Who has the guts-

[justplugit]

to put this in place?

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strenghten the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot further the Brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and
independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.
Lincoln

The Libs got it all arse backwards.

[Karl F]

not Lincoln

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little… I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-nourished."
FDR 1937

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Karl F

not Lincoln

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little… I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-nourished."
FDR 1937

I would agree with that Karl , imho we are not doing enough to help the real
needy and way too much to help those that are able bodied and are
milking the system.

It's like the guy who asks for $5 for food for his family, if I give it to him and that's the case I gave him too little,
if he's spending it on "other stuff", I gave him too much.

[justplugit]

Whoops, looks like i misqouted Lincoln as the author of Lincoln's Creed.
Karl brought to my attention it was written by Rev. William Boetkner and
was mixed in with a political phamphlet with other Lincoln qoutes around
1916. Therefore the confusiion.
Boetkner was a wise man,his 8 cannots attributed to Lincoln were right on.

[spence]

I think it highlights some of the problems with absolutes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it highlights some of the problems with absolutes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, absolutes are perfect and complete and politicians and humans are imperfect.
But to the degree that these are tracks that are run on, success follows.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it highlights some of the problems with absolutes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really--oh, is that an absolute? A problem with absolutes is if you're worried about appearing to speak in absolutes, you might refrain from speaking. I didn't get the impression that either justplugit's quotes or Karl F's were intended to be absolutes. As justplugit said, they are tracks to run on. When we run on our chosen tracks, they are fraught with choice, opinion, experience, consequence, and the host of possibilites that individual runners bring. If each had first to decide that his track was absolute rather than a direction, he might never get started.

Karl F's and justplugit's quotes present different, somewhat contradictory tracks. The interesting thing would be to discuss the differences rather than creating an absolute strawman and dismissing it as problematic.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The interesting thing would be to discuss the differences rather than creating an absolute strawman and dismissing it as problematic.

Many liberals, in my opinion, have zero interest in discussing the differences. They prefer to call you a racist, usually at the top of their lungs, rather than discuss the differences.

Because a comon sense discussion of the differences makes liberalism seem silly and foolish.

Let's talk about who has a greater right to live - an unborn baby, or a convicted murderer who has had due process (apologies to Johnny D for bringing this up)

Let's talk about whether or not it makes sense to pay people to not work, and to pay teenage girls to have kids out of wedlock.

Let's talk about whether or not rich people cause other people's poverty.

Let's talk about whether or not we can put a dent in a $16 trillion debt by tweaking tax rates on the super-wealthy.

Let's talk about whether or not it makes sense, in the post 09/11 world, to regulate who comes into our country.

Let's talk about whether or not it's "oppressive" to ask voters to verify their identity at the voting booth. How is this one even controversial? Yet liberals go off the deep end at the mention of the idea...

Let's talk about whether or not we have a problem with Islamic radicals.

Let's talk about whether Paul Ryan sincerely wants to fix social security and medicare, or whether he really wants old people and poor people to fall off a cliff and die.

Let's talk about whether or not members of labor unions are so much more important than everyone else, that we bankrupt ourselves to give them benefits that we will never see in our lifetimes.

Let's talk about whether or not the house republicans are opposed to "fast and furious" just because Eric Holder is black.

It's mysterious to me how anyone supports liberalism. I think liberals are correct on gun control, and I think they make a good argument for gay marriage. Other than that, their platforms are not merely wrong, they are stupifyingly absurd. I don't get how they can be so wrong, so often.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The interesting thing would be to discuss the differences rather than creating an absolute strawman and dismissing it as problematic.

I would really like to see a real discussion on why the 8 Cannots listed
would or wouldn't work as policy.

[Clammer]

JPI

Just get off ya F #^&#^&#^&#^&#^& ass & do something

get laid all day & you won,t worry about #^&#^&#^&#^& ya can,t control ><><>

Over & Out

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Clammer

JPI

Just get off ya F #^&#^&#^&#^&#^& ass & do something

get laid all day & you won,t worry about #^&#^&#^&#^& ya can,t control ><><>

Over & Out

LOL, a first, I knew I'd get ya in here sooner or later.

Best advice I've seen in a long time..

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I would really like to see a real discussion on why the 8 Cannots listed
would or wouldn't work as policy.

I will try but my life is so freaking crazy right now all I could prioritize was this lame post

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I will try but my life is so freaking crazy right now all I could prioritize was this lame post

-spence

I hear ya Spence, not enough time in the day anymore and here we
are at the end of June already.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Karl F

not Lincoln

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little… I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-nourished."
FDR 1937

This is not FDR's democratic party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

to put this in place?

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strenghten the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot further the Brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and
independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.
Lincoln

The Libs got it all arse backwards.

it's not complicated, the "libs"-progressives...believe that your "cannonts" are absolutely "cans", if , and only if, they are allowed to oversee the system of doing things with their superior intellect and ideaology.....I don't know that they "got it all arse backwards"...they simply have a different definition of "Justice" and an overinflated sense of self...and this is not new...it can be traced all the way back to Plato's Republic, Socrates and the writing's of Aristotle...the left elects "Philosopher Kings" whose rehtoric is far more important than accomplishment and who seek to instill "justice" as they define it into every aspect of your life...the ends justifiy the means because they are, of course, seeking justice...as they define it...this mission of bringing about justice frees them from any bonds or bounds in their fight..as you may have noticed

the current president may be the most shining example that we've seen as someone who with his assumed or bestowed intellect, remarkable lack of accomplishment and driven by an ideaology which frees him, in his mind, from any sense of accountability and which has now placed himself in a very precarious position...because he, in fact, believes that ..."Yes, He Can" despite all of the evidence to the contrary and that little thing called reality...oh, and the Constitution


VDH has brilliantly chronicled this...

Obama, Story-Teller - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

VDH has brilliantly chronicled this...

Obama, Story-Teller - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

That was a hell of an article, I'd like to see Spence, or even better Paul S, respond to that...

"In Obama’s mind, his minority status and left-wing politics trump any appearance of disingenuousness; he can slur the wealthy in the abstract while courting them and living like them in the concrete. And in our topsy-turvy world, to cite such hypocrisy is racist, whereas using race to seek exemption is not"

Try making that wrong...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

This is not FDR's democratic party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You damn right it's not. The left was making a big deal recently, about the idiotic notion that the GOP is so radically conservative, that even Reagan would have not be welcomed there today. That's demonstrably false, and here is the proof. In 2008 and 2012, the GOP's presidential nominees were far less conservative than Reagan.

In my parents' generation, it was unthinkable for a Catholic to not vote Democrat. Today, I don't see how anyone who claims to be Catholic can even consider voting for a Democrat at the national level. The Catholic catechism has not changed since then, but the platforms of the Democratic party sure have. In the 1960's, the Democratic party abandoned traditional family values for the radicalism that came about from the opposition to the Vietnam War and the sexual revolution.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I would really like to see a real discussion on why the 8 Cannots listed
would or wouldn't work as policy.

They have worked as policy during the 150 years of this nation before progressives were finally able under FDR to begin truly transforming this country in their vision as expressed by Karl F's FDR quote:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little . . ."

Your 8 cannots are born of the same liberation and supremacy of the individual that spurred this nation's founding and the creation of its Constitution.

Karl F's quote reflects the progressivists' collectivist anti-constitutional administrative philosophy of government and the individual's dependence and subservience to the government. It begins with "THE test of our progress"--not "A" test or marker. Then "is not whether we add more to the abundance"--it is "we," collective society and government, who add to the abundance "of those who have", and it is not provided by the individuals themselves "who have too much . . ." Finally "it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little . . ." Again, it is the "we" who must provide "for those," not the "those" themselves. Of course, what is too much, or too little, is measured by the "we." And every "crisis" becomes fodder for more power to be transferred from the helpless individual to the expert, benevolently powerful "we."

Your 8 cannots will not work in conjunction with Karl F's quote because individualism and the constitution are obstructions to the power of the "we."