Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Young Turks: Video: Panel: Internet Porn Blocked All Over Britain: Big Government Just Got Bigger in Britain

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress 

Just when you think government is already too big in Britain right now, now Brits can be arrested for what they do in their private time as well as being taxed up to their, lets say shoulders. To keep this post clean, but big government statists in America must be loving this right now. Here's a country where big government statists on the Left and Right could live happily together, or at least find things they like about Britain. A country where people don't have much individual freedom in their economic or personal lives. 

Can't really talk about the First Amendment, free speech and free assembly arguments about this decision in Britain. For one I'm not a lawyer and try my damndest to not play one on TV or even online when I blog. Second of all, not familiar with the British free speech rights and I don't even believe they have one. The United Kingdom is not a constitutional republic or democracy. They are a constitutional monarchy and don't even operate under a constitutional form of government. 

For all you so-called Progressives in America who in Britain would be called Social Democrats, who want us to be like them.  Imagine if we had their form of government, but in our country with our population. And if that is not a big enough nightmare for you, I'll make it worst and perhaps deny you months worth of needed sleep. Imagine someone from the Christian-Right coming to power as President of the United States. Now they would be able to do this unilaterally and not even not have to consult Congress about it, but not have to worry about a constitutional court challenge. 

Big government is exactly that, government that is too big. Otherwise it wouldn't be called big government whether it comes from the Right or Left. It is government trying to micro-manage the life of their people, because they think the people are too stupid to perhaps even cross a busy street on their own and now we need federal street crossers to decide who can cross the street and when. That would be a nanny state at its extreme, but what they are doing with porn in Britain is not that far off. 

Monday, July 22, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Teddy Roosevelt and The Living Wage

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: Thom Hartmann: Teddy Roosevelt and The Living Wage

I don’t think that some right-wingers and business’s understand that it’s in their best interest to pay their employees a living wage and not something that would make them rich or even middle class to start with. Because their employees would work harder and be more productive, because they know they are now getting a real stake in the company. And perhaps not need that other job and put all of their work time into that one job. It would also save taxpayers money, because we would end up spending less on public assistance as a result. And more jobs would be available because fewer people would have multiple jobs.

I don’t believe anyone is entitled to at the least a middle-income. That is something that you earn by the job that you have and the work that you do. But we are all entitled to be fairly compensated for the work that we do. You’ll never ever convince me that grocery store cashiers and Walmart associates, should only be paid $7.25 and hour or less, when the work that they do is essential for their employer staying in business. And you want to make the free market argument, fine! Just make a real one and have that market includes more people than just the employers. Include the workers and the consumers as well and you can leave out government, except for regulating.

But as long as taxpayers are subsidizing employers including large for-profit business’s and even their employees cost of living and we have a regulatory state and a public safety net and everyone is paying taxes for the public services that they receive, we don’t have a free market. And neither does any other large developed country in the world either. As long as that is the economic universe that we live in government has a role here to see that everyone has not just an opportunity to work, but an opportunity to pay their bills and not have to live off of other taxpayers. Because their employers drastically underpay them for the work that they do.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Thom Hartmann: ‘White People Don’t Understand White Privilege’

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: Thom Hartmann: ‘White People Don’t Understand White Privilege’

What Thom Hartmann doesn’t mention is that no race of people in America knows what it’s like in America for another race. Sure! We have ideas, thoughts, evidence and know people of other races and talk to and listen to them for the most part. But we don’t know until we are in their shoes. But what Thom does instead is singles out one race of people who todays so-called Progressives like to critique and go after the largest target in the United States. So that is my first point.

And my second point about what President Obama said. He’s correct about how some Caucasian-Americans ignorant Caucasians who simply do not know better, have a tendency to look at African-Americans as dangerous and thugs and so-forth especially if they are wearing Hip-Hop, or what is called gangsta gear. But here’s the rest of that true story. So does members of other races of people again out of ignorance who for some of them have those same tendencies as some ignorant Caucasians.

And all the evidence that you need to see to know that is that it’s not just Caucasian cab drivers who drive by African-American men who are wearing business suits. Who are looking for a cab but it is some cab drivers of other races who do the same thing. As well as African immigrant cab drivers who drive by African-American men looking for a cab as well. My main point being that no race in America has a monopoly on ignorance and racism. This is an evil that we all share as a country.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

AlterNet: Opinion-Sean McElwee- "The Case For Censoring Hate Speech": No Good Case

Source: Lighthouse Insights
Source: FRS FreeStates Plus

When you live in a liberal democracy take like America you should be aware that most of the things that you receive in life aren’t free. That you are one of today three-hundred twenty-million people and that we simply do not see things the same way. And all live in our different factions, or cultures, or cliques, however you want to put it. And what may sound like the truth to you, may sound like hate speech to someone else. But since we are a liberal democracy we all have the freedom of thought and speech. As long as we aren’t acting on these ideas that could physically hurt innocent people, or put them in danger.

The First Amendment like the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment and all our constitutional amendments are not absolute. Meaning they can be regulated, but not to the point that they limit individuals in how they live their own lives. For you can say whatever you want and think whatever you want. But you can’t order someone to be killed or physically assaulted without a price for that. You can own a gun in America, but you can’t use that gun to murder someone. We all have the right to privacy to protect law enforcement from breaking into our homes without just-cause. But if they have good reason to believe that someone’s health or life is in danger, they can break the door down to save that innocent person. And if they believe you are at fault, they can arrest you.

Since freedom is not free that means we have to put up with sometimes even things that we do not like, including speech. That you are free to live your own life. But so is everyone else whose not incarcerated. So they may do things or believe in things that may offend you and you have the right to disagree with them. And take another side, but you cannot stop them from what they are doing or what they believe in. Simply because you do not like what they believe in and what they said.

The First Amendment is a perfect example of that. As long as we aren’t inciting violence or threatening to hurt or kill innocent people. Or yelling fire in crowded spaces when that fire doesn’t exist, we are free to believe in and say what we think. Which is what makes our country a liberal democracy. Along with our other constitutional rights, as other countries are a little more statist and collectivist and put more authority and faith in the state over the individual.

As far as I’m concern if you do not believe in freedom of thought and speech and choice more broadly than just abortion, you are not a Liberal. You cannot be a Liberal if you do not believe in a high degree of personal freedom. When you put the state over the individual when it comes to personal freedom, you are not a Liberal, but more of a Statist. Even if you are pro-choice on abortion, marijuana and sexuality.

If your idea of liberalism is that it is the job of the state to protect people from having to see or hear things that may offend them, than you are not a Liberal. And sound more like a Religious-Conservative, or some other type of Statist, than you do a Liberal. And even if we were to outlaw hate speech, good luck with that with our first amendment, who would be the judge of what is and what isn’t hate speech. Partisan right and left-wing ideologues who see it as their job to eliminate speech they disagree with. While they are protecting the speech that they want. Which is what would happen in our current divided political system and culture.

Liberal democracy is all about freedom of speech, thought and expression. Again as long as we aren’t threatening to physically harm or kill people or inciting violence and yelling fire in public places. Which gives Americans the right to be, quite frankly assholes, as long as they aren’t physically threatening people. Which is why we have freedom of speech as well as hate crime laws. So people do not have the right to physically harm to kill others because they simply to not like them because they are bigots. One of the differences between living in a liberal democracy and some type of authoritarian state. Where you can be arrested for your own views.
IQ Squared: Hate Speech- Better American Fundamentalism Than European Censorship

Sunday, July 14, 2013

FRS Daily Journal Plus: High Society 1956- True Love: Bing Crosby & Grace Kelly

Source: Ana Pailos Pensado - Bing with Grace in High Society 
Source:FRS Daily Journal Plus

I’ve only seen bits and pieces of High Society, which to me anyway as someone who isn’t at least a full-time movie critic, is a pretty overrated movie. But I kind of like this scene, because Grace plays a somewhat stuck up spoiled young women who doesn’t like her parents that much, especially her father and they don’t approve of her completely. And she wants to get pass that and decides the way to move pass that, is to marry a pretty boring man who no one close to her is crazy about.

Source: Asteroid Style- The Amazing Grace Kelly was High Society 
And her ex-husband played by Bing Crosby, sees right through that and is telling her, that she could be a special person if she just let her guard down and have feeling for other people’s feelings. Bing’s character was being sort of a constructive critic towards Grace’s character. A new man Tracy’s life played by Grace, Mike Connor played by Frank Sinatra, also sees Tracy’s wall that she has built around herself and tries to knock it down in this movie as well.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: "Harry Reid Full Of Cat Shit On Filibuster Nuclear Option": Bipartisan Bullshit Strikes Again

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

I was watching a little of C-SPAN today before I went bike riding and went out and did what I needed to do. Why, because I’m a political junky whose interested in other things than the George Zimmerman case. And actually interested in important news that affects the country and that makes me un-American than so be it. C-SPAN was showing a debate in the U.S. Senate and for all of you Zimmerman trial junkies who are perhaps reading this blog by accident, thinking this was also about George Zimmerman, one turn off your TV.

And perhaps take a look out in the world and see what else is going on. But C-SPAN is the network that covers the United States Congress and other current affairs events that are going on the country. And C-SPAN was showing an old Senate debate from 2005 when the then Senate Republican majority and the last one that they’ve had wanted to eliminate the filibuster on executive appointments. I was watching this old Senate debate and couldn’t, but help notice the hypocrisy on both sides.

If I had to guess there was more hypocrisy coming from the Republican side led by then Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell. Who is now of course the Minority Leader a job he’s had since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. And if I had to bet there’s probably more hypocrisy coming from Senate Republicans than Democrats. But if this were some crazy contest it would be a nail biter. I mean it would be like trying to decide which is redder, or the red apple or tomato? How would you and besides why would you care?

Neither side has been very responsible here. But guess what, this is Congress and why would the Senate be responsible anyway, they don’t work for a living. Neither does the House of Representatives in too many cases as well. But the same people led by Mitch McConnell today Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Jeff Sessions all members of the Judiciary Committee and then Senate Leader Bill Frist who first proposed the so-called nuclear-option, are now saying this is a power grab by Senate Democrats and they’re the ones being unfair.

“Sure if we do this, we’re acting in the best interest of our party, I mean country. But when the other side does it, it is a complete abuse of power and unconstitutional”. I mean seriously anyone who is actually familiar with Congress, still wondering why they have a ten-percent approval rating? And who are these ten-percent anyway? Any of them not living in mental hospitals and not in comas. Perhaps whoever does these polls, counts dead people. You know, the way they vote in Illinois, Louisiana and New Jersey.

Where do Congress people come up with these labels? “We’re saying the Democratic obstructionism is out of control. And we need to do away with the filibuster? Are now saying that “the filibuster is a check on absolute power in America”. On the Democratic side back in 2005 led by then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is now of course the Leader to go along with Senator Chuck Schumer who is also on the. Judiciary Committee to go along with Senator Jack Reid, Senator Evan Bayh and others, those Democrats were saying eliminating the Senate filibuster would be a power grab.

“We’re saying that eliminating the filibuster would be an abuse of power and go against two-hundred years of Senate tradition and so-forth”. Wait, aren’t these Democrats supposed to be the Liberals, what do they care about tradition? But now they are saying that “the filibuster now represents ruling by minority. With one minority party in this case the Senate Republican Conference led by Mitch McConnell now running and having veto say on how the executive and judicial branches can now operate. When instead they are just supposed to be one voice and a minority voice at that”.

The point being that there’s enough hypocrisy and hypocritical people, to be nice, bullshit artists to be accurate here to form their own national club of bullshit artists. “We’re a club that creates and promotes bullshit across the country”. Apparently the agriculture sector is really struggling and then they need to create this national club, because they aren’t producing enough bullshit. Apparently Winnie the Bull is sick or something.

This club wouldn’t need any other members because all the available spaces would be filled by the United States Senate and an example of why ninety-percent of Americans dislike Congress. Because we have a lot of Senators like this. This whole Senate filibuster debate is all about “do what I say not what I do. Forget about my past record because this is what is important now and what I believe in”. They sound like your parents, right.

Which of course is the easiest near advantage that they can use against the other side and hit them as hard as they can with it until they lose power. Apparently unaware that will be used against them once they are out of power. Rather than doing what is best for the Senate and respecting the true role of the Senate as the upper chamber in Congress and its role in the Federal Government.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

AlterNet: Opinion- Jada Thacker- “Concept of Limited Government Is Right-Wing Bunk”: What Limited Government is All About

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

Just reading a blog in the AlterNet by Jada Thacker, basically Arguing that limited government does not exist in the United States Constitution, is confusing to me, to say the least. I’m assuming that she’s implying that those two words do not exist in the Constitution or they do not exist together. And I thought it were Conservatives who were supposed to be the strict constructionists of the United States Constitution. That laws are supposed to be judged by the words itself and not what they mean, or how laws were written. Or the intent of the lawmakers. That Progressives are supposed to have a more liberal (small l) view of how to judge laws.

Whether or not the words limited government do or do not exist in the Constitution or not, the fact is limited government is in the Constitution, because government at all levels, because of the. U.S. Constitution have limited power and authority in what they can do, including the Federal Government. To give you some examples. The police or FBI even can’t simply just break into someone’s home. They need a warrant or just cause to do that. So that would be an example of limited government. Limiting what government can do. Congress can’t pass a law by statute that outlaws free speech, or any other of our Constitutional Amendments.

Congress, both the House and Senate, has to pass the exact same Constitutional Amendment in both the House and Senate and it has to be the same amendment. And both chambers of Congress have to pass this same Constitutional Amendment. With a 2/3 vote as well on the floors of Congress. But again where the Federal Government is limited here. The Feds do not have the only say in how our Constitution gets amended. Because even if Congress does pass a Constitutional Amendment, two-thirds of the states and their legislatures have to pass the same amendment for the Constitution to be changed.

Without limited government we do not have a Constitution or that great document is basically meaningless. And nothing more than a bunch of suggestions. So we have limited government, yes in our Constitution to protect the people and to protect our freedom. From the state, not to weaken government, but to protect us from big government. And prevent America from becoming some type of. authoritarian state. So our liberal democracy is not just about elections and free speech, but also having the freedom to live our own lives. And keeping government off of our backs so we can live our own lives.