• LIBERALS WANT THEIR VERY

    From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to SEAN DENNIS on Tue May 17 23:01:58 2011

    *** Quoting Mark Hofmann from a message to Sean Dennis ***

    There are a few of us rebels up here that aren't on the bandwagon.

    Oh, I know, but people like yourself are unfortunately very
    few and far between. There is an echo I frequent in
    Fidonet that is full of liberals from the Northeast and
    many of them are old enough to be a parent of mine. I have

    Which echo is that? Full of liberals? Don't know of any such.

    been castigated a few times when I dare speak up about
    their incessant liberal whining (oddly enough, the echo
    rules stipulate that there isn't supposed to be
    any political discussion, but these people manage to put
    their political twist on everything that gets posted).

    Oh, a non-political echo?

    I just find it funny that there are no younger people in
    there who are liberal-I'm just wondering if it's a case of
    old views dying with their holders.

    The young have given up hope. They have bought too many of the
    conservative lies.

    ...

    That is normal though that people in cities are more
    liberal since many of the city's population are
    professional welfare receipients and they dare not bite the
    hand that keeps them captive in poverty...er, I mean feeds

    Now, that has got to big the biggest pile of fraud I've seen in
    Fido in a long time.

    Ever hear of a secret ballot?

    BTW, there are more welfare recipients in rural areas than big
    cities.

    them. A very good example is southern Illinois, which I
    found during my time living there that a majority of the
    population is "red" and really resents having to deal with
    Chicago since that's the only place that Springfield
    (state's capitol) seems to listen to.

    The Chicago suburbs are larger than the city by far.

    ...

    how ignorant the state legislature becomes when the great
    Chicago political machine buys off the legislature and
    keeps it in Chicago's back pocket.

    The Chicago political machine is nothing compared to downstate,
    the suburbs, and the outer cities and small towns. Just too damn
    many of those small town people and rural people who are smart
    enough to vote democratic.

    ...

    we're a "red" state through and through right now with
    Republicans holding a majority

    IOW, as things go to hell you deserve it, cause you inflicted it
    on the rest of us.

    in the state government and the governor's office currently.

    It makes the very liberal "higher education" population
    that rots in my town uncomfortable to no end. It's kinda

    So, you are saying educated people are "liberal". You might take
    that as a hint.

    funny to hear them whine that they can't get handouts from
    the state anymore...

    You mean they can't afford to go to college? Does that mean you
    believe college should only be for the wealthy? Education has
    been a government responsibility in this country since before
    there was this country. Republicans are abandoning that
    responsibility. And you wonder why things are going downhill.



    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... "Where the future begins...tomorrow."
    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to MARK LEWIS on Sun May 22 02:40:26 2011

    ok... so which group is for allowing gun ownership and which group is
    for removing personal weapons?

    Well, since the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, no
    one "allows" gun ownership. The liberals, who can't understand why
    anyone would want to defend themselves or their property (I guess
    too many years of living off the government tit has diluted their
    sense of "self-worth"), have been trying for years and years to
    turn the US into Canada or UK...where one can be completely
    defenseless and only the government can have guns...to use on
    whomever they please.

    see? something seems backwards here... to me, liberal means allowing
    more of something whereas a conservative wants to restrict something...

    Actually... no...

    Well, it depends on who is using the words and when. And about
    what.

    Conservative used to mean preserving the good parts of the
    system. Now it means catering to business and big money.

    Liberal used to mean change the system, more or less quickly and
    drastically. Now it has been so distorted by right wing media no
    one knows what it means at all.

    Today conservatives want tax cuts for the rich, and shifting the
    burden to the working class. That and interfering in your
    personal life.

    Liberals want to tax the rich, shift the burden to those who
    have profited the most, and keep government out of your personal
    life.

    allowing personal gun ownership (ie: not trying to take it away) seems
    to be a liberal act... like liberally applying mayonaise to a sandwich...

    True.

    who switched the terms' definitions around? why?

    Mostly right wingers, to disguise the fact that they have
    twisted things around completely.

    A lot of it goes all the way back to the days of the
    Revolution. Back then, you had the Whigs and Tories. The
    Tories were the royalists who favored King George, and the
    Whigs were the colonials and others who favored
    independence and a republican form of government. After
    the war, the Tories became known as Democrats, favoring a
    more 'liberal' form of government where everyone was equal,
    and the government acted on behalf of all the people, like
    their 'mommy' so to speak.

    Well, that has to be one of the most absurd possible
    explanations. First of all, the Tories had nothing much to do
    with the early US government. The Republicans were the ones who
    adhered to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson who favored a farmer
    rural small town nation.

    The ones favoring a strong central government and industry were
    the Federalists. There was no democratic party then.

    The Whigs favored a republic and favored more individual
    rights for citizens -- less intrusive government at the
    top, and more state's rights at the bottom. The Whigs

    The Whigs didn't exist until 45 years after the constitution was
    signed. When they did come into existance they were the
    replacement for the Federalists, the strong federal government
    industrial nation party.

    gradually faded out by the mid-1800s. There was a whole

    During that period there were two republican parties. The
    National Republican party who followed up on the
    Whigs/Federalists, and the Democratic-Republican party who were
    the original Republican party.

    raft of small parties that cropped up and quickly died out
    at the same time. Then in the 1850s, the Grand Old Party
    (aka the Republicans) started up. After ten years of

    After the Democratic-Republican party changed their name to the
    Democratic party.

    running locals at the state level, they entered national
    politics and nominated Lincoln as their candidate for
    president. The rest is history.

    The old line pre-WWII Democrats were a lot more like modern
    Republicans, and are often referred to as small L liberals.

    Or conservatives.

    Post war Democrats (or Roosevelt Democrats) are often
    called big L liberals because of the more radical
    Roosevelt ideology that fathered the welfare state, and
    things like Social Security and Medicare (modern day
    entitlement programs).

    So, nobody has really switched the definitions. Think of
    'liberal' in terms of being 'progressive' or 'community
    oriented' where control is more centrally located, and
    power is excercised supposedly for the benefit of all.
    'Conservative' refers to decentralized control where power
    is restricted and exercised to a set of rules laid down in
    the Constitution, with much more individual autonomy.

    That last part is not quite true. Conservative doesn't actually
    mean adhering to the constitution. If you don't believe it, try
    to explain how government can subsidize religious proselytizing
    combined with welfare service. Conservative typically means
    states rights, which has very little to do with restricting
    power, just who wields is. Corruption is really more common in
    local government than national. As is abuse.

    That's my observation.


    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... When you get there, there isn't any there anymore.
    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to MARK HOFMANN on Mon May 23 04:09:24 2011

    ...

    It probably is. Some time back somebody posted an article
    that noted that today
    there are more 'takers' (consumers of tax money) than
    'makers' (people who actually
    produce things).

    Of course takers includ every person in retail, every person in
    the service sector, all teachers including private schools and
    colleges, lawyers, doctors, other medical workers, janitors,
    restaurant wait staff... etc. Everyone who doesn't actually
    produce some*THING*.

    Probably 15 years ago a representative of the Futurist
    Society noted that one person
    in three in this country received a monthly government
    check. That includes all government
    employees and retirees, Social Security recipieents and
    welfare recipients, plus contractors
    and their employees who work for the government. I suspect
    that today it's more than
    one in three.

    I doubt it. Aprox 15% of the people in this country are
    children. About 20 to 40% of the pre-retirement age adults are
    not getting any check from anyone. Yes, there are still
    homemakers in this country. Of the retirees, unless they both
    had incomes, only one of a couple gets a check. Same for
    employees of any sort. One member of a couple getting a govt
    check does not make both getting a govt check.





    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... "42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!"
    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to JOHN HULL on Mon May 23 04:23:50 2011

    ...

    I have thought the exact same thing before. Conservative when it
    comes to spending, not people's rights. Conservatives follow the
    constituation - liberals ignore it or want to change it as they
    see fit. Afterall, they know what is best for us average people
    in the US population.. :)

    Conservatives *claim* to follow the Constitution, in practice they do as
    much damage
    to it as liberals. The horribly misnamed USA PATRIOT Act to name just one.

    On balance, if you go back to the beginning of the
    entitlement era (1932), I think you'll find that the most
    egregious damage has been done by Democrats/liberals. They

    Nope. Bush alone did more damage than democrats did since then.
    Real damage, not pretend damage.

    were the first to start dipping into the Social Security
    trust fund,

    The trust fund was invested in Treasury securities from it's
    inception.

    they passed Johnson's Guns and Butter welfare crap

    Johnson's plan was a work based plan. Welfare existed before
    Johnson, and his attempt to turn it into work was killed by
    conservatives.

    Oh, and Johnson's policies still kept the debt/GDP ratio going
    down.

    they passed Medicare, they passed Food Stamps, etc.

    Medicare has been one of America's great success stories.

    JFK and LBJ got food stamps started up, but the big expansion
    was under Nixon/Ford.

    Now, to be sure, Republicans were complicate in some of
    those, but basically it was Democrats who own the
    entitlement problem.

    Entitlements are not the problem, jobs are. And republicans own
    the unemployment problem.

    After all, most the stuff prior to
    Obama happened between 1945 and 1994 when the Democrats
    were in control of the House and at least partially in
    control of the Senate for the vast majority of that period.

    And republicans were in control of the presidency and partially
    or completely in control of congress most of the time from 1980
    till 2009. Yet they did not solve one single problem in this
    line.



    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... Two infinite things, the universe & stupidity. Not sure about the universe. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)
  • From Richard Webb@1:116/901 to BOB KLAHN on Thu May 26 17:16:02 2011
    HEllo Bob,

    On Mon 2039-May-23 04:23, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to JOHN HULL:

    I usually don't reply to threads brought here from other
    echoes, as you're all talking around each other instead of
    *to each other, as those you are replying to here don't
    carry this echo. But had to this one.

    they passed Johnson's Guns and Butter welfare crap

    Johnson's plan was a work based plan. Welfare existed before
    Johnson, and his attempt to turn it into work was killed by
    conservatives.

    Granted. WElfare in various forms existed long before, to
    wit the Elizabethan "poor laws" etc.

    THis is why when these discussions keep coming up in the
    various Fidonet political fora I point folks to TenBroek's
    "Hope deferred" which should be at least available to you
    via interlibrary loan. WIth work there is hope.


    Regards,
    Richard
    ... 10% of everything isn't crap, watch closely or you'll miss it!
    ---
    * Origin: (1:116/901)
  • From Steve Kemp@1:123/789 to BOB KLAHN on Fri Jun 10 03:20:42 2011

    Oh, I know, but people like yourself are unfortunately very
    few and far between. There is an echo I frequent in
    Fidonet that is full of liberals from the Northeast and
    many of them are old enough to be a parent of mine. I have

    Which echo is that? Full of liberals? Don't know of any such.

    Nigga-land?

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414
    * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)
  • From Steve Kemp@1:123/789 to BOB KLAHN on Fri Jun 10 03:38:57 2011

    Conservative used to mean preserving the good parts of the
    system. Now it means catering to business and big money.

    Liberal used to mean change the system, more or less quickly and drastically. Now it has been so distorted by right wing media no
    one knows what it means at all.

    Today conservatives want tax cuts for the rich, and shifting the
    burden to the working class. That and interfering in your
    personal life.

    Liberals want to tax the rich, shift the burden to those who
    have profited the most, and keep government out of your personal
    life.

    Thank you!

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414
    * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to STEVE KEMP on Sat Jun 11 20:54:18 2011

    Oh, I know, but people like yourself are unfortunately very
    few and far between. There is an echo I frequent in
    Fidonet that is full of liberals from the Northeast and
    many of them are old enough to be a parent of mine. I have

    Which echo is that? Full of liberals? Don't know of any such.

    Nigga-land?

    Do you understand just how offensive that is?



    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... History is a base to build on not a quagmire in which to become immersed. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)