This speech represents everything I believe in, with the exception of
male/female equity and LGBT rights. Add those, and you have the
perfect vision of American Progressivism. The Democratic Party should
run this video on TV, with the President introducing it, and endorsing
it 100%. EVERY ONE of my Facebook fans should watch it, and then
share it. I've never asked that of you before. THIS is the
Democratic Party I believe so passionately in. Here is the text of
the speech:

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the
Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[2]:

“ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the
strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of
an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We
cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living
may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-
fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength,
under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among
them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by
jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our
rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial
economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us
equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
“Necessitous men are not free men.”[3] People who are hungry and out
of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.
We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a
new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—
regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these a

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
peace in the world. ”


source-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

--Bryan

On May 3, 9:55*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> This speech represents everything I believe in, with the exception of
> male/female equity and LGBT rights. *Add those, and you have the
> perfect vision of American Progressivism. *The Democratic Party should
> run this video on TV, with the President introducing it, and endorsing
> it 100%. *EVERY ONE of my Facebook fans should watch it, and then
> share it. *I've never asked that of you before. * THIS is the
> Democratic Party I believe so passionately in. *Here is the text of
> the speech:
>
> “The Economic Bill of Rights”
>
> Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the
> Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[2]:
>
> “ * * It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the
> strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of
> an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We
> cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living
> may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-
> fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
>
> This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength,
> under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among
> them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by
> jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our
> rights to life and liberty.
>
> As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial
> economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us
> equality in the pursuit of happiness.
>
> We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
> freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
> “Necessitous men are not free men.”[3] People who are hungry and out
> of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
>
> In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.
> We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a
> new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—
> regardless of station, race, or creed.
>
> Among these a
>
> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
> or farms or mines of the nation;
>
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
> recreation;
>
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
> which will give him and his family a decent living;
>
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
> atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
> monopolies at home or abroad;
>
> The right of every family to a decent home;
>
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
> enjoy good health;
>
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
> sickness, accident, and unemployment;
>
> The right to a good education.
>
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
> be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
> new goals of human happiness and well-being.
>
> America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
> how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
> all our citizens.
>
> For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
> peace in the world. * * * *”
>
> * * *source-- *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
>
> --Bryan

At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics, I used to
think that conservatives = liberals. Then when I became educated, I
realized that there is a difference between the two political
parties. When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
no difference between the political parties. Both of them exist in
order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. That's
their number one goal. Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
'give' them a choice in voting.

On May 4, 6:23*am, A Moose in Love > wrote:
> On May 3, 9:55*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This speech represents everything I believe in, with the exception of
> > male/female equity and LGBT rights. *Add those, and you have the
> > perfect vision of American Progressivism. *The Democratic Party should
> > run this video on TV, with the President introducing it, and endorsing
> > it 100%. *EVERY ONE of my Facebook fans should watch it, and then
> > share it. *I've never asked that of you before. * THIS is the
> > Democratic Party I believe so passionately in. *Here is the text of
> > the speech:
>
> > “The Economic Bill of Rights”
>
> > Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the
> > Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[2]:
>
> > “ * * It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the
> > strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of
> > an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We
> > cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living
> > may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-
> > fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
>
> > This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength,
> > under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among
> > them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by
> > jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our
> > rights to life and liberty.
>
> > As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial
> > economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us
> > equality in the pursuit of happiness.
>
> > We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
> > freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
> > “Necessitous men are not free men.”[3] People who are hungry and out
> > of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
>
> > In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.
> > We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a
> > new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—
> > regardless of station, race, or creed.
>
> > Among these a
>
> > The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
> > or farms or mines of the nation;
>
> > The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
> > recreation;
>
> > The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
> > which will give him and his family a decent living;
>
> > The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
> > atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
> > monopolies at home or abroad;
>
> > The right of every family to a decent home;
>
> > The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
> > enjoy good health;
>
> > The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
> > sickness, accident, and unemployment;
>
> > The right to a good education.
>
> > All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
> > be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
> > new goals of human happiness and well-being.
>
> > America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
> > how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
> > all our citizens.
>
> > For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
> > peace in the world. * * * *”
>
> > * * *source-- *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
>
> > --Bryan
>
> At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics, I used to
> think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became educated, I
> realized that there is a difference between the two political
> parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
> no difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in
> order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's
> their number one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
> 'give' them a choice in voting.

You live in Canada where the differences, while real, are far less
dramatic than in the USA. FDR's speech was consistent with the
economic agenda he'd pushed for the previous 11 years. Harper loves
folks like you who feel that if their social democrat party (in your
case the NDP) is not far enough left, then it means they're no better
for workers than the Conservatives. That's bullshit.

--Bryan

"Bryan" > wrote
>> When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
>> no difference between the political parties. Both of them exist in
>> order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home.

>
> You live in Canada where the differences, while real, are far less
> dramatic than in the USA.

One of the problems in this country is the differences being pushed by the
extremists in both parties. Most Americans are really centrists and can
compromise and get things done. The whako extremists make better news
though.

On May 4, 8:05*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On May 4, 6:23*am, A Moose in Love > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 9:55*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
> > > This speech represents everything I believe in, with the exception of
> > > male/female equity and LGBT rights. *Add those, and you have the
> > > perfect vision of American Progressivism. *The Democratic Party should
> > > run this video on TV, with the President introducing it, and endorsing
> > > it 100%. *EVERY ONE of my Facebook fans should watch it, and then
> > > share it. *I've never asked that of you before. * THIS is the
> > > Democratic Party I believe so passionately in. *Here is the text of
> > > the speech:
>
> > > “The Economic Bill of Rights”
>
> > > Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the
> > > Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[2]:
>
> > > “ * * It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the
> > > strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of
> > > an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We
> > > cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living
> > > may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-
> > > fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
>
> > > This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength,
> > > under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among
> > > them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by
> > > jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our
> > > rights to life and liberty.
>
> > > As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial
> > > economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us
> > > equality in the pursuit of happiness.
>
> > > We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
> > > freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
> > > “Necessitous men are not free men.”[3] People who are hungry and out
> > > of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
>
> > > In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident..
> > > We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a
> > > new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—
> > > regardless of station, race, or creed.
>
> > > Among these a
>
> > > The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
> > > or farms or mines of the nation;
>
> > > The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
> > > recreation;
>
> > > The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
> > > which will give him and his family a decent living;
>
> > > The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
> > > atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
> > > monopolies at home or abroad;
>
> > > The right of every family to a decent home;
>
> > > The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
> > > enjoy good health;
>
> > > The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
> > > sickness, accident, and unemployment;
>
> > > The right to a good education.
>
> > > All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
> > > be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
> > > new goals of human happiness and well-being.
>
> > > America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
> > > how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
> > > all our citizens.
>
> > > For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
> > > peace in the world. * * * *”
>
> > > * * *source-- *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
>
> > > --Bryan
>
> > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics, I used to
> > think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became educated, I
> > realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
> > no difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in
> > order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's
> > their number one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
> > 'give' them a choice in voting.
>
> You live in Canada where the differences, while real, are far less
> dramatic than in the USA. *FDR's speech was consistent with the
> economic agenda he'd pushed for the previous 11 years. *Harper loves
> folks like you who feel that if their social democrat party (in your
> case the NDP) is not far enough left, then it means they're no better
> for workers than the Conservatives. *That's bullshit.
>
> --Bryan

I believe in a very small government in the style of Ron Paul.
However, there are a few things that I would like to point out. I
think socialized education (which we have both up here and down
there), as well as socialized health care, which we have and you
don't, sort of. You have medicare and medicaid. I also advocate a
disability pension system, an unemployment system, and a fair welfare
system. That's about as Social Democrat as I will get. Technically I
could be labeled left wing, but then anyone who supports socialized
education is as well.
Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. However
that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> wrote:
....
>Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
>By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. However
>that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
>I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.

In theory, I too am an anarchist and believe no government is best.
problem is it does not work with groups of people, and the larger the
group the more it does not work, because in general people SUCK!

:-(

John Kuthe...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 05:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

> On May 4, 6:23*am, A Moose in Love > wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:55*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.
> > > We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a
> > > new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—
> > > regardless of station, race, or creed.
> >
> > > Among these a
> >
> > > The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
> > > or farms or mines of the nation;

I don't think anyone has a right to a job (that's yet another reason
why Europe is in such big trouble), but they should certainly have the
opportunity for one - with no bullshit involved when workers age.
> >
> > > The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
> > > recreation;
> >
> > > The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
> > > which will give him and his family a decent living;
> >
> > > The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
> > > atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
> > > monopolies at home or abroad;
> >
> > > The right of every family to a decent home;
> >
> > > The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
> > > enjoy good health;
> >
> > > The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
> > > sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> >
> > > The right to a good education.
> >
> > > All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
> > > be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
> > > new goals of human happiness and well-being.
> >
> > > America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
> > > how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
> > > all our citizens.
> >
> > > For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting
> > > peace in the world. * * * *”
> >
> > > * * *source-- *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
> >
> > > --Bryan
> >
> > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics, I used to
> > think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became educated, I
> > realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
> > no difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in
> > order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's
> > their number one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
> > 'give' them a choice in voting.
>
> You live in Canada where the differences, while real, are far less
> dramatic than in the USA. FDR's speech was consistent with the
> economic agenda he'd pushed for the previous 11 years. Harper loves
> folks like you who feel that if their social democrat party (in your
> case the NDP) is not far enough left, then it means they're no better
> for workers than the Conservatives. That's bullshit.
>

At the very least, it's a cynical outlook based on the assumption that
voters can't see/understand where fine differences will take the
country.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 08:49:40 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

> One of the problems in this country is the differences being pushed by the
> extremists in both parties.

And a huge problem is that we elected them to public office.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> wrote:

> Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
> By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. However
> that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.

A centralized government is what made us what we are. How do you
expect goods to pass from one side of the country to the other, do you
want us to go back to where every state has it's own monetary system?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:

> > Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
> > By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. However
> > that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> > I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.
>
> A centralized government is what made us what we are. How do you
> expect goods to pass from one side of the country to the other, do you
> want us to go back to where every state has it's own monetary system?

Some of that ilk also resent having a universal power grid. They
believe everybody should be responsible for generating whatever
electricity or fuel that they need. It's all so 18th century.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 08:49:30 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 4 May 2012 08:49:40 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
>wrote:
>
>> One of the problems in this country is the differences being pushed by the
>> extremists in both parties.
>
>And a huge problem is that we elected them to public office.

Why do we keep electing politicians? Politicians are held in esteem
somewhere between the old traditional used car salesmen and child
molestestewrs, and yet we keep electing them to public office?

Throw the whole lot of 'em out and get some REAL people in to govern
We The People!

John Kuthe...

On May 4, 11:52*am, sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>
> > wrote:
> > Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
> > By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. *However
> > that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> > I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.
>
> A centralized government is what made us what we are.

You are jumping to false conclusions. First of all, you can't all of
a sudden begin anarchy overnight. You seem to think that commerce
can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
be workable because people do not behave themselves. Just because I'm
responsible doesn't mean the next person is.

>How do you
> expect goods to pass from one side of the country to the other, do you
> want us to go back to where every state has it's own monetary system?
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On May 4, 12:00*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> sf wrote:
> > > Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
> > > By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. *However
> > > that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> > > I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.
>
> > A centralized government is what made us what we are. *How do you
> > expect goods to pass from one side of the country to the other, do you
> > want us to go back to where every state has it's own monetary system?
>
> Some of that ilk also resent having a universal power grid. They
> believe everybody should be responsible for generating whatever
> electricity or fuel that they need. It's all so 18th century.

Where has it been stated that this 'ilk' would resent a universal
power grid. There is nothing un-anarchist about having a
uniPowerGrid. That's not so 18th century.

John Kuthe wrote:

> Why do we keep electing politicians? Politicians are held in esteem
> somewhere between the old traditional used car salesmen and child
> molestestewrs, and yet we keep electing them to public office?

In the last U.S. midterm election, almost a hundred political newbies
were elected to Congress. (Most under the "tea party" banner.) The
result was worse gridlock than usual.

A Moose in Love wrote:

> > Some of that ilk also resent having a universal power grid. They
> > believe everybody should be responsible for generating whatever
> > electricity or fuel that they need. It's all so 18th century.
>
> Where has it been stated that this 'ilk'

You need to learn what "ilk" means. Duh.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> wrote:

> You are jumping to false conclusions. First of all, you can't all of
> a sudden begin anarchy overnight. You seem to think that commerce
> can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
> Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> be workable because people do not behave themselves. Just because I'm
> responsible doesn't mean the next person is.

You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
because it didn't work the other way.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On May 4, 1:55*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>
> > wrote:
> > You are jumping to false conclusions. *First of all, you can't all of
> > a sudden begin anarchy overnight. *You seem to think that commerce
> > can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
> > Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> > be workable because people do not behave themselves. *Just because I'm
> > responsible doesn't mean the next person is.
>
> You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
> because it didn't work the other way.
Which way was that? I hope you're not suggesting that the US was ever
a peaceful anarchist nation??? There was graft and corruption from
the get go. Slavery and all that what? It was always a statist
nation.


>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 04/05/2012 8:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Bryan" > wrote
>>> When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
>>> no difference between the political parties. Both of them exist in
>>> order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home.
>
>>
>> You live in Canada where the differences, while real, are far less
>> dramatic than in the USA.
>
> One of the problems in this country is the differences being pushed by
> the extremists in both parties. Most Americans are really centrists and
> can compromise and get things done. The whako extremists make better
> news though.



Looking at the US from outside, I would hardly call the two major
parties extreme. Both of them sit to the right of most of the world.
The only polarization seems to be the rhetoric, with supporters of each
assuming that anyone who supports the other automatically supports a lot
of other things. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground.

A curious thing .. to me... is that "liberal" seems to be a bad thing in
the US. In most other places it denotes being open minded and well
informed.

Dave Smith wrote:

> A curious thing .. to me... is that "liberal" seems to be a bad thing in
> the US. In most other places it denotes being open minded and well
> informed.

Damn right! "Liberal" has been a dirty word since the '50s. Now we
don't have more than a handful of truly liberal politicians in the
whole damn country.

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:

> At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics,

little being the operative word

> I used to
> think that conservatives = liberals. Then when I became educated, I
> realized that there is a difference between the two political
> parties. When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
> no difference between the political parties. Both of them exist in
> order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. That's
> their number one goal. Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
> 'give' them a choice in voting.

so tell us what you've done to change that?

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> A curious thing .. to me... is that "liberal" seems to be a bad thing in
> the US. In most other places it denotes being open minded and well
> informed.

being open minded is anathema to religions and all other cults

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:

> I believe in a very small government in the style of Ron Paul.
> However, there are a few things that I would like to point out. I
> think socialized education (which we have both up here and down
> there), as well as socialized health care, which we have and you
> don't, sort of. You have medicare and medicaid. I also advocate a
> disability pension system, an unemployment system, and a fair welfare
> system. That's about as Social Democrat as I will get. Technically I
> could be labeled left wing, but then anyone who supports socialized
> education is as well.

how do you propose to pay for this?


> Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.

yes, especially for you.


> By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. However
> that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.

but you are super keen on complaining and criticizing government while not
offering reasonable means to change it nor will you ever do anything that would
require you to live by the words you spew

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:

> You are jumping to false conclusions. First of all, you can't all of
> a sudden begin anarchy overnight. You seem to think that commerce
> can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
> Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> be workable because people do not behave themselves. Just because I'm
> responsible doesn't mean the next person is.

"people" have never behaved themselves, ergo your wet dream is never going to
happen

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:

> Which way was that? I hope you're not suggesting that the US was ever
> a peaceful anarchist nation??? There was graft and corruption from
> the get go. Slavery and all that what? It was always a statist
> nation.

you say that as if there ever was a successful anarchist nation. LOL

On May 4, 6:54*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > A curious thing .. to me... is that "liberal" seems to be a bad thing in
> > the US. *In most other places it denotes being open minded and well
> > informed.
>
> Damn right! "Liberal" has been a dirty word since the '50s. Now we
> don't have more than a handful of truly liberal politicians in the
> whole damn country.

We have them around here. We call ourselves progressives, not so much
because we are trying to avoid the label, but because progressive is
more accurate. We're Rooseveltists, both Roosevelts. We had an
experience tonight that I'd like to share. A house on our block was
offered for sale at bargain price. We looked at it because it seemed
like we might be able to buy it cheap, fix it up, and have another
rental property on our block. We were appalled at how the old lady
who lived there must have spent the last years of her life. My sweet
wife was pretty heartbroken with what we saw. There were exposed
slats where the plaster had cracked out, and there was mold, black
mold, even on the ground level. I can only imagine what the basement
was like. The real estate agent gave us the combination to get in,
and we'll use it one more time to get in and take photos. If that's
freedom--and remember that "liberal" used to mean uncontrolled by
government--I don't like that kind of freedom. An old woman dying
alone after years of living in squalor is something that shouldn't
happen in America, and it happened damned near right across the street
from us.

That the Right uses the word, "indecency," to describe sexuality that
does not conform to their narrow definitions, while ignoring that kind
of poverty, is morally indefensible. A social structure that
relegates *the least of these* to abject poverty is far more
antithetical to any concept of a Christian nation than allowing for
sexual and gender variances.

--Bryan

"Bryan" > wrote
> We had an
> experience tonight that I'd like to share. A house on our block was
> offered for sale at bargain price. We looked at it because it seemed
> like we might be able to buy it cheap, fix it up, and have another
> rental property on our block. We were appalled at how the old lady
> who lived there must have spent the last years of her life. My sweet
> wife was pretty heartbroken with what we saw. There were exposed
> slats where the plaster had cracked out, and there was mold, black
> mold, even on the ground level. I can only imagine what the basement
> was like. The real estate agent gave us the combination to get in,
> and we'll use it one more time to get in and take photos. If that's
> freedom--and remember that "liberal" used to mean uncontrolled by
> government--I don't like that kind of freedom. An old woman dying
> alone after years of living in squalor is something that shouldn't
> happen in America, and it happened damned near right a. cross the street
> from us.

Be sure to get all the facts. Yes, it may have been freedom that allowed
the lady to live like that. In many cases, people have hundreds of
thousands of dollars, yet choose to live in squalor rather than spend it.
And no family to help them.

Mentally ill you say? Perhaps, but we've also done away with most
institutions for the mentally ill and allow them to live under a bridge or
in a box instead of a hospital. They have rights, you know.

Sad, in any scenario, but it happens often as a matter of choice.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> wrote:

> On May 4, 1:55*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > You are jumping to false conclusions. *First of all, you can't all of
> > > a sudden begin anarchy overnight. *You seem to think that commerce
> > > can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
> > > Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> > > be workable because people do not behave themselves. *Just because I'm
> > > responsible doesn't mean the next person is.
> >
> > You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
> > because it didn't work the other way.
> Which way was that? I hope you're not suggesting that the US was ever
> a peaceful anarchist nation??? There was graft and corruption from
> the get go. Slavery and all that what? It was always a statist
> nation.
>
Was racist part of the discussion before you lost?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

> > Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to 'give' them a choice in voting.

> so tell us what you've done to change that?

In this country, most of us don't even bother voting.

On May 4, 9:59*pm, Bryan > wrote:

> *A house on our block was
> offered for sale at bargain price. *We looked at it because it seemed
> like we might be able to buy it cheap, fix it up, and have another
> rental property on our block. *We were appalled at how the old lady
> who lived there must have spent the last years of her life. *My sweet
> wife was pretty heartbroken with what we saw. *There were exposed
> slats where the plaster had cracked out, and there was mold, black
> mold, even on the ground level. *I can only imagine what the basement
> was like. *The real estate agent gave us the combination to get in,
> and we'll use it one more time to get in and take photos.

The photos:

http://s1059.photobucket.com/albums/t423/BryanGSimmons/

You can see the house next door:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/77.../2769238_zpid/
Quite a contrast.
>
> --Bryan

--Bryan

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love

>> You are jumping to false conclusions. First of all, you can't all of
>> a sudden begin anarchy overnight. You seem to think that commerce
>> can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
>> Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
>> be workable because people do not behave themselves. Just because I'm
>> responsible doesn't mean the next person is.

>You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
>because it didn't work the other way.

The United States is the way it is because its leaders have always
been content to exploit natural resources, eploit humans, and channel
all the profits to a wealthy few even if it means that a quarter of
the nation's free population is in poverty and hungry.

If we didn't have the worst education, the worst healthcare, and
the most urban and rural poor, why it wouldn't be America and
we'd have to fix it.


Steve

George M. Middius wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote:
>
>> Why do we keep electing politicians? Politicians are held in esteem
>> somewhere between the old traditional used car salesmen and child
>> molestestewrs, and yet we keep electing them to public office?
>
> In the last U.S. midterm election, almost a hundred political newbies
> were elected to Congress. (Most under the "tea party" banner.) The
> result was worse gridlock than usual.
>
>

You say "gridlock" like it's a bad thing. ???

Bob

In article >,
says...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> >
> >> Why do we keep electing politicians? Politicians are held in esteem
> >> somewhere between the old traditional used car salesmen and child
> >> molestestewrs, and yet we keep electing them to public office?
> >
> > In the last U.S. midterm election, almost a hundred political newbies
> > were elected to Congress. (Most under the "tea party" banner.) The
> > result was worse gridlock than usual.
> >
> >
>
> You say "gridlock" like it's a bad thing. ???

The only good thing Congress does is fail to pass laws. It's a classic
case of idle hands finding the Devil's work.

On May 4, 10:51*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article >,
> *A Moose in Love > wrote:
>
> > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics,
>
> little being the operative word
>
> > I used to
> > think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became educated, I
> > realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is
> > no difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in
> > order to siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's
> > their number one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to
> > 'give' them a choice in voting.
>
> so tell us what you've done to change that?

What exactly can I do? Perhaps you have a suggestion. If I did
something that would change the system, I would do it. The only thing
I can do, is when I'm talking to people that are remotely interested
in politics, is to slowly let them know my point of view, and the
reasoning behind it.

On May 4, 10:55*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article >,
> *A Moose in Love > wrote:
>
> > I believe in a very small government in the style of Ron Paul.
> > However, there are a few things that I would like to point out. *I
> > think socialized education (which we have both up here and down
> > there), as well as socialized health care, which we have and you
> > don't, sort of. *You have medicare and medicaid. *I also advocate a
> > disability pension system, an unemployment system, and a fair welfare
> > system. *That's about as Social Democrat as I will get. *Technically I
> > could be labeled left wing, but then anyone who supports socialized
> > education is as well.
>
> how do you propose to pay for this?
>
> > Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
>
> yes, especially for you.
>
> > By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. *However
> > that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> > I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.
>
> but you are super keen on complaining and criticizing government while not
> offering reasonable means to change it nor will you ever do anything that would
> require you to live by the words you spew

i ****ed you off eh

On May 5, 1:11*am, sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 4, 1:55*pm, sf > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > You are jumping to false conclusions. *First of all, you can't all of
> > > > a sudden begin anarchy overnight. *You seem to think that commerce
> > > > can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish..
> > > > Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> > > > be workable because people do not behave themselves. *Just because I'm
> > > > responsible doesn't mean the next person is.
>
> > > You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
> > > because it didn't work the other way.
> > Which way was that? *I hope you're not suggesting that the US was ever
> > a peaceful anarchist nation??? *There was graft and corruption from
> > the get go. *Slavery and all that what? *It was always a statist
> > nation.
>
> Was racist part of the discussion before you lost?

Sorry. You lost. It was pointed out in the above post that the US
didn't work 'the other way'. I take that to mean that 'the other way'
meant a peaceful anarchist system.
Slavery can hardly be part of a peaceful anarchist system.
I wish you would learn to think before you start lying in order to
support your argument.

>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> wrote:

> On May 5, 1:11*am, sf > wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > On May 4, 1:55*pm, sf > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > You are jumping to false conclusions. *First of all, you can't all of
> > > > > a sudden begin anarchy overnight. *You seem to think that commerce
> > > > > can't take place when people have the freedom to trade as they wish.
> > > > > Also, I also mentioned that currently, an anarchist system would not
> > > > > be workable because people do not behave themselves. *Just because I'm
> > > > > responsible doesn't mean the next person is.
> >
> > > > You've forgotten why the United States is the way it is.... it's
> > > > because it didn't work the other way.
> > > Which way was that? *I hope you're not suggesting that the US was ever
> > > a peaceful anarchist nation??? *There was graft and corruption from
> > > the get go. *Slavery and all that what? *It was always a statist
> > > nation.
> >
> > Was racist part of the discussion before you lost?
>
> Sorry. You lost. It was pointed out in the above post that the US
> didn't work 'the other way'. I take that to mean that 'the other way'
> meant a peaceful anarchist system.
> Slavery can hardly be part of a peaceful anarchist system.
> I wish you would learn to think before you start lying in order to
> support your argument.
>
Who is lying? You didn't know that the individual states had to
standardize their monetary system and that's only the beginning of
what you don't know. You're Canadian and it shows.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:

> On May 4, 10:55*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *A Moose in Love > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe in a very small government in the style of Ron Paul.
> > > However, there are a few things that I would like to point out. *I
> > > think socialized education (which we have both up here and down
> > > there), as well as socialized health care, which we have and you
> > > don't, sort of. *You have medicare and medicaid. *I also advocate a
> > > disability pension system, an unemployment system, and a fair welfare
> > > system. *That's about as Social Democrat as I will get. *Technically I
> > > could be labeled left wing, but then anyone who supports socialized
> > > education is as well.
> >
> > how do you propose to pay for this?
> >
> > > Now, what I would really like to see (it's a pipe dream) is anarchy.
> >
> > yes, especially for you.
> >
> > > By that I mean no central governmental control over anyone. *However
> > > that won't be possible until people learn to behave.
> > > I'm not keen on being governed in the first place.
> >
> > but you are super keen on complaining and criticizing government while not
> > offering reasonable means to change it nor will you ever do anything that
> > would
> > require you to live by the words you spew
>
> i ****ed you off eh

not even close. odd that you'd even...oh that's right, you don't

In article >,
A Moose in Love > wrote:



> > > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics,
> >
> > little being the operative word
> >
> > > I used to think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became
> > > educated, I realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is no
> > > difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in order to
> > > siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's their number
> > > one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to 'give' them a
> > > choice in voting.
> >
> > so tell us what you've done to change that?
>
> What exactly can I do?

it's the true mark of a forward thinker like you that you are have not trouble
about complaining about what is and have absolutely no idea of what would be
better

amuse us with what you have done and why it didn't work

> Perhaps you have a suggestion.

Of course I do. Start with getting a proper education


> If I did something that would change the system, I would do it.

No you wouldn't. Your ilk lives to complain. The thought of actually doing
something positive is anathema to you



> The only thing I can do, is when I'm talking to people that are remotely
> interested in politics, is to slowly let them know my point of view, and the
> reasoning behind it.

As Wesley Pruden, former editor of The Washington Times once wrote: "Nonsense
treated seriously swifty becomes conventional wisdom."

On May 6, 8:33*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article >,
> *A Moose in Love > wrote:
>
> > > > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics,
>
> > > little being the operative word
>
> > > > I used to think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became
> > > > educated, I realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > > > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is no
> > > > difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in order to
> > > > siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's their number
> > > > one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to 'give' them a
> > > > choice in voting.
>
> > > so tell us what you've done to change that?
>
> > What exactly can I do?
>
> it's the true mark of a forward thinker like you that you are have not trouble
> about complaining about what is and have absolutely no idea of what would be
> better
>
> amuse us with what you have done and why it didn't work
>
> > Perhaps you have a suggestion.
>
> Of course I do. Start with getting a proper education
>

you are obviously educated beyond your intelligence.


> > If I did something that would change the system, I would do it.
>
> No you wouldn't. Your ilk lives to complain. The thought of actually doing
> something positive is anathema to you
>
If I could think of something that would benefit mankind in a
political manner, I would. What I have found is that most people are
ignorant jack asses like yourself who find that belonging to the
status quo is o so good. I know what your issue is with me. You have
it good. You have never butted heads with the government.
I have it good financially. I have butted heads with the government
in the past, and I find that they are corrupt shite. That's why I do
not care for our current system. The system is corrupt. The banking
system is corrupt. The federal reserve is corrupt. The Canadian
banking system is corrupt.
All you can do is to half assed insult me, but your insults are just
kind of shitty. And without punch, because you don't know what the
****.

On May 6, 7:43*pm, A Moose in Love > wrote:
> On May 6, 8:33*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *A Moose in Love > wrote:
>
> > > > > At one time, before I educated myself a little in politics,
>
> > > > little being the operative word
>
> > > > > I used to think that conservatives = liberals. *Then when I became
> > > > > educated, I realized that there is a difference between the two political
> > > > > parties. *When I became even more educated, I realized that there is no
> > > > > difference between the political parties. *Both of them exist in order to
> > > > > siphon off the cream that the worker brings home. *That's their number
> > > > > one goal. *Speeches are made to pacify the masses, and to 'give' them a
> > > > > choice in voting.
>
> > > > so tell us what you've done to change that?
>
> > > What exactly can I do?
>
> > it's the true mark of a forward thinker like you that you are have not trouble
> > about complaining about what is and have absolutely no idea of what would be
> > better
>
> > amuse us with what you have done and why it didn't work
>
> > > Perhaps you have a suggestion.
>
> > Of course I do. Start with getting a proper education
>
> you are obviously educated beyond your intelligence.
>
> > > If I did something that would change the system, I would do it.
>
> > No you wouldn't. Your ilk lives to complain. The thought of actually doing
> > something positive is anathema to you
>
> If I could think of something that would benefit mankind in a
> political manner, I would. *What I have found is that most people are
> ignorant jack asses like yourself who find that belonging to the
> status quo is o so good. *I know what your issue is with me. *You have
> it good. *You have never butted heads with the government.
> I have it good financially. *I have butted heads with the government
> in the past, and I find that they are corrupt shite. *That's why I do
> not care for our current system. *The system is corrupt. *The banking
> system is corrupt. *The federal reserve is corrupt. *The Canadian
> banking system is corrupt.
> All you can do is to half assed insult me, but your insults are just
> kind of shitty. *And without punch, because you don't know what the
> ****.

Well, *I* didn't insult you. I engaged in constructive dialog. I
thought your position was a bit extreme, even though I understood your
frustration. You seemed to be saying that the differences between the
LDP and the Conservatives was trivial. I'm not questioning your
dealings with government, nor your frustrations with bureaucracy under
whatever party happens to be the flavor of the election cycle. My
ideology is pretty Left of center, but I understand that my vision for
the most just and productive mode of political economy would not be
achievable, and dropping out of the political process, and not at
absolute minimum, supporting the lesser of two evils renders me
completely powerless instead of merely relatively powerless. Yes,
it's frustrating. The banking industry is corrupt, and favors the top
1%. The paradigm that existed in the '50s and '60s in the USA, and
extended further into the '70s and even '80s in most of the First
World was far more equitable.

Post WW2, most of the First World was getting it right--and I don't
mean Right--with Keynesian monetary policies, and a reasonable safety
net. The center has moved way too far right in the USA, as the focus
has been on failed supply side tax policies. Some of the economies in
Europe are in big trouble too, but in Greece (the worst of the EU
economies), the problem was mostly the failure to collect legally owed
taxes. Tax evasion-->corruption. Undue political influence of the
rich-->corruption. Breakdown of the rule of law-->corruption.

Honesty and hard work, with a commitment to increasing the size of the
pie and fairly distributing the pieces-->prosperity for all. Extreme
Capitalism has run amok over the interests of the working class and
small business. IMO, the only short term solution is supporting
social democrats, pressuring them to re-capture the center not only
electorally, but to move the center further left. Not far left. Far
left=stagnation and the shrinking of the pie. Second World ideology
is a last resort, and let's hope it doesn't come to that. Marx
postulated that human nature could be radically changed by
transforming economic relationships, and I think he went way too far
with that concept.

From each according to their abilities, and to each according to their
needs, is laughable, but so is trickle down economics. I look forward
to the day when the extreme ideology of the right is seen as equally
absurd as that of the extreme left. I hope it happens sooner than
later.

--Bryan