Zip, you have been in the Northwest way too long and apparently have never seen a history book. Our founders had a vision for this country and it wasn't anywhere near what Obama is doing. Somehow Promote the Domestic Welfare has become PROVIDE for Domestic Welfare.
Conservative, apparently, the heat and humidity in Houston have fogged your vision. I'm pretty sure that the fonding fathers didn't have a vision of what the world would look like today. It used to be that change was slow because technology wasn't all that developed. Things change as a rapid rate now. I suspect that the founding fathers would not recognize this country mainly because we are no longer the agrarian society that we were then. However, the founding fathers were fairly bright and they would acclimate themselves quite nicely.
BTW, it says "promote the general welfare".
Tell me why this Administration and the progressives in general have such a passion for NOT allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn? Tell me why they care about how much someone else makes and why they are never held accountable for their own spending, waste, fraud, and abuse? You have bought into the liberal rhetoric while ignoring the liberal results. Name for me one economic prediction that Obama has made that was accurate?
Do you have any mantra other than "bought into the liberal rhetoric"? It is trite and the fact that you use it all the time make it sound like you are just a bitter old man, not capable of rational discourse.
You are mistaken about Progressives. They don't want to pay taxes either. However, they know that it is worth investing in doing those things that the founding fathers stood for: "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquilly, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These things require that we work as a community and do things that we could not do as individuals. You know, roads and stuff.
Then we have some social justice issues. It really isn't a good idea for a civilized nation to let people starve to death when they are not longer working. We can't rely on companies to provide for retirement of those people because companies have a history of not fulfilling their pension requirements (bankruptcy and such). We have a system that provides something to people when they retire. It isn't much, but it mostly keeps them alive. It's not that we owe them this, it's just a cost we have to may to be able to claim to be a decent human beings. It's a part of the "secure the blessings of liberty" and all.
You seem worried about TX. Thanks for the concern but somehow I really believe that you don't care at all. TX has a part time legislature that meets every two years. There is a balanced budget requirement so there is NO budget deficit at this time and we won't know until the next budget is released where we stand but I assure you that if there is a budget deficit it will be handled by cutting spending and not raising taxes. TX doesn't have a state income tax and seems to have the ability to attract most of the business creation in the last 5 years. I can't understand liberal jealousy. I learned a long time ago a basic principle, "steal shamelessly" something liberals don't seem to understand. Why doesn't your state take some of the good things that TX does and implement them in Washington State? No, that wouldn't work, progressives need the power. Progressives appeal to the heartstrings while keeping people dependent.
I'm not worried about TX, just pointing out that, before you start making disparaging remarks about WA, you should get your own house in order.
We are very open minded here in WA. I assure you, if TX has any good ideas for governance, we have adopted them.
BTW, I've lived in TX and know what it is like. Do you have experience living anywhere but TX? Do you have any basis for knowing what its like in places like WA or is this just all stuff from your limited imagination.
Zip, you really don't know me, I grew up a Democrat. I was a JFK Democrat, I didn't vote for a Republican until Reagan. I saw how much of my paycheck was going to the govt. and what the govt. was doing with the money. All that spending IN THE NAME of compassion never got COMPASSIONATE Spending. It is time for accountability and stop the class warfare. Liberalism is a failure so they changed the name to progressive. Same agenda and same failures.
Strange, I grew up as a Nixon Republican. I converted to Democrat when I realized that the Republicans were conducting class warfare. As the subject of this tread shows, they have been pretty successful.
You tend to point people at Wikipedia so go check out:
Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and find out what liberalism actually means and the fact that the fonding fathers were the liberals of their time.
Progressivism was a reaction to the actions of the Republican Party after the Civil War. I could type, but it is easier just to point you at:
Progressive Movement: Information from Answers.com
Progressivism started around the start of the 20th century in order to prevent exploitation of workers by corporations and the Republican Party. The more things change...
If what you have done is an example of the schooling you got, then you need a refund.
I suspect that you aren't eligible for a refund.
No one can look at the data and come to the conclusion you came up with. My preconceived notion came from history books and our founders.
By definition, "preconceived" means based on prejudice and without facts. So, I accept that your notion is based on prejudice and without facts. The rest of the sentence, naturally, makes no sense.
BTW, when did you meet the founders? Were they old when you met them? Did you get an autograph? If you didn't actually meet them, then, when you were studying them, which of their writings did you like the best? Got any favorite Federalist Papers?
I suspect that the truth is that you get most of your "learning" from FOX "NEWS." I can see how that would be easier than actually studying something yourself, and since the folks on FOX are sufficiently entertaining, pretending that they actually are giving you facts rather than their blatant propaganda is convenient. An, it does allow you to have a preconceived notion like you said - prejudiced and not based on facts.
I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This country wasn't built on "progressive" principles. Our Founders didn't believe in a strong Central Govt. because they knew that power corrupts. I find it interesting that you and all other progressives ignore the role of the States and how so much is duplicated in D.C. Interesting to me that you seem to believe that social issues should be dictated by some bureaucrat in D.C. instead of someone in Olympia which is closer to you. That is just a way for a progressive to try to get a large central govt. to bail them out for their failures at the local level.
Again, you try to speak as if you actually know something about the Declaration and/or Constitution and the founding fathers and your words show that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. The founding fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES and, at the time, they were about as progressive and liberal as one could get. The founding fathers were divided on the power that the central government. Jefferson and Adams fought about this issue for most of their political lives. The thing about them was that, even though they had strongly felt differences, they had the highest regard for each other and were friends until their deaths, hours apart, on the 4th of July. The fact that they could disagree and retain some decorum is something that you should study along with the rest of what they said. It really is nice to really know what they said and thought rather than to pretend that you do.
You know, you make statements about what the founding fathers thought that are easy to verify. When you continue to repeat things that are verifiable false, it could lead one to conclude that you have no interest in the truth. Is seems that you want people to substitute your views for the real truth. That's probably not going to happen. Maybe if your version of the truth was a bit more credible...
Let me break it to you, the majority in this country don't hate Obama because he is black, they hate his policies and any good American is in that boat. It is liberal arrogance that keeps that agenda going and it is liberal agenda that is destroying this country.
OK, so now you want to claim the right to decide what a good American should think. OK. Your have defined a good American as being one who has the same attire toward the President as the majority as measured by popularity polls. So, by your definition, anyone who supports Bush is not a good American because he had the lowest polling numbers ever when he left office. People disliked him because of his performance and his policies. I expect you to do your duty as a good American and hate Bush.
The thing that almost destroyed this economy is the policies of the last 30 years, a great deal of which was under Republican control. Everyone went along for the ride. You might want to try to point fingers at Obama and that is your right. However, don't expect that I am so weak minded as to accept that preconceived notion of yours. Some of us like to actually think and analyze the data before drawing conclusions.
You know, the real world isn't so bad. You should come spend some time in it.
