun. :D

That is so true of those who live unexamined lives. And of those who accept the good intentions, or, at least the good promises, of politicians without holding the implementation of those intentions to the fire of the law and what that law, the Constitution allows. Such ignorance leads to rule by bias and the tyranny of the majority over the individual. And groups populated by powerless individuals are groups subervient to the ultimate power of the State. That is the intention of progressive ideology. If that is what we want, may that intention, and its effect, always be good.

or under the irrational view that they're not :uhuh:

I'm pretty sure that I can make a far stronger case that they are than you can make that they aren't :uhuh: