I say no and includes Liberals neither left nor right. My understanding of "liberal" is they want what benefits the whole which would include the elimination of parties - as the "more prefect Union" phrase in the preamble is intended to convey.
People who are liberals would be observing the behavior of the governors seeking to ensure the governors are following the constitution less the Liberals would obey the Declaration of Independence's "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and removal them. Therefore things like the forty-seven-year "War On Drugs," which is governors declaring war on the people the United States, would demand the imprisonment of all past and impeachment of the present Presidents, Congressman, CIA who import the drugs per the Iran-Contra Affair, FBI who is the first I know of who put them in neighborhoods, state governments for not prohibiting it per Amendment 10, City governors, police forces, judges, DAs, defense attorneys and jail and prison wardens who participated in it. That is what liberals do.
>"My understanding of "liberal" is they want what benefits the whole which would include the elimination of parties - as the "more prefect Union" phrase in the preamble is intended to convey."<
Interesting take. You're right in line with George Washington who was opposed to political parties.
" “However [political parties] 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.” ~ George Washington
Washington was a wise boy, to bad most of the others had their eye on getting rich which led to parties who are now controlled by people with money enough to get them elected and pad their pockets. "The War On Drugs" has provided us the means of getting rid of them, as my hub /politics/Treason-USA-Style shows, all we nee to do is find someone who has the "know how" to petition SCOTUS to get the Engine and Caboose out of office.
Apparently, according to Dennis Praeger, Conservatives and true Liberals have a common enemy: The left.
(This may not generate conversation, but I think it makes sense.)
In your mind, Nature Boy, what do liberals stand for?
Is it something different than conservatives?
Conservative means "to maintain whatever is there."
Liberal is another word for "free" to me with the meaning of "producing a system that allow one any nondestructive and not imposing on others beyond heir individual needs the freedom to live it."
Kathryn , Liberals , democrats , democratic /socialist are all having an identity crisis like never before seen in American politics . Like the wonders of Sanders , Cortez , Warren , Cuomo , they really don't seem to have a reasonable grasp on WHO they are at this point .
Look at the powerful influences of academia and their intellectual elitism for instance , look at the obvious primarily liberal activist news media . Take the younger generations of America's education system by products , all liberally influenced . If conservative [unchanged ] America doesn't wake up soon ; there may be no America as we've known it from the beginning .
The America that You've known from the beginning is based on slavery, white supremacy and oligarchy, if that is what you are advocating for, I am more than content to remain asleep. Intellectual elitism? Is ignorance and stupidity better?
"The America that You've known from the beginning is based on slavery, white supremacy and oligarchy ..."
NO IT ISN'T
and the dwarfs should keep sleeping. hah ha ha ha !
Where is your argument NO IT ISN'T coming from. The beginning of slavery in the continental colonies is recognized as 1619 although the first slaves were probably brought to the colonies as indentured servants. The first recognized slavery began in 1640. The Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the South, but the Northern states were allowed to keep their slaves because Lincoln was afraid he would lose those states to his army. The 13th Amendment officially freed all the slaves, including those in the Northern states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.
Sounds like an oligarchy to me. Only White men had the vote until after the Civil War. Then even the men working for women's suffrage, turned their backs on women in order to get the vote for the African American MEN. By law all MEN were given the right to vote in 1870. Women of any color were not given the right to vote until 1920.
You know, it wouldn't hurt if actually you opened a history book every now and again...
"No more America as we have known it from the beginning" the "beginning" up till only relatively recently, is not any period that Me or Mine are interested in returning to. As such, I resist the Right and the Rightwinger as wanting to reintroduce it.
Why don't you read anything whatsoever in regards to what the founders based The US Constitution on.
You must despise George Washington, father of our country.
You resist the Right and the Rightwinger as wanting to reintroduce America as we have known it from the beginning ... What?
You think they want slavery?
When did America have an oligarchy?
When did America advocate white supremacy? Slavery was always going to be phased out. The Constitution was written FOR ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed, color.
No, I don't despise him, but he was slaveholder and therefore a hypocrite. He was the Father of YOUR country as Justice Taney said in 1857, that Blacks had no Rights that anyone had any obligation to respect.
"Slavery" They lived with and accepted it in their midst, you don't think that they wanted it?
Before the New Deal that brought some parity to the social fabric, it was the rule of the wealthy.
Can you see? There was the law and there was the reality, where the laws supported white supremacy in every aspect of American life and law. It was only through the spilling of blood and struggle along with successful legal wrangling that the tentacles loosened somewhat. Just because something was printed on a piece of parchment doesn't mean that it represented the reality on the ground.
1787, the Constitution was written for the benefit of wealthy white men, the poor and those without property were initially disenfranchised.
So you can save all that "Dick And Jane" stuff for someone who doesn't know better. I have a degree in American History, so I am not the one you should be attempting to deceive.
Thanks, Credence. You got me beat. I just have a history minor and half of that is American history and the other half is Russian and Soviet history. At least I have a basis to compare capitalism and communism and I know a little about global effect. I know better than to blindly praise a lunatic.
You are most welcome, MizB. You certainly know the score. And, you know how we historians are, maybe we can have an interesting discourse sometime over a virtual cup of coffee?
Poli-Sci and Philosophy here. I really appreciate the rational thought from Credence and MizB. We have a lot of historical revisionists lurking out there. They're a pain in the ass.
When people mention slavery in the Unites States, why are not all of the black slave owners mentioned? Why are we not taught about all of the blacks who owned slaves and there were many of them. In 1860 William Ellison was a black man and was one of the top slave owners in the Carolinas and when the civil war broke out he offered the Confederate army 53 of his slaves to fight for the cause. Everything you think you know about slavery is wrong.
https://americancivilwar.com/authors/bl … owners.htm
You are right about that, Mike. Also of the Native Americans who owned slaves, it was the mix breeds who were slave owners, not the full-bloods. For instance, Cherokee chief John Ross had a white father and a half-breed mother, and Choctaw chief Greenwood LeFlore's (LeFleur) father was a French Canadian. Both men had large plantations with hundreds of slaves. Many slaves were on the Trail of Tears and relocated to Oklahoma with their masters.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithson … 180968339/
Alright, Mike, I think in the other thread entitled “Slavery, White Supremacy, Oligarchy”, I posted a comment with a link to an article that clearly stated that non-white ownership of slaves, those slaves who were exclusively black, by the way, amounted to ½ of 1 percent of all the slaves that were held in the South. So, that is 1 out of every 200. Perhaps, that is why black slave owners were not mentioned? There are always exceptions to any situation, but this exception hardly changes the rule, now does it?
We have to bring this discussion up every now and then. But, I am inundated with apologists, accommodationalists, endless excuses, those that wish to mollify, those that want to say “Slavery, it was not so bad”. The healing process for us never happens because so many of you won’t even acknowledge that a crime had actually been committed. It was easier to create an entire culture, by whites of course, to ameliorate the true barbarity of the crime. What was it, the “happy darkie” and “mammy” for example. This, taking the ugly stereotypes well into the 20th century. I saw a Bugs Bunny cartoon, with Elmer Fudd, in reference to romanticized “Old Dixie” featuring whites in blackface. This particular cartoon has been censored but you can find it on You-tube, somewhere. All this was well immersed within American culture
I read of rightwingers who are allowed to revise history in schoolbooks in Texas, who refer to slavery as a footnote when discussing the Civil War. The existence and continued support of this institution up to the Civil War remains America’s preeminent crime, not just an error. We are not even talking about the travesty known as “Jim Crow” that came soon after to dominate for another century.
As far as what I know about slavery, I don’t think that I am too far from the mark.
What percentage of whites owned slaves at the height of slavery in the US? .001%? Yet we continue to talk as if every (white) person today either has or wants a slave or three.
"The healing process for us never happens because so many of you won’t even acknowledge that a crime had actually been committed."
No, Cred, the healing process for "us" (whoever you think "us" applies to) never happens because you refuse to come out of past hatreds and drop it. You refuse to accept that those slave owners are dead for 100 years. You refuse to accept that the very large majority of Americans today have no desire to own a slave or discriminate in any way. You demand that Caucasians that never hurt a flea make reparations for the actions of centuries dead people.
Slavery happened. It no longer does. Discrimination happened, in the most vile and obvious of ways. It no longer does outside of rare, isolated instances. Work on the problems of today - black unemployment, black kids dropping out of schools, black gangs, black on black violence, black drug usage...all the ravages that poverty puts on people. Ignore the problems of any race but your own if it pleases you...but move into the "now" and quit trying to squeeze "justice" out of people long dead or apply their evils to people today. You'll get a lot more accomplished and you'll feel a lot better doing it.
More excuses, Wilderness? I did not start this topic, but I am going to finish it. this idea of yours that we all are accusing present day whites of reverting to slavery is just another diversion. No one has said that. I am not going to ignore the history, because people are offended or inconvenienced.
Past wrongs have present day effects, but of course slavery is irrelevant to You folks, as you were in not in the most remote way adversely affected.
Nothing to do with past hatreds but with accurate history. I demand that history and the event not be sugar coated and forgotten, no more than the Jews are going to forget that there was a holocaust. If they forget, it could happen again. And, I don't rule out a revisit of travesty in this country if the circumstances were appropriate.
We are aware of our own problems, but I and others will not forget much of the history that brought us to this point. And to point out where your "system" continues to contribute to the problem. So, we are to look at both, in my opinion.
But, Wilderness, I will make a deal with you. If you can get those in the South to tear down all of those statues of Confederate Generals and "forget" about all of that "heritage" stuff, maybe I might be able to see clear to let bygones be bygones. Why should I forget, when they want to continue to remind me?
Your choice, as always, Credence. You can continue to live in the past, wallow in the hatred of the distant past and accuse others of extending it and thereby doing what you can to keep racism and hatred alive and well.
Or you can live in the present, doing what you can to alleviate the problems of others - even if it's ONLY those others of your "color" while others do what they can to help ALL people, regardless of race. Anything is better than nothing.
You can continue to hate the sight of a long dead military hero or you can rejoice in the progress our nation is making. You can blame Caucasians for all the problems black people face or you can do what you can to help them out of those problems.
Your choice. For me, I will continue to do what little I can to end suffering - black, brown, white or green skin. I shall to take people to task for being racist whether they are white, black, brown or any other color.
Most gracious of you, Wilderness. But, I bet if the situation were reversed you would not be so free with the flowery oratory.
What progress? You supported Trump that equals zero progress in this current political climate and they called Obama a divider....
KLH, I don't like to present my hubs but you should check out politics/Treason-USA-Style and see if that makes sense.
>"Slavery was always going to be phased out. "<
I'm sure that was great comfort to the slaves. Knowing that somewhere down the line long after they were dead and gone, slavery would end in this country. yeah, that would surely make their day so much easier to bear. .
Can you offer more than just....NO IT ISN'T? You know...flesh that out just a bit. Offer some reasons why you say that.
>"Intellectual elitism? Is ignorance and stupidity better?"<
That's really the question isn't it. It's the response from the ignorant. They hate intellectual curiosity. They're intellectually lazy and feel threatened by those that aren't. So, they wage a war on expertise. And the result is we get an idiot in the White House because...hey anybody could do that job. In fact, he could do that job and run his business at the same time.
They operate from the "gut", and the gut is a moron. Anyone that's ever punched a wall or kicked a lawnmower knows that. Its that place where all of our ancient fears live. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels and these experts and people that think, make it feel impotent. So intellect is pitted against feeling because it's somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It's pitted against character, because it's widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which means sly or diabolical. So, if something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually IS right. If it's felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument, they must both be right, or at least equally valid. You put lipstick and a dress on it and hang a sign around its neck that reads "Common Sense" which is rarely common and even more rarely makes any sense. Welcome to Idiot America.
Racism has many forms, part of that is being in adamant denial of aspects and objects that are before your very eyes, but they refuse to see because it would starkly contradict lies and misconceptions that they find comfort clinging to like a warm blanket. I find that aspect from this sort most irritating.
The endless excuses about the young being indoctrinated at the university level by liberals. The idea of the university is the exploration, question and inquiry, letting people find their way to what is true verses what is not, as opposed to indoctrination which is the way of the rightwinger.
It is composed of the arrogance of believing that through some sort of intuition, you know more than professionals trained in any discipline for a considerable time. Trump, being the case in point. Their so called "common sense" is in reality, no so common and can often times be considered senseless.
They are worse than lazy, they are stubborn in their opposition with their arguments based solely on the fact that it is the position held by the "other side".
Yes, IF there is a sleeping giant, They better wake up NOW!
A Fish rots from the head. So will America if we don't stop the bullshit.
To late, Adagio. It's already rotten from the US government's head to the incarcerators of the arrested people under "The War On Drugs" treason.
Well, the government only does what the politicians tell it to do. So, it's important to have people in office that are at least somewhat rational and use reason in making decisions that affect our lives.
That's why everyone in government has committed Treason since the 1971 announcement of "The War On Drugs" all the way to the correction centers. We only have to get two people to agree pointing out that the war on drugs is a war against the People of America and every president, congressman, CIA and FBI for importing and distributing them to the street dealers, State governments, City governments, prosecuting Judges, DAs, Defense Attorneys who didn't get them off, Law Enforces who made the arrests, Detention Centers and Prisons who kept them and Change Will Come quickly.
I am really appalled at your lack of knowledge and the lies you so easily throw around. It is beyond me to even respond.
I am just as appalled that you really believe all that Pollyanna stuff....
>"It is beyond me to even respond."<
Nahhh...you can do it. We want to know what you think That's what this is all about. Finding out what and how you think.
hmmm...that's not really thinking. That's just name calling. Can you offer something..you know, with a little more thought attached to it?
Does that mean that the Right is the opposite of evil? You do know that Hitler was from the extreme right...Right? He was pretty evil. In fact, he's gone down in history as probably the single most evil person of the 20th Century.
So The Constitution does not have the answers for all the evils of human nature?
and solve the problems created by the indulgences, excesses and criminal intentions of the citizenry??
And The Ten Commandments does not help humanity live in harmony?
So, what does that tell you? It should tell you that looking for perfection coming from imperfect men is a fools errand. You cannot get a perfect solution from and imperfect source. As for the Commandments which supposedly come directly from God, you have to decide if that story is true or just another way of using religion to control people.
The extreme right promotes Fascism, authoritarianism and autocracy.. Don't be a Fascist, authoritarian autocrat.
That's right only conservatives are ;
Your party has been pushing that same media crap since your Hillary 's sacrificial election stumbles. Too bad liberals can't conduct a single debate without that list above .
It's pointless , like talking to a chair.
Yeah...that's pretty much it. You marinate in bigotry. It's in your DNA. You don't seem to understand that it's not just the things you say, it's the policies that you promote, that reveal all of those things you listed. You simply hate being called out for your racist bigoted policies. Then you whine and cry foul, and blame others for your own lunacy.
To you it might. But it's only an observation of your own actions. And that's an observation that has spanned many, many years.
Conservatism is all about preserving existing institutions. That goes to the very core of conservatism. Slavery was an institution in this country. It's codified in our constitution, and conservatives fought to maintain it. It's in their DNA to preserve existing institutions. That institution was important to the South for economic reasons. The South is the most conservative region of this country. It always was and still is today. They were willing to secede from the Union and engage in a Civil War to preserve slavery. They lost that war, and have done everything they can to impede any progress on racial equality ever since. They may have lost that war, but they'll be damned if they're going to accept equal status with the black man. They hate the black man because he represents everything that they lost. He's a constant reminder that a way of life that they prized was taken from them and the people that served as slaves to them were now emancipated and could rise to the presidency itself.
Yes, Indeed the status quo that allowed for a man to plant, grow, cultivate and harvest the grain, while someone else was allowed to eat it.....
Blacks have spent the first half of the 20th century trying to get the federal government to commit to anti-lynching legislation. It is unconscionable to me that anyone could be executed and murdered outside of due process of law. I looked around and because blacks were the primary target, nobody cared about application of barbarism that was clearly extra-legal. They said that states rights was to control. If that was not pure and raw hatred, I don't know what was. It was not so "terribly" long ago, either.
>"That's right only conservatives are ;"<
What do you actually know about conservatism? Do you know where it comes from...who started the concept of traditional conservatism? What it's organizing principles are? What do you know about your own ideology??
Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what
quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.
The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo
in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.
The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct
challenge to a long held social concept. It is a Liberal challenge that denies the conservative idea of white supremacy as legitimate, just as our Liberal white founders had denied the conservative idea of a
“divine right of Kings” as legitimate. It’s interesting that our founders could assert their liberalism as a challenge to the conservative Monarchy of England, yet somehow lose sight of it when it came to its own conservative approach to institutionalized slavery. When your Declaration of Independence says “All men are created equal”, I always wondered how they squared that with the concept of slavery. It turns out it’s very easy when your constitution says that slaves are only 3/5’s of a human.
It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it. About 2,000 years earlier, Euclid stated; “Things equal to the same thing are also equal to one another”. It would take about another 70 years for the country to come to grips with the issue of slavery, but old habits are hard to break, and the racism that was embedded into the fabric of the country is as strong as ever.
The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order.
These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.
Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.
Letting go of the past is difficult to do. An entire race of people becomes an easy scapegoat for one’s own failures. Hate is passed on from one generation to the next. Parents teach their children to hate.
The cure for hate is education, so every attempt to keep schools segregated was an important factor. Every attempt to de-segregate schools was resisted. Integrated schools are a way of leveling the playing
field and a sign of equality and equality is a challenge to the social fabric. The more narrow the view point, the more ignorant the person becomes and the easier it is to promote fear and fear promotes hate. Fear always promotes hate.
The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order.
The Conservatives entire set of values is wrapped in a theory of rationality that was handed to him by somebody else with a nice big bow. His way of life is now threatened by a truth that contradicts his
beliefs. To admit that it was flawed and without any basis, is to admit that, foundationally, everything he believed in is flawed and that means that he could be wrong about something. And that also means
that there is no justification for the pain and suffering that his ideology has inflicted on others. An entire war was fought and over 600,000 lives were lost in order to continue a way of life that was baseless.
Rather than admit that his beliefs were in error, he clings to the ideology of hate and directs that hate toward the object that is the very cause of the hate: The Black Man. The Black Man is a constant reminder that his ideology is flawed, a reminder that his hatred is baseless. Holding on to an ideology with no basis is irrational.
Conservatives oppose the “liberal agenda”. But what is that “agenda”? Liberalism challenges the status-quo. Conservatism opposes any challenge to the status-quo. And there you have it. But what is the
justification for the status-quo, especially one that keeps an entire race of people suppressed because of an ideology without a basis?
African-Americans are fully aware of this attitude coming from conservatives, which is why so few align themselves to this ideology. Conservatives talk about trying to reach out to the African-American
community, but fail to understand that nobody wants to hang with people that hate you. Blacks understand the source of this hatred, and are not likely to embrace it. The conservative isn’t looking to reach out to the African-American for any reason other than gaining votes in an election. That won’t get it. Until conservatism renounces racism and purges racists from the Republican Party, they’ll never reach the African-American in any significant numbers.
"But what is that “agenda”? Liberalism challenges the status-quo. Conservatism opposes any challenge to the status-quo."
And, that resistance is consistent no matter how unfair or unequitable the status quo has been.
"African-Americans are fully aware of this attitude coming from conservatives, which is why so few align themselves to this ideology. Conservatives talk about trying to reach out to the African-American
community, but fail to understand that nobody wants to hang with people that hate you. Blacks understand the source of this hatred, and are not likely to embrace it. The conservative isn’t looking to reach out to the African-American for any reason other than gaining votes in an election. That won’t get it. Until conservatism renounces racism and purges racists from the Republican Party, they’ll never reach the African-American in any significant numbers."
You've got that right, brother!!
Hmmm... which "Conservative" are you addressing adagio? The one of today that does seem to fight any change to the status quo, or the one defined in basic definitions of conservatism, that, rather than oppose change to the status quo, only address the rate of change?
As you mentioned in your reference to Burke, (in another thread), and the French Revolution, there seems to be fertile ground to plant a discussion on how the rate of change might be applicable to a determinations of the pluses, (or minuses), of liberal vs. conservative views.
Could the Conservative's alarm of 'Jacques' be validated by the outcome of that revolution? They weren't opposed to any change, they were opposed to the rate of change.
The 'status quo' is not sacrosanct to a Conservative, but, I think, the ramifications of the rate of change are.
To direct this back to a political discussion, I think that was one of the problems of the Obama administration. I think they forced too much change too quickly. I think that had that administration taken smaller steps, and let each be digested before introducing the next, they may well have entrenched the important changes beyond reversal. But obviously, we are seeing that was not the case.
I think a traditional Conservative could have accepted many of those changes - had they had time to accommodate them, but, when the flood of bites exceeded the chewing capacity of traditional Conservatives, ie. our national bathroom controversy, a new Conservative came into play - one that resisted any change.
So, which of these Conservatives are you addressing?
"I think a traditional Conservative could have accepted many of those changes - had they had time to accommodate them, but, when the flood of bites exceeded the chewing capacity of traditional Conservatives, ie. our national bathroom controversy, a new Conservative came into play - one that resisted any change."
That would depend of who is waiting for the change. That one may not have the luxury of waiting on continued delay and gradualism. That is why conservatism's painfully slow movement from the status quo does not work for the underdog in any society. That is why it is so unpopular with minority groups as any progress has always meant bucking the status quo.
>"The Extreme Left Bashes America."<
America is a big strong country. It survived Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It can handle some bashing, otherwise known as criticism. But, you see, that's what free speech and a free press is all about. It affords us the right to criticize our government and hold their feet to the fire without reprisals from morons like Donald Trump who would silence his critics. Not a very American thing to do.
Sorry, KLH, The extreme left and right trashes America, those in the middle want to transform it into the "land of the free and home of the brave" while those divisions wants money and control over the people.
Lets talk about what Democrats have accomplished ;
While reading your profile and your location , I fully understand your views , Brattleboro Vermont , one of the strictest ,most delusional hotbeds of today's extremist liberal ideology known to man , Vermont , the state of my birth and where I once resided for decades in fact , I say" once " because Vermont at present ,if anyone one were willing to study, is the parrot of California liberal politics , you know , the historical , hysterical revisionist ideology of la La land .
The state who's 80 % controlling liberal ideology legislature has driven its youth and younger graduates of high school and colleges right out of their home state . Why one might ask ? Because of the very liberal ideology that you proclaim as the only informed ideology in America , over taxation , lack of jobs for the young and educated , because of the over regulation of social reengineering , because of an undeniably socialist political leadership where the Sanders , Welch and Leahy are so well know in the state as" The D.C. Three " as to render them entirely useless to Vermont OR America
A liberal state where the only jobs that pay a decent living are working with the coat- tail socialist's in academia ,join the ranks of the welfare state employees union , the highly subsidized health care system or such low wage service jobs as to make them unlivable wages . Yes ,The Democratic party that you love so much has destroyed any decent future for it's youth and young adults as to force the Governor to put forth a plan to PAY FAMILIES from OUT OF STATE $10, 000 DOLLARS to relocate TO vermont .
One other great feature of Vermont living ? The fact that in regions of Vermont are so far below the poverty level as to drop them off the charts altogether , A state where Opioid addictions are some of the highest in the America , where passing recreational Marijuana laws are the only way to afford a remedy for opioids addictions . I could go on!
So , your Democratic party "leadership " proves itself out actually quite well in your home state , But , let me tell you this , before I would move my family BACK to the total disaster , to the shining example of such the Democratic state of being as your Democratic stronghold of Vermont , I would travel back in time to colonial America and live at a higher standard of living .
Congratulations , Democrats are "winning" in Vermont ! Too bad the people who live there are not .
>"While reading your profile and your location "<
You actually read my profile and location? I'm flattered. I must have really gotten under your skin. I can promise you that it's purely intentional. I can't say that I've read yours, so forgive me if I seem dismissive.
>"Vermont at present ,if anyone one were willing to study, is the parrot of California liberal politics "<
Nahh...we resent that. California follows Vermont's lead. But we are very liberal. And that's refreshing after living in Alabama for 10 years. Quite a difference.
>"The state who's 80 % controlling liberal ideology legislature has driven its youth and younger graduates of high school and colleges right out of their home state ."<
Nope. Neither ideology or legislature,( which is the first in the country to legalize pot) drives young people from the state. The state is primarily agricultural and not everyone is into dairy farming. However, it's currently ranked as the 6th best State in America to live in. https://www.homesnacks.net/these-are-th … ca-123067/ New England has 5 of the top 10 states on the list. NH is #1. MA is #2, and Ct is #3. RI comes in at #10. Vermont is #6.
How we crunched the numbers for the best states of 2018
We threw a lot of criteria at this one in order to get the best, most complete results possible. Using FBI crime data and the most recent ACS 2012-2016, this is the criteria we used:
Population Density (The higher the better)
Lowest Unemployment Rates
High Median Income
High Home Values
Levels of College Education
A lot of insured people
Median Income: $56,104 (20th best)
Median Home Value: $218,900 (17th best)
Vermont is a great place to live for completely different reasons. Crime here is really low; Vermont is the 4th safest state you can live in. (New Mexico is the most dangerous).
If you value a good public school education, then Vermont is your place. The schools here are well funded, and just about the least crowded that you’ll find in the country. That’s not a surprise, since just more than a half million people live in the entire state
It might surprise you to hear that Vermont’s comfort index is really high. A good portion of the population can rest easy with insurance.
So there you have it. It's a beautiful place to live. Great people. Great landscape. Low population. No Traffic jams. Bernie Sanders. We love it. Mr. Fisher's bullshit notwithstanding.
US News and World Report has Vermont at #9. Still in the top 10.
So...my response comes from independent reports that look at every state. You on the other hand have a political bias that shows right through your critique. Lets be honest, ( I know that might be something new for you...but try) You have a distinctly negative bias against liberals and Vermont would naturally attract as negative an attack as you could muster. So you have a vested interest in your attack on the state of Vermont since it serves your own political bias. On the other hand these independent reports have no political axe to grind. So...,who should we believe? You, or these two independent reports? Boy...that's a tough call.
I don't think where a person lives disqualifies him or her from having an opinion, especially when it is informed and rational.
You mean informed to his and your ideology ? Liberals , not necessarily anyone here , have and are destroying the Vermont of my ancestors by turning it hard left , We all talk about the Sanders , Cortez , Warrens , and socialization of America ; entitlement driven , fiscal irresponsibility has turned Vermont into the next Venezuela. over- taxation with new taxes on the horizon and unfunded state retirements systems including education , increased welfare roles , an aging white population , young driven away by lack of affordable housing , A healthcare system cost that would have driven state taxation and incoming revenue to over twice its present status , one of the worst drug addiction states in America . I moved from Vermont last year and cut my property , income and sales tax burden by 80 % .........................cont.
But you can't see anything wrong with where a person lives ?
by Kathryn L Hill 2 months ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
by crankalicious 6 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Kathryn L Hill 5 months ago
Since it's beginning, America has been based on, "slavery, white supremacy and oligarchy ..."This understanding is just not true and the majority of the citizenry know it. How any individual or group of individuals think(s) they can get away with such HOGWASH is beyond me!!!!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for unethical behaviour wants more of the tax payers money! Given how she's abused it in...
by Susan Reid 4 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!What do YOU think about Ms....
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|