YEa, I know. It's pretty obvious how to tell the two apart after the last election cycle. Just ask most of the West coast how the liberal snowflakes handled being proven wrong.

Biggest mass temper tantrum and denial storm that could be associated with one single type of personal belief system ever. Even ancient religious sect meltdowns couldn't come close to matching it.

 

Most every one knows the line from Eisenhower's fair well address, about the military industrial complex warning.

But George Washington gave one that has even more warnings that fit right now/today. Quote,

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

The whole address is one that would fit in today's political mess, he warned the USA and nobody listened. Quotes from here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

What's a liberal? What is Right Wing?

That's easy

As per the terms' present state of evolution mutation:

Liberalism denotes the doctrine wherein the individual is naught but a single constituent cell of the collectivist beast -- to be dominated, controlled and/or destroyed as per the "greater good"...

Whereas:

Conservatism regards the individual as a pathogen infecting said body -- to be purged sans discovery and exploitation of "beneficial" symbiosis...

Both 'flavors' of base misanthropy, greed and megalomania being equally vile for their abject hatred and, indeed, fear of all that distinguishes our species from the lowest life forms!

Hence the exigency for a return to Democrats and Republicans -- the sooner the better!

Sincerely
HP

 

That's easy

As per the terms' present state of evolution mutation:

Liberalism denotes the doctrine wherein the individual is naught but a single constituent cell of the collectivist beast -- to be dominated, controlled and/or destroyed as per the "greater good"...

Whereas:

Conservatism regards the individual as a pathogen infecting said body -- to be purged sans discovery and exploitation of "beneficial" symbiosis...

Both 'flavors' of base misanthropy, greed and megalomania being equally vile for their abject hatred and, indeed, fear of all that distinguishes our species from the lowest life forms!

Hence the exigency for a return to Democrats and Republicans -- the sooner the better!

Sincerely
HP

That's what I said.

 

Most every one knows the line from Eisenhower's fair well address, about the military industrial complex warning.

But George Washington gave one that has even more warnings that fit right now/today. Quote,

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

The whole address is one that would fit in today's political mess, he warned the USA and nobody listened. Quotes from here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Wow... I didn't know Washington could see that far! ... he was making a prophecy about the rise of Hugo Chávez to power, and the utter destruction of Venezuela by him and his successor!

 

That's what I said.

Ooops! Sorry about that!-- For all my complaining about 'echoes' - seems my failure to 'read back' prior to posting has made me part of the problem

Best regards
HP

PS
Any plagiarism of Eldridge Cleaver in this post is purely coincidental!

 

I think I can clear up this marriage thing. Marriage was invented in a religious setting. It's a religious contract. The Constitution forbids any laws regarding religion, therefore whatever the government says about marriage is void. A lot of people treat what the government says as void, and it is until one gets caught. This is the basis for bootlegging during Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

However, this Thread is not about Constitutional limits, which don't seem to be working. It's about what people label themselves, based on what they think government should do.

 

... therefore whatever the government says about marriage is void.

I tend to agree that the government should never have started viewing a married person as different than a single person. I think the only federal distinction is for taxation and payout of social security and similar benefits. Are there others?

I wonder when someone decided to give married people a break on their income taxes. It was probably a trick to soften the blow of a tax increase to the majority of voters. In the past, most adults were married. Not true anymore.

 

Marriage was invented in a religious setting

Yes and no... the word "marriage" is derived from "maternity" and it refers to "the protection of motherhood" ... the intent of the contract of marriage (be it religious or legal) is to protect the weaker side of the partnership ... and by weaker (and I don't give a tiny rodent's digestive output tunnel on being politically correct regarding this subject) I mean the part that has to carry the product of that relationship to completion for 9 months, and that must (according to her natural instincts, which I'm not going to discuss here) nurture it until it's productive and independent.

EDIT: without the contract of marriage, both sides have all the fun, but only one has all the responsibility.

 

I think I can clear up this marriage thing. Marriage was invented in a religious setting. It's a religious contract. The Constitution forbids any laws regarding religion, therefore whatever the government says about marriage is void. A lot of people treat what the government says as void, and it is until one gets caught. This is the basis for bootlegging during Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

However, this Thread is not about Constitutional limits, which don't seem to be working. It's about what people label themselves, based on what they thing government should do.

I tend to agree that the government should never have started viewing a married person as different than a single person. I think the only federal distinction is for taxation and payout of social security and similar benefits. Are there others?

I wonder when someone decided to give married people a break on their income taxes. It was probably a trick to soften the blow of a tax increase to the majority of voters. In the past, most adults were married. Not true anymore.

Yes and no... the word "marriage" is derived from "maternity" and it refers to "the protection of motherhood" ... the intent of the contract of marriage (be it religious or legal) is to protect the weaker side of the partnership ... and by weaker (and I don't give a tiny rodent's digestive output tunnel on being politically correct regarding this subject) I mean the part that has to carry the product of that relationship to completion for 9 months, and that must (according to her natural instincts, which I'm not going to discuss here) nurture it until it's productive and independent.

EDIT: without the contract of marriage, both sides have all the fun, but only one has all the responsibility.

Indeed! Government's role in religion and family (beyond intervention of violent crises/abuse) is beyond dubious! -- Well they know control of core institutions = absolute control!

without the contract of marriage, both sides have all the fun, but only one has all the responsibility.

Marriage, fun?! Life in the south must be pure magic! -- Seriously though, I dunno --- Traditionally the respective assignments/roles were that of 'sole-homemaker' and 'sole-breadwinner' -- which being (IMO) equally unenviable - in or out of wedlock!

Very best regards
HP

 

Marriage, fun?!

I was referring to SEX!... pardon my bluntness ...

 

I was referring to SEX!... pardon my bluntness ...

I took it that you were likewise referring to reproduction or, rather, the responsibilities attendant thereto:

As witnessed by:

I mean the part that has to carry the product of that relationship to completion for 9 months, and that must (according to her natural instincts, which I'm not going to discuss here) nurture it until it's productive and independent.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As regards amativeness for its own sake? -- Tis but the most fleeting of 'novelties' - as is the nature of all simple pleasures

Best regards
HP

 

as is the nature of all simple pleasures

And all of them (the simple pleasures) will hand you the bill later on...

 

And all of them (the simple pleasures) will hand you the bill later on...

+∞!

Best regards
HP

 

I really don't know what to describe myself.

All I naively think is that the government is to serve the people and our there by the will of the people.

At this current juncture, in Australia, we only seem to have a single politician who has actually done anything for his electorate and the nation as a whole.

I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but when our Constitution was being written there was no mention of the protection of free speech, as it was thought at the time it was a basic human right. Whether this will be a good thing or bad thing in the current climate who will know.

One funny thing I did hear the other day was when civilization "collapse" signs have been currency eventually losing value, cooks & chefs being venerated more than they should and sculptures and art take on a more androgynous appearance.

 

Wow... I didn't know Washington could see that far! ... he was making a prophecy about the rise of Hugo Chávez to power, and the utter destruction of Venezuela by him and his successor!

He was a person that studied history. He looked at what happened in the past and applied it to the possibility of the future. He never gave that as a "speech" but it was published in the newspapers all across the country as it was in the day. The newspaper was the TV and internet of the time.

I hope you went and read the whole address, all of it fits in today's politics.

 

I hope you went and read the whole address, all of it fits in today's politics.

I soon will... the part I read I interpreted as a dire warning against ignoring human nature and its destructive tendencies ... thanks for posting it.

 

And all of them (the simple pleasures) will hand you the bill later on...

And here I thought one's hand was responsible for the simple pleasures...

 

And here I thought one's hand was responsible for the simple pleasures...

in that specific case... the hand is the bill...

 

in that specific case... the hand is the bill...

Only if you get caught.