Hilary, the Democrats, and the media

[Sea Dangles]

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's OK when she flip-flops, when she offers explanations that are (1) clearly not based on all the facts, and (2) also happened to be very self-serving (don't blame me, it was a spontaneous response to a video, it wasn't anything we could have predicted)

She claims she was confused about sniper fire, because she was "tired". Well, if she gets elected POTUS, she won't always be able to get 10 hours of sleep. So if we believe that she was just tired (an no one believes that), why shouldn't we concerned that if she's tired in the future, she won't confuse a girl scout selling cookies with a sniper, and yell at her Secret Service agents "there's a sniper! Shoot her!".

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are a liberal, in which case you can have it as many ways as is convenient for you.

[wdmso]

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

"I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. "

Right. Because since you agree with them, it's OK when they are unfair or dishonest. Yu only expect those with whom you disagree, to play by the rules.

"the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future "

You're god damn right I want to go back in time. As I said, I remember when it was fun and safe to visit cities like Hartford and New Haven. I remember when it was expected that families would stay in tact, and that people took a long term view of things, rather than acting only on what feels good right now. If that's progress, you can keep it.

So according to you, what has happened in cities like Chicago over the last 50 years is "progress".

When what's in front of you is a cliff, I don't see how driving forward at 100 mph is a good thing.

Anyway, I made a ton of valid points, using actual historical facts to support my positions, and naturally, the best you could do is come back with a vague insult that I am afraid of the future, and therefore regressive, and therefore I am inferior.

Not a single fact, not even a specific opinion, to refute one syllable I typed.

When we can point to things in the past that actually worked and bore fruit, is it really bad to endorse a return to those things? Especially when you can point to the horrible effects of liberalism?

WDMSO, exactly how bad do things have to get in the black community, before liberals conclude, that liberalism isn't working? How much worse do things have to get, before you can agree, that the policies embraced in our cities, in any black area for that matter, are simply bad policies?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. "

Right. Because since you agree with them, it's OK when they are unfair or dishonest. Yu only expect those with whom you disagree, to play by the rules.

"the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future "

You're god damn right I want to go back in time. As I said, I remember when it was fun and safe to visit cities like Hartford and New Haven. I remember when it was expected that families would stay in tact, and that people took a long term view of things, rather than acting only on what feels good right now. If that's progress, you can keep it.

So according to you, what has happened in cities like Chicago over the last 50 years is "progress".

When what's in front of you is a cliff, I don't see how driving forward at 100 mph is a good thing.

Anyway, I made a ton of valid points, using actual historical facts to support my positions, and naturally, the best you could do is come back with a vague insult that I am afraid of the future, and therefore regressive, and therefore I am inferior.

Not a single fact, not even a specific opinion, to refute one syllable I typed.

When we can point to things in the past that actually worked and bore fruit, is it really bad to endorse a return to those things? Especially when you can point to the horrible effects of liberalism?

WDMSO, exactly how bad do things have to get in the black community, before liberals conclude, that liberalism isn't working? How much worse do things have to get, before you can agree, that the policies embraced in our cities, in any black area for that matter, are simply bad policies?

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

[ecduzitgood]

The short list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c45e7107db1a
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is sad, Hillary, in Trump, has the one person she could probably beat in an election. Trump, in Hillary, has someone so unfavorable that he has a chance making sh!t up as he goes along.

We, the people, get the government we deserve, not the government we need.

[Nebe]

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just used that same analogy last week about a co-worker....must be common denominator in all her supporters..

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I work with a guy who is a die hard Hilary Supporter....and I swear to god its like talking to a victim of some deranged form of Domestic Abuse....

They deny that the other person lied or did anything terrible in the past, even though deep down inside they know its true. But going forward they know everything is going to be OK because they've changed.

Then they do something terrible again, but they said they were sorry and didn't really mean it, but it's going to be OK because they promised that it will never happen again.....and they still love them and are certain they are going to change...Just wait and see

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's an awful lot like battered wife syndrome...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That quote was the sniper shot that Spence had hoped to dodge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, I know a lot of Berners who are having trouble these days.

Hell, it looks like even Bush 41 is with her...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...hillary-228395

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny, I know a lot of Berners who are having trouble these days.

Hell, it looks like even Bush 41 is with her...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...hillary-228395

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

Who said that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

Trump wouldn't be noticeably different than Obama?

[Nebe]

I knew I liked you DF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can only help him if he wants to help himself....

Might have to get an intervention going....

[Jim in CT]

As reported by a Kennedy. God knows none of them are subject to moral lapses.

If it's true, it's a sign of what we are all saying - Trump is a rotten human being. I haven't seen a single person here deny that. Not one.

You are the one in denial. What's your harshest criticism of her, anyway? That she's so beautiful, some people might not appreciate her true genius?

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that... is critical of proposals for radical social change.

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?

[detbuch]

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.