PDA

View Full Version : A picture that's worth 1,000,000 words.



LWW
09-15-2011, 04:04 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RpO_PsdHdDE/Thkn9R-BtNI/AAAAAAAACl8/DVookoPsaQs/s1600/Liberty.jpg

Sev
09-15-2011, 06:35 AM
They are so confused.

Soflasnapper
09-15-2011, 02:56 PM
Always amused at how wrong your graphics are!

The conservatives (the right) of that day opposed independence, and the founders were the liberals (left) of that day.

LWW
09-15-2011, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Always amused at how wrong your graphics are!

The conservatives (the right) of that day opposed independence, and the founders were the liberals (left) of that day.

</div></div>

Almost ... you almost got it right.

True liberals, the political right, stood for liberty and revolted against tyranny.

True statists, the political left, clung to the tyranny of the crown.

Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 04:37 PM
Classical liberals were not on the right. They favored overturning the existing arrangements (divine right of kings, as codified by the central religion), which is anti-conservative, per se, in favor of representative democracy in its republic form.

What was 'on the right,' or 'conservative,' about that radical program of freedom?

LWW
09-17-2011, 03:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Classical liberals were not on the right. They favored overturning the existing arrangements (divine right of kings, as codified by the central religion), which is anti-conservative, per se, in favor of representative democracy in its republic form.

What was 'on the right,' or 'conservative,' about that radical program of freedom? </div></div>

Classic liberalism is conservatism is right wing is pro liberty is pro freedom from the state.

Monarchism/fascism/communism/socialism/feudalism/oligarchism is statism is left wing is anti liberty is anti freedom from the state.

The leftists of the 1776 era were the monarchists and Torries who clung to their King.

Soflasnapper
09-17-2011, 12:47 PM
The leftists of the 1776 era were the monarchists and Torries who clung to their King.

Absurd and ridiculous.

Conservatism, if it means anything, must mean keeping traditional arrangements in place, and only slightly, if at all, moving away from the traditional, and even then only for extremely compelling reasons.

The traditional way things had been, and the way to keep them the way they'd been, was keeping the King of England in charge of the colonies, as had been true from the very founding of the colonies, done under royal charter. This was backed up by Christianity of the day, which taught that kings were put in place by divine right and ordinance. Challenging their rule was to challenge God's will.

So your claim is that a heretical position against Christianity's teachings, that overthrew the existing order of rule by a monarch, as had been the case throughout Christendom for 1,000 years and more, was CONSERVATIVE???

Maybe in your right-wing readings. But that would be the only place it would be 'true,' or said to be true. It is the opposite of truth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Toryism is a traditionalist and conservative political philosophy</span> which grew out of the Cavalier faction in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. It is a prominent ideology in the politics of the United Kingdom, but also features in parts of The Commonwealth, particularly in Canada. Historically it also had exponents in former parts of the British Empire, for instance the Loyalists of British North America who sided with Britain and Crown during the Revolutionary War. The Tory ethics can be summed up with the phrase 'God, King and Country'. Tories generally advocate monarchism, are usually of a High Church Anglican or Recusant Catholic religious heritage, and are opposed to the radical liberalism of the Whig faction. </div></div>

LWW
09-17-2011, 05:24 PM
I love how you use words you don't understand.

The political right, commonly ... but actually incorrectly called conservatism by the word parsing newspeakers to the point that it has become common language ... is for small and limited government and individual liberty.

The political left is for massive government and the individual's right to obey the state or suffer the consequences.

Your mangling of history that puts Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Hitler/Pot on the same end of the political spectrum as Jefferson/Hamilton/Madison/Jay/Franklin/Washington is morally repugnant, intellectually bankrupt, and a blasphemy against honesty.

Soflasnapper
09-18-2011, 08:32 PM
I love how you use words you don't understand.


Said the pot to the kettle??? Great laughter ensues.

You know, the real problem is that the spectrum of political positions is forced into the paradigm of which side of the aisle representatives sat in the French legislature in the 18th century, on a linear scale.

That paradigm is inadequate, misleading, and about two hundred and fifty years out of date, hence your confusion. It's also true that European meanings are different from American usage.

Pat Buchanan and others mention that the 'old right' (what used to be called conservatives) are tantamount to a 'paleo-[lithic] right,' meaning an older movement not much seen in modern day times. The OLD right (in this country) used to be isolationist, and opposed military adventurism.

The (current) 'right' (in this country) has since moved on to a differing set of positions on most issues, and not so recently.

LWW
09-19-2011, 02:53 AM
The "CURRENT RIGHT" in the US gubmint is at best left-center.

The last hope for America is the tea party.

If that fails ... full blown tyranny will ensue.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 02:31 PM
What do you think of the John Birch Society, and their position that Eisenhower was a witting tool of the international communist conspiracy? (That was what triggered William F. Buckley Jr.'s banishing them outside the conservative movement.)

LWW
09-20-2011, 04:01 PM
Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But ... you already knew that.

Soflasnapper
09-21-2011, 11:12 AM
No it's entirely relevant, if not as to your opinion of them, but their judgment, which you appear to agree with (that Ike was a leftist).

You say the current 'right' in America is at best center-left. Ike was far to the left of the current right in America. He was to the left of Clinton and Obama.

There's no doubt Ike was fairly statist, and meekly accepted the 90%+ top marginal rate he inherited, and all the New Deal programs that endured to his day.

LWW
09-22-2011, 03:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it's entirely relevant, if not as to your opinion of them, but their judgment, which you appear to agree with (that Ike was a leftist).

You say the current 'right' in America is at best center-left. Ike was far to the left of the current right in America. He was to the left of Clinton and Obama.

There's no doubt Ike was fairly statist, and meekly accepted the 90%+ top marginal rate he inherited, and all the New Deal programs that endured to his day.

</div></div>
http://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gif http://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gif http://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gifhttp://www.roadster-chat.net/forum/images/smilies/roflmao.gif

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Ike OK'ed OPERATION WETBACK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback) to deport illegals in huge numbers via house to house searches and routine traffic stops in hispanic neighborhoods.

Ike OK'ed US troops being judge, jury, and executioner whenever a Nazi-werwolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf#Allied_reprisals) was apprehended.

Ike opposed (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/21/a_historical_look_at_health_care_legislation/) national health care.

Ike did not (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html) leave tax rates alone. Although the top rate was dropped only from 92% to 91% ... the threshold was doubled. Beyond that ... the 90% rate was a myth as deductions and exemptions were so generous that it was nearly impossible to actually reach that level.

Ike threatened to nuke China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#China_and_Taiwan).

And, finally, Ike didn't dismantle the "NEW DEAL" because he didn't have the votes in congress ... but he at least halted the advance of statism.

Next myth?

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 03:08 PM
Ike did some things conservatives of today may applaud as conservative policies.

He did many things conservatives of today may decry as socialist, statist, etc.

Here's (http://www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal) a look at the latter.

Stretch
09-22-2011, 03:37 PM
It's fun watching Lawrence get schooled. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

LWW
09-22-2011, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ike did some things conservatives of today may applaud as conservative policies.

He did many things conservatives of today may decry as socialist, statist, etc.

Here's (http://www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal) a look at the latter. </div></div>

What a pant load.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The highest tax bracket on earned income today is 35%. During Ike's administration, the highest tax bracket was 92% in 1953, and 91% thereafter [1]. Yes, taxes on the Rich were almost three times higher under the Republican Eisenhower compared to our current President, or compared to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton!

Capital Gains Tax: Ike's Time vs. Our Time

It is considered to be almost the gospel today that capital gains should be taxed at a far lower rate than earned income. Today the maximum capital gains tax rate is a whopping 15% on assets that have been held for at least a year since purchase. This is why the middle class, who are dependant on earned income, effectively pay taxes at a higher rate than do the wealthy.

In Ike's day, capital gains were not treated differently from earned income, so the rich paid 91% tax on capital gains. From 91% to 15% - another reason why it's good to be rich!

Note that in 1955, in the middle of Ike's presidency, the typical (median) family paid less than 20% in all taxes [2]. By 2003, the total of all taxes paid by a typical family had more than doubled, to almost 40% of income.

So in Ike's day, the rich paid a lot of taxes, the middle-class paid a little taxes, and somehow it all worked out.</div></div>

The "RICH" by and large do not pay income tax as their income is derived from capital gains.

The capital gains rate in the 1950's topped out at 25% ... today, 39.6%.

Next ridiculous claim please?

LWW
09-22-2011, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You say the current 'right' in America is at best center-left. Ike was far to the left of the current right in America. He was to the left of Clinton and Obama.</div></div>

Back to your ridiculous original assertion, let's review:

- Accumulated a paltry additional $15B to the national debt in 8 years, which takes a Tuesday thru Friday short work week to do today.

- Was anti abortion for any reason.

- Was opposed to socialized medicine.

- Lower top capital gains rate.

- No intermingling of social security funds and general funds.

- Authorized the military to execute terrorists upon arrest.

- Pro death penalty.

- Anti communist.

- Mass deportations of illegals.

- Fired a cabinet member for accepting a cloth coat.

- Threatened to nuke China.

- Authorized overflights of the Soviet Union.

So ... where exactly, in your tortured logic, was the Eisenhower regime to the left of the Obama regime or the Clinton regime?

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 04:10 PM
Couldn't expand on that prior reply before, so here goes:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Reading what the right has said about him. I've read JBS material since the '60s. What, you don't actually know what the right says about Ike's record?

Ike OK'ed OPERATION WETBACK to deport illegals in huge numbers

The hiring of 750 INS agents resulted in 50,000 deportations, and/or "tens of thousands" more. This, to you, is a conservative move.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> U.S. deported record number of illegal immigrants
For the second year in a row, the government deported more illegal immigrants during the last fiscal year than ever before, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures. About half of those deported had criminal records.
October 06, 2010|By Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration deported a record number of illegal immigrants in the 2010 fiscal year, according to figures released Wednesday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Of the 392,862 deportations from October 2009 through September of this year, about half were illegal immigrants with criminal records. The total was about 3,000 more deportations than the record set in the previous year.</div></div>

This, to you, is letting the borders remain wide open, and refusing to enforce the laws. Even though Obama has put far more than another 750 INS agents on the border.

Ike opposed national health care.

Yet signed the Kerr-Mills Act, which was the precursor to Medicare and Medicaid?

Ike did not leave tax rates alone.

As you have often said, Congress does the changes in the law, and the POTUS signs or vetoes it. (That's not always exactly true, since sometimes the POTUS authors and pushes the Congress to pass his particular new policy or bill.) But I've seen no evidence that Ike pushed anything along the lines of the '54 changes in the tax code. He was famously a passive president with regard to the Congress, and let it function as the lead branch of government, which its Article I standing suggests the Founders had in mind.

From my link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might be curious as to whether Ike actually wanted such a high tax rate on the Rich, or was somehow forced into it by, say, a Democratically-controlled Congress. It turns out that when Ike ascended to the Presidency, both houses of Congress were indeed controlled by a single party - the Republican party. Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate - they could have done anything they wanted. And some in Congress did pressure Ike to roll back taxes on the rich, but he held the line, saying:

"We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."</div></div>

And, finally, Ike didn't dismantle the "NEW DEAL" because he didn't have the votes in congress ... but he at least halted the advance of statism.

Or, because he favored those programs? In his own words:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."

" . . . Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers, and . . . a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

and while we're at it:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 04:23 PM
The "RICH" by and large do not pay income tax as their income is derived from capital gains.

It is true that by far, most capital gains go to the rich.

Is is not at all true that most of the rich's income comes in that form of income. Where have you gotten that wrong notion from?

The capital gains rate in the 1950's topped out at 25% ... today, 39.6%.

Yes, Ike inherited 25% capital gains tax rates, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he left them there.
</span>

Next ridiculous claim please?

You provided it yourself, right above here.

[...] [the top capital gains rate] today, [is]39.6%.

No it isn't. It's either 20% or 15%, not sure. Thought it was 15%, but found a source that it was 20% as of 2009. [late edit: it is 15% through to 2012 as seen here. (http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/capital-gains-rates.html) ]

However, as for dividend and interest income?

The maximum top rate paid on those two sources of income today is 15%. The maximum top rate paid on those in Ike's day? 91%.

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Congress, with administration prodding, strengthened and expanded Social Security, authorized the national system of interstate highways and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and brought Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.</span> The economy flourished, the gross national product growing 70 percent to $520 billion from $365 billion. As a Republican and a conservative, Eisenhower received criticism from the liberals. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But since he refused to roll back the social policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, he also irritated the right wing of the GOP.</span>

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/dwight-d-eisenhower#ixzz1Yivn3eVI
</div></div>

Ike's interstate highway project was a huge federal intervention into the country's economy, inspired by the Hitler autobahns as Ike himself admitted. Has there EVER been anything (this side of the nuclear triad) that cost the country this much money, and continues to cost the country huge amounts of money, as this did?

Ike put federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to overturn the local administration of educational opportunities. I happen to think that was the correct move, but then, I'm a liberal.

If Obama used federal troops to trump local authorities, what kind of howling about jack-booted thugs statism would we hear from you?

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 04:55 PM
- Lower top capital gains rate.


No he didn't. He kept them the same as when he came into office.

- No intermingling of social security funds and general funds.


They have never been intermingled. LBJ put them on the same balance sheet in order to restate deficits a little lower, but the monies were not comingled. That policy of LBJ's, called the unified budget presentation (an accounting choice, not a fact), was rescinded in the '80s, and doesn't apply to this day.

- Anti communist.


Insufficiently anti-Communist for his critics on the right. Let the Soviet tanks crush the Hungarian uprising without saying a word.

- Mass deportations of illegals.

At rates 1/7 or less than those current rates, which are thought the sign of no border enforcement at all.

- Fired a cabinet member for accepting a cloth coat.


Sherman Adams was not a cabinet member, and he did not accept a cloth coat, but a vicuna coat. Among other gratuities.

Is vicuna a cloth? No, it is an animal fur.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply stated, vicuña fleece is the rarest, most expensive natural fiber in the world. Its insulating properties make it warmer than wool. And with an average of only 12 microns, vicuña fiber is much finer than cashmere, which reaches 17 microns.

</div></div>

And here's more Ike info:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Domestic Policies

To attempt to classify Eisenhower as liberal or conservative is difficult. He was undoubtedly sympathetic to business interests and had widespread support from them. He had austere views as to fiscal matters and was not generally in favor of enlarging the role of government in economic affairs. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yet he favored measures such as a far-reaching extension of social security, he signed a law fixing a minimum wage, and he recommended the formation of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare</span>. After an initial error, he appointed to this post Marion B. Folsom, an outstanding administrator who had been a pioneer in the movement for social security in the 1930s.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/dwight-d-eisenhower#ixzz1YizDpn46
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"All Too Liberal. I can't for the life of me understand what persuaded Dwight to go for that big budget this year. All his campaign speeches and promises were for decreased Government spending. I'd sure like to discover what influence is at work on my brother." --Edgar Eisenhower, TIME 1957</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"These so-called political associates have taken over, and I'm obeying their orders..." -Ike</span>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSs4fD05lgk&feature=related)

Before becoming President, Eisenhower had said that all who advocate federal aid to education are guilty of extravagance with public money, of dishonesty, and of behavior "more dangerous to our form of government than any external threat that can possibly be arrayed against us ." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>After becoming President, Eisenhower urged Congress to pass the National Defense Education Act as an "emergency program . . . . in the essential interest of national security ." Congress passed the Act in 1958, the first really comprehensive federal-aid-to-education law.</span></div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 08:03 PM
Lastly, I will mention that Eisenhower golfed twice a week at least, amassing between 'almost 800' or 'almost 900' rounds of golf as president (depending on who you listen to).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As our golfer in chief, President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought golf to the White House lawn and played nearly 800 rounds while in office. </div></div>

A quote using the lower number (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/nov/02/dwight-d-eisenhower-golf-white-house/)

jimmyg
09-22-2011, 08:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lastly, I will mention that Eisenhower golfed twice a week at least, amassing between 'almost 800' or 'almost 900' rounds of golf as president (depending on who you listen to).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As our golfer in chief, President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought golf to the White House lawn and played nearly 800 rounds while in office. </div></div>

A quote using the lower number (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/nov/02/dwight-d-eisenhower-golf-white-house/) </div></div>

Any similarities between presidents Eisenhower & Obama, other than golf, are purely coincidental. IMO

J

Soflasnapper
09-23-2011, 10:17 AM
There are some similarities, as I've already shown.

How about humiliate and trump our allies Britain, France, and Israel, ordering them to withdraw from their righteous attack and seizure of the Suez Canal zone, throwing plucky little Israel (God's chosen country!) and our BFF Britain under the bus? Refusing them of their God-given right to any territory they chose to seize by force of arms?