Robert Carter: ‘Sexy Women- In Tight Denim Jeans Slideshow’

Posted on September 23, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Sexy Cassandra

Source: Robert Carter– Rear look at Sexy Cassandra, in Levi’s jeans.

Source:The New Democrat

“Girls in tight jeans slideshow”

From Robert Carter

Love the woman in the Levis jeans especially. I first saw her on a web site back in like late 2009 called something to the effect of, Girls in Denim Jeans, something like that. She’s called Sexy Cassandra, I doubt that is her real name. I mean seriously, who would name their daughter Sexy as her first name. I mean what sober sane person would do that, unless you’re raising your daughter to be a porn star. Perhaps you’re a porn king or pimp or something.

I’ve seen several photos of Cassandra in her classic Levis. And she looks like a goddess in them and has a real nice body and proud of it and proud to show it. A real sexy woman to me at least who takes care of herself with a real nice body. Doesn’t starve herself, or unable to fill herself up to the point of obesity. But a sexy woman who takes care of herself and proud of her body to the point that she wants the world to see it.

 

Posted in Style, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EuroNews: Jose Manuel Barroso- Calls For a Federation of States: What a Federal Union of Europe Could Look Like

Posted on September 23, 2014 by Erik Schneider

 

Barosso calls for 'federation of states''

Source:EuroNews– EU Commission President Jose M. Barroso 

“Europe must become a ‘federation of nation-states,’ the EU Commission’s chief Jose Manuel Barroso has said.

The call for deeper European integration came in Strasbourg during the President’s State of the Union speech to MEPs.

“The present European Union must evolve. And let’s not be afraid of the word: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is what we need. Not a superstate. A democratic federation of nation states that can tackle our common problems through to the sharing of sovereignty in a way that each country and each citizen are better equipped to control their destiny,” Barosso said.

While, Barroso stressed he was not calling for a European ‘superstate’ to tackle Europe’s economic problems, Liberal group leader Guy Verhofstadt said.

”The euro crisis is calling for the creation of a true federal state, a European state, a state that has a European treasury, a European bond market, European government. All this is necessary. Obviously, this takes over from nation states. It is a transfer of skills and powers from a national to a European level.”

Other pro-Europeans also greeted Barroso’s vision with enthusiasm but insisted more needed to be done to lessen Europe’s social problems.

“What Mr Barroso did today is present a toolbox to help Europe to deal with the crisis. Most of them are in the right direction. We would prefer, as a group, more emphasis on the need to reinvent social Europe,” Greek MEP Maria Elena Koppa said.

But, Barroso’s idea of pooling more sovereignty rankled eurosceptics, especially British MEPs, who remain strongly opposed to more powers going to Brussels.”

Source: Europe News: Jose Manuel Barosso Calls For a Federation of States

Before I layout what a Federal Union of Europe which I’m guessing this new European superstate would like and what they would need to do, first I’ll tell you what I believe the borders of the country would look like. It wouldn’t be the entire European/Eurasian continent going from let’s say Belgium all the way over to the Caucus States and Turkey and Middle East.

The United Kingdom would probably never want to be part of a Federal Europe, because of its history and the fact they are a monarchy and do very well as a power by themselves. You would probably be talking about a country going from Belgium in the Northwest with Brussels being the capital of this new Federalist Republic and I say Federalist for a reason which I’ll get into later.

It would range from Belgium in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast. To Portugal in the Southwest to Italy in the Southeast with the former Soviet Union Slavic states in Eurasia out of this new country, as well as the former Yugoslavia. As well as Scandinavia which physically is about the size of continental Western Europe anyway. Out of this Federalist Republic as well.

So we would be talking about a huge new country physically about half the size of the continental United States. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50 million more people who would be either the new largest economy in the world or right there with the United States. That would also be military and diplomatic, as well as political power because this new country would replace NATO with a President and executive branch now controlling this military.

This new Europe could compete with anyone in the world economically and everything else that would be a leader in some of these areas as well. That would also be a democracy again if this was done right and set up successfully which is just as important as the idea of a Federalist Republic of Europe getting it right. Similar to how the United States of America was set up in the late 1700s.

So how would a Federalist Union of Europe look like: somewhere between 27-30 states. Federal capital in Brussels and probably similar to the United States that it would have checks and balances, separation of branches simply because of the fact that each state in the union use to be an independent country so they would want their own autonomy over their domestic affairs, but also so the big states in the union like Germany, France and Italy to use as examples do not control most of the political power in Brussels.

So you would have an executive branch like the commission which is called administration in America. With a President at the head with several different cabinet level ministries. But with a legislative branch that would probably be Bicameral Assembly or Congress, or Parliament so the smaller states as well as the people are well represented as well. You would have some type of Federal assembly. With a lower House and an upper house called the Senate or council. The lower House would represent Federal House districts and the Senate would represent the states.

This new assembly similar to how Congress works in America would be able to write and pass their own legislation. In other words, write laws with the President getting veto and signing power over them. And the assembly would have to pass the same laws before it would go to the president. The House and Senate would have to conference and pass the same law before it is sent to the President. The President as head of the commission would get to send legislation to the assembly as well as veto or sign assembly legislation.

You would then need a Federal judicial branch that would judge the constitutionality of laws that are passed at all levels. As well as handle civil disputes including a high court. As well as criminal cases that the commission prosecutes which again is similar to how America and a lot of other Western democracies function. The difference being the Europe would be more Federalist with more power going to the states over their own affairs. So Europe probably wouldn’t be a social democracy with so much power centralized with the central government. Because states rights because of the fact these states use to be countries would be highly respected.

Because of all the cultural, ethnic, and national tensions like with creating a national language, Europe would have to be Federalist with the states having autonomy over their domestic affairs. With a lot of power going to the governors and state legislatures. So these states feel well represented in Europe and feel that this new powerful country is home for them and being able to live in their native state and speak their native language. But having a Federal language which would probably be English so the Federal Government could do its business, but also so Europeans of different ethnic backgrounds could communicate with each other.

Posted in Europe Affairs, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

STV News: Scotland Tonight- Rona Dougall Interviewing Laurie Clark & Peter Hughes: ‘How Would Independence Affect the Prospects of Business’

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:STV News– Attachment-1-1380interviewing Laurie Clark and Peter Hughes about the prospects of Scottish independence.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

“STV News: Scotland Tonight- How Would Independence Affect The Prospects of Scottish Business?” Originally from STV News, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Perhaps the future of the United Kingdom should be a federalist one where the states or republics in Britain: England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland would be able to handle their own domestic affairs. Have their own state or provincial governments and handle their own education, law enforcement, regulatory system, social welfare systems. The things that the states in America do or provinces in other developed democracies do.

But where the national government in London handles the things that only national governments should be doing. Like the currency, foreign affairs, national security, etc. Where the English, Scotts, Welch and Irish feel closer to the U.K. and feel British because they have a large say in what happens in their daily lives in the places that they live.

With a federalist system it wouldn’t be top-down with big government thinking it knows best for everyone. Instead the states and localities would be able to handle the issues that they see and are on top of live with everyday.

The national government handling the things that countries need to have done at the national level. Like interstate commerce, interstate crime, foreign policy, the national economy, taxation, but where the states and localities could have their own tax revenue to pay for the operations of their own governments.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Posted in British Affairs, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton’s 1992 Democratic Nomination Speech

Posted on September 21, 2014 by Erik Schneider

WJC

Source:Clinton Foundation– Governor William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) accepting the 1992 Democratic Party presidential nomination, at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat , on WordPress.

“On July 16, 1992, President Clinton delivered his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic Convention. With his “New Covenant” philosophy, President Clinton looked to bring everyone together: “There is no them. There is only us.”

Source: Clinton Foundation

In 1992, when the Democratic Party nominated Bill Clinton for President, the Democratic Party completed the transition it started in the mid 1980s after losing the 1984 presidential election in another landslide similar to 1984 and the third landslide loss they had at the presidential level since 1972 and after the 1984 landslide loss.

The New Democratic Party that was emerging, was a coalition of Democrats who by the time Bill Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President in 1992, were called New Democrats who aren’t Moderate Democrats, but Liberal Democrats, but not in the stereotypical ways that Liberals tend to get stereotyped as today.

The New Democrats, are Liberal Democrats who weren’t pro-government, but not anti-government either, but Democrats who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Not use government to try to managed Americans lives, but empower people so they can do that for themselves. Which is very different from the way the Democratic Party was prior to 1985 and how they were seen.

I believe the biggest legacy that Bill Clinton had as President of the United States and his political career in general, was how he changed the Democratic Party and moved the Democratic Party. Changing it from a party that was at least as seen and in some cases with the Far-Left in the Democratic Party, as an anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-success, anti-military, ant-religious, anti-American even party. To a party that became in favor of all of those things, but wanted them to be used in a responsible way.

New Democrats don’t want people to be able to force their values on the rest of the country that didn’t agree with them especially through law. They want all Americans to have a good opportunity to be successful in America instead of a select few being able to control most of the wealth in America. Who weren’t anti-military and didn’t believe America should or could police the world, but protect America. That was pro-law-enforcement but also respected civil liberties and personal freedom as well.

The New Democratic wave in the Democratic Party really started in 1976 with the Democratic Party nominating Jimmy Carter for President. And how President Carter moved the country as President on economic and foreign policy by taking the position that the country didn’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t do everything for everybody. That there was a limit to what government could do for the people who people themselves needed more power and freedom to be able to take care of themselves and that America also needed to be strong at home as well as abroad.

One problem with Jimmy Carter is that he didn’t get reelected and as a result the Democratic Party in the early 1980s went back to the Social Democratic Party that was at least seen as against those things I’ve already mentioned. And seem to have a new tax increase or government program for all the country’s problems. And what Bill Clinton did in 1992 was move the party back to what Jimmy Carter started in 1976 and was able to move the party forward because he got reelected in 1996.

I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit as it relates to the Democratic Party especially because he essentially saved the Democratic Party and kept it as a national party that remained competitive at the presidential level. And thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama the Democratic Party wins back Congress in 2006 and have retained control of the Senate since 2007 even though they lost the House in 2010 and the Democratic Party has been able to do these things because they are no longer seen as a far-left, Social Democratic Party.

Instead the Democratic Party is seen as a center-left party, (even thought it also has a center-right) that in a lot of these areas are now beating the Republican Party. And all of this started with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and went full circle with Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And that trend has continued ever since with McGovernites, the Social Democrats in the Democratic Party now finally fighting back to try to take back the power they had in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 70s.

Posted in Bill Clinton, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

C-SPAN: President Bill Clinton’s 1993 Inaugural Address

Posted on September 21, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Before Bill Clinton became President of the United States, Liberal Democrats were seen as tax and spenders, soft on Crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare, anti-private enterprise, anti-success, anti-wealth, pro-centralize power, “that the Federal Government had all the answers to America’s problems”. We were seen as anti-American, Unpatriotic anti-religious and fiscally irresponsible, deficits don’t matter.

How times changed in just eight years because by 2000 Democrats and a lot of that credit should go to President Clinton, were ahead of Republicans on a lot of these issues. We were seen as the party of fiscal responsibility, we were now leading Republicans on tax cuts and foreign policy, crime and many other issues. President Clinton brought a real liberal agenda to the United States. Not the liberal agenda which is how liberalism has been stereotyped in America.

But a liberal agenda that was based on what liberalism is actually about. Different from progressivism or democratic socialism and its very hard to tell the difference. Between Progressivism and Democratic Socialism today, at least how they are both practiced. But President Clinton’s liberal agenda was based on yes individual liberty. He didn’t want to empower the Federal Government to take that away from Americans, but he also wanted to empower people who didn’t have the freedom to live their own lives and be self-sufficient, because they lacked the skills to do so.

President Clinton liberal agenda was based on, individual liberty and responsibility. That if you work hard and play by the rules and are productive, you should be rewarded for that and not have government on your back. This is what liberalism its different from progressivism that is more government oriented. Or democratic socialism that is almost completely government oriented. It’s about empowerment, individual Liberty and responsibility. That free adults should have the liberty to live their own lives. But then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. Good and bad and its also about equality of opportunity.

Not equality of result, that for people who don’t have the skills to be successful and self- sufficient in life, that they are empowered to do so. Which makes society as a whole better off to have more well-trained workers, with the ability to take care of themselves. And more well-trained workers in the workforce, having good jobs and being productive. Paying their fair share of taxes, but not paying taxes that are so high, that it discourages people from being productive.

Bill Clinton put liberalism back on the map in the United States as a positive force for change and made it a mainstream political philosophy, because he was able to put aside the false negative stereotypes that had been suffocating liberalism the previous twenty-five years. And was able to show Americans, that it wasn’t about government doing everything or nothing. But that government should be limited to what it does well and what’s constitutional.

Posted in The New Democrat, WJC Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

President William Jefferson Clinton: Farewell Address (2001)

Posted on September 20, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Attachment-1-253

Source:American Rhetoric– President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001)

“My fellow citizens, tonight is my last opportunity to speak to you from the Oval Office as your President.

I am profoundly grateful to you for twice giving me the honor to serve, to work for you and with you to prepare our nation for the 21st century. And I’m grateful to Vice President Gore, to my Cabinet secretaries, and to all those who have served with me for the last eight years. This has been a time of dramatic transformation, and you have risen to every new challenge. You have made our social fabric stronger, our families healthier and safer, our people more prosperous.

You, the American people, have made our passage into the global information age an era of great American renewal. In all the work I have done as president, every decision I have made, every executive action I have taken, every bill I have proposed and signed, I’ve tried to give all Americans the tools and conditions to build the future of our dreams, in a good society, with a strong economy, a cleaner environment, and a freer, safer, more prosperous world. I have steered my course by our enduring values: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, a community of all Americans…

From American Rhetoric

“President William Jefferson Clinton’s Farewell Address to the Nation. Delivered 18 January 2001. Audio corrected re-issue. Courtesy William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library. Complete transcript and audio at:American Rhetoric.”

From American Rhetoric

Before Bill Clinton became President of the United States, Liberal Democrats in America were seen as something we are not. We had all sorts of negative stereotypes about us, not all of them unfair because there are Democrats back then and today who meet these stereotypes, but they just aren’t Liberal Democrats. And there’s a different and accurate term that defines their politics. But they just aren’t liberal, even though they have some liberal views on social issues.

Pre-President Clinton, Liberal Democrats were seen as tax and spend, big government supporters, Socialists. Who are soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare. That we just wanted to soak the rich in taxes to take care of the poor. And soak the middle class in taxes to take care of them as well. That we wouldn’t do what was necessary to protect the country. And that we see the U.S. Constitution a document to use for advice. But that it wasn’t enforceable.

By the time President Clinton left office in 2001, Democrats were more trusted on law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, the economy, fiscal responsibility then Republicans who use to own these issues. And this didn’t happen by accident. Just within the first two years of the Clinton Presidency, President Clinton got a deficit reduction package through Congress. That had deep budget cuts and a tax hike on the wealthy.

President Clinton got two trade agreements through Congress as well. NAFA and GAT and got the 1994 Crime bill through Congress as well. That had the Brady bill on Handguns, meaning to buy a new handgun, you had to pass a background check. And new tough sentences on violent offenders. Including a Three Strikes Law, 25-Life for criminals convicted of violent felonies.

Presidents are judged by what shape the country was in when they took over and what shape the country was in when they left office. President George H.W. Bush by a lot of measures was a successful President. Especially on foreign policy, but the country was just coming out of recession with high unemployment, low economic growth, high interest rates and Inflation and a large Federal debt and deficit.

President Clinton also inherited a high crime rate when he took over in 1993 and all of those problems were either gone by 2001, or those problems were under control when he left office in 2001. And it didn’t happen by accident, because of the policies that the President got through Congress from 1993-95. But with also Welfare to Work in 1996, working with a Republican Congress.

President Clinton showed Americans that liberalism is not about being soft and irresponsible and that taxpayers will always cover the mistakes of others. That it was about individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government. But that people also had to be held accountable for their decisions. And that America had to do what it takes within the U.S. Constitution to defend itself. And that government can help people who are down get on their feet and become self-sufficient. This is why President Clinton was such a successful President, the best President we’ve had since Harry Truman.

Posted in Originals, WJC Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The New Republic: William J. Dobson: A Victory For Democratic Foreign Policy

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Erik Schneider

I had just turned five years old and was in kindergarten when President Jimmy Carter left the White House in January in 1981. After losing reelection in a landslide to Ronald Reagan in November 1980. I remember President Carter being President for like a year or so and at least hearing about the 1980 presidential election when they were happening. Jimmy Carter I believe in many ways is a very impressive and intelligent man.

And I believe the best Ex-President America has ever had, especially with what the Carter Center has done around the World on human rights. His intelligence and morality even came through while he was President with what he tried to do and was successful to a certain extent on energy policy and even foreign policy. While attempting to get America off of foreign oil and with his success’s with the Panama Canal Treaty, recognizing the People’s Republic of China and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.

But in some ways he was also a weak leader and I don’t say that with a smile on my face. Like many brilliant people, President Carter had and probably still does a great ability to analyze issues and the problems. But what he lacked was the ability to come up with answers to deal with the issues he and his Administration and the country faced. The economy and the Iranian Hostage Crisis being perfect examples of this.

When I look at President Obama’s presidency, I see similar characteristics to President Carter. Not be able many times to make decisions quickly, even if the right answer seems obvious. Like Libya such as, or being able to take tough stands on issues. Because I believe he’s more interested in not offending people and that’s what happens many times when you make tough decisions. Even if it’s the right thing to do and that’s why they are called tough decisions.

There’s rarely full agreement to do anything in America a country of 310M people. A lot of times there’s not even a consensus, so if Leaders want to get things done and make the right decisions. They have to risk offending people, including special interest groups that generally support you. Th reason why Barack Obama is not a 2nd Jimmy Carter, because even though it takes him a while a lot of times to get to the right decision. He eventually gets there.

Health care reform, Wall Street reform, the Bush tax cuts, the budget agreement and Libya are good examples of this. This past weekend when the President and his National Security Council were in the process of taking out Osama Bin Laden, the President displayed a new ability, the ability to make the right decision and to do it quickly. His NSC gave him the opportunity to take out the most important global serial murderer. And President Obama pulled the trigger and took him out and it made me proud that he’s my President and to be an american.

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson: Remarks on Decision to Not Seek Reelection in 1968

Posted on September 18, 2014 by Erik Schneider

When President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection in March of 1968, the United States was very divided, but they were united around the fact that they didn’t like Lyndon Johnson as their President. His approval rating was somewhere in the 30s and America was a very divided country. Between the establishment and I guess Culture Revolutionaries that were tired of being told how to live and be and what it was like to be an American. And wanted to live their own lives the way they wanted to. Whether the conservative establishment was happy with their choices or not.

And of course we were divided as a country over Vietnam, the civil right movement, crime was high, riots everywhere, the Federal Government getting much bigger with the Great Society. And America was looking for a change and had President Johnson ran for reelection, he would’ve definitely had a primary challenger. Senator Gene McCarthy had already announced he was running for President. And Senator Bobby Kennedy was considering running for President. Both Democrats and LBJ might have won the Democratic Nomination.

But there’s no guarantee of that and even if that did happen he would’ve ended up leading a divided Democratic Party, which is what Vice President Hubert Humphrey ended up doing. Going up against a united Republican Party around Richard Nixon. Starving for a big win and a path back to power after being out of the White House and being the minority in Congress for the last eight years.

With Vietnam, high crime and the riots, LBJ lost the ability to lead a country that was divided. And looking for someone else to be their President and he made the right decision both politically. But for the country as well and gave Americans an opportunity to look for someone else to be their President. And take the country in a different direction, which is exactly what they got in Dick Nixon.

Posted in American Presidents, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Remember This: ‘The Real Story- Behind the Clinton Scandals’

Posted on September 17, 2014 by Erik Schneider

The Truth Behind the Scandals in the Clinton White House_ Conspiracy Theories (1996)Source:Remember This– President Bill Clinton and his wife First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993-94.

Source:The New Democrat

“David Brock, a conservative-turned-liberal pundit, has said he was once a part of an effort to dredge up a scandal against Clinton. In 1993 Brock, then of the American Spectator, was the first to report Paula Jones’ claims. About the book:Amazon.”

From Remember This

The real story behind the Bill Clinton scandals was that most of them were bogus. (To be kind) The Lewinsky affair and the China scandal from 1996 were the only real stories and so-called scandals for Bill Clinton as President, which is nothing compared with Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra and Richard Nixon with Watergate. Or go back to Lyndon Johnson lying to the country about America’s involvement in the Vietnam War and the progress of the war.

The hatred towards Bill Clinton from the Far-Right and other hyper partisans in this country, except for the race factor, is not that much different from the hatred that Barack Obama has received as President. What they hate about Bill Clinton is what they hate about Barack Obama. Which is what they both represent, two New Democrats on the Center-Left who represent the changing of America that we’ve gone through as a country since the 1960s. With all sorts of new Americans having their freedom in this country. No longer restricted to living a traditional way of life.

The Far-Right in America lives in the 1950s. The rest of the country lives in the 21st Century as far as how Americans live in this multi-culture and lifestyle country where all Americans are free to be themselves. And no longer having to feel the need to hide who they are or try to be someone else. And when someone from this part of the country rises to power and becomes not just powerful and not just the most powerful person in the country, but in the world, the Far-Right goes nuts and accuses that person of trying to destroy their way of life and seeks out to destroy them.

Posted in Bill Clinton, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roy Dan Baron: ‘Liberals Are Idiot Compassion & Conservatives Are Wise Compassion’

Posted on September 16, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

I’m going to try to put this in a way that is as accurate as possible, but at the same time isn’t overly insulting and unfair. Because I do respect Roy Dan Baron who at least up to this point I saw as someone who is a real Liberal Democrat in the sense that he believes in liberal democracy and would like to see everyone around the world with the opportunity to live in freedom. Including Americans, which is something I and The New Democrat believes in well. But at the same time his last post about Liberals, Conservatives and poverty is pure nonsense and even Tea Party propaganda. And that point also deserves and should be made.

His first point about Liberals believing in welfare over work. Which is my paraphrase and you’ll be able to see exactly how he put that on this post, and that Liberals believe in creating a socialist state. Well there is a few problems with that. One the obvious is not true. If you are a Liberal, you believe in liberty, the whole point of the word. If you are living off the state meaning taxpayers who support themselves, you are obviously not living in free, are you. Because you are free to support yourself and manage your own affairs.

Also you can’t be a Liberal and a Socialist, its one or the other. Just like you can’t be both a Neoconservative and as strong believer in the national security state and the military industrial complex and also be a Libertarian. Who puts individual liberty over everything including security. Or be a Religious Conservative who believes in their religious beliefs and their way of life so strongly, that you believe that everyone else should live by your values and even enforce that through law. And also be a Libertarian.

His last point being about “Conservatives believing in the free market over everything else and if government just gets out-of-the-way, everything will benefit from that”. Really? Well maybe someone who is a Conservative in the classical sense, meaning someone who believes in conserving freedom and the Constitution and not subtracting from those things. And that when government and business are combined or interlocked with things like corporate welfare, that is bad for freedom because now you’re putting business in charge of our well beings with our tax dollars subsidizing them.

If that is your idea of a Conservative, than I agree with you and present to you Barry Goldwater who was the real thing when it came to Conservatives and perhaps Senator Rand Paul of today. But the problem with this is that today’s Conservatives as much as they claim to hate welfare, are addicted and in love with what is called corporate welfare. Which is subsidizing business’s and allowing for them to avoid taxes simply because they are very wealthy and successful. When they fail, you bail them out and are Socialists. But when individuals fail, it’s the free market and the best of luck to you. This is not conservative, but it’s what is called corporatist. Which is a huge difference.

I don’t mind debating the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Actually I love the idea and love doing about poverty which is an issue that both sides care about and even have some thing in common on. But just as long as we are debating the real differences and not throwing bogus charges (to be nice) at each other, but that both sides understand what the other side is about. And honestly and truthfully expresses what they are about and what they believe in.

Global Freedom Network: Post: Roy Dan Baron

“Liberals are Idiot Compassion & Conservatives are Wise Compassion

Liberal Democrats believe in Idiot Compassion which is giving things to help people with welfare giving things to people live off the state and become socialist with no incentive at all to do any work. In other words to become bums of the USA.

Republicans and conservatives believe in what is called Wise Compassion which is NOT giving things away but it’s actually living in a USA country and a system where you don’t have roadblocks to access healthy safety work food clothing shelter community Conservatives enable
free market systems where anybody can go register an LLC and start a company and work hard to be successful

So it’s saying no we’re not going to just give you those things you’re going to have to get out work and work hard and then you can be successful but you also live in a USA country where it’s NOT a socialist country & we are not going to spread wealth all around to everybody and give everything away.

This is a USA society where we have are supposed to have free markets and there’s zero roadblocks and anybody and everybody has 100% equal opportunity to be extremely successful and work hard and do well this is what we call Wise compassion.”
Rand Wing: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- Why Should These Corporations Be Protected With This Corporate Welfare?

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment