Freedom was more popular than it is today

[Papasito]

I found this to be a very interesting video.
Please do not comment on the video unless you watch the entire thing.



There was once a time when Democrats embraced the American way, and both parties felt Freedom was our most valuable asset as a nation.

[rb336]

"Freedom" was always given lip service by the government and parties, but it was never really meant for anyone but the wealthy. Nothing has changed since this was made. it was BS then, it is BS now

[RaumVogel]

This is what we need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2auI6Uz3D8I

[Omaha]

As a Colbert Conservative, I feel compelled after watching the cartoon to point out that NOT all freedom is created equal! Deserving people should have MORE freedom than undeserving people. Our Founding Fathers thought so…ESPECIALLY when it came to running the government. Read for yourselves.

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government in a speech before the Constitutional Convention, 1787

“The people who own this country ought to govern it.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court commenting that a wide expansive right to vote is illogical and un-American

Fast forward those sacred sentiments to the Gilded Age and it is clear that owners deserved the complete and unfettered right to unilaterally make any and all decisions about how to run their business. Heck the Robber Barons were so beloved for creating a roaring economy which made the U.S. the leaders of the free world that the History Channel finally got around to dedicating a series to them called “The Men Who Built America.”

The History Channel did NOT dedicate this series to the everyday wage earners who were attached to the machines that produced the goods which were sold in the market. No, this show was properly created to highlight the Top Dogs, the creative and greed-driven entrepreneurs at the top. These are the people who today deserve much more freedom than anyone else in society.

[Lowell]

Our Founding Fathers thought so…ESPECIALLY when it came to running the government.

You got^ that right.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And try find the word woman...

The 'founding fathers' [name does not deserve capitalization] were clearly a bright bunch, but the document they created failed disastrously and resulted in the loss of over 600,000 lives in the Civil War. It was only salvaged by de facto re-writing by amendment with the foot on the throat of the vanquished opposition.

Those men were largely self-interested men who by distrusting each other so much made a document based on minimizing the ability for any entity or party to gain absolute power. In that effort I commend them but for the poison pills they inserted, they lose the capitalization of their name and certainly all the goopy worship of them that goes on.

[oladub]

For a guy who voted for Obama, Oliver Stone has harsh words. He sees the Obama administration as an extension of the Bush administration in turning the US into an Orwellian state.

By today's standards, the Founders may have fallen short. They were unable to properly address the slavery issue as has already been mentioned. Women's suffrage was not considered. However, they did a good job of addressing the abuses of the Crown trying to make sure that the same evils would not persist after independence.

I think they would be disappointed to watch the Bill of Rights being gutted today and by the lack of protest from Americans. Back to Oliver Stone speaking of Obama and Bush, "

I think under the disguise of sheep’s clothing [[Obama) has been a wolf. That because of the nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him, people forgave him a lot. He was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them. That is what is sad. So we are going into the second administration that is living outside the law and does not respect the law and foundations of our system and he is a constitutional lawyer, you know. Without the law, it is the law of the jungle. Nuremburg existed for a reason and there was a reason to have trials, there is a reason for due process – . "

http://rt.com/news/oliver-stone-us-orwellian-022/

[Lowell]

Obama is more of a cop than some want to think which is making for uneasiness on both the right and the left. The unrelenting 'war' on drugs, GITMO, and not a peep about the the PATRIOT act are just some of the causes for concern.

Presidents of all parties have been inclined to both hold on to any new executive power and expand into new areas. It's as if it is a requirement of joining the club. One who holds the keys to the guns and the intelligence has an increasingly strong hand. The longer those powers remain the more solidified they become.

Only Congress and the Courts can curb this. And therein lies the problem. The founding fathers were flawed and so are the current fathers. Maybe we need more mothers instead.

[Det_ard]

Patriot Act
Gitmo
War on Drugs
Record high deportations
TSA searches
Targeted drone assassinations
Civilian drone deaths
Continued military deaths
Nobel Peace Prize winner

Any other Peace Prize winner have as much violence and violations of human rights on his record? Arafat maybe?

Too bad the "left" is so caught up in the Dem vs Rep football game that their voices are practically mute on actual issues of freedom, liberty and justice. Bravo, worthless pieces of shit!

[rb336]

Obama is more of a cop than some want to think...

That was apparent in the 2008 primaries to anyone who chose to look closely enough. It was part of the reason I did not vote for him in the primaries. And why I held my nose and voted for him in the two general elections. I would much rather have voted for Rocky Anderson if I had had more conviction that Michigan wouldn't go for Mitt [[and if he had been on the ballot in Michigan). It was nice to be able to vote for Nader in 2000 without worrying about NY going for dubya. NONE of this is going to change as long as the two corporatist parties maintain a stranglehold on US politics. Of course, this has been a joke of a democracy since inception. "we're the greatest democracy..." yeah, right. Tell me that when you look at any other major democracy that only has two parties - and two that are center-right on the one hand and growing more and more extreme right on the other.

[firstandten]

Obama is more of a cop than some want to think

Obama has shown he is as hawkish as they come, the difference being is that he doesn't boast about his hawkishness like those on the right like to. I think he gave a revealing part of his personality in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace prize. Where in his typical pragmatic style he acknowledges the conflict he feels between non-violence and violence and why he chose the latter. I think this part of his speech gives an insight into how he thinks. " "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

[rb336]

he wasn't wrong

[oladub]

As a Colbert Conservative, I feel compelled after watching the cartoon to point out that NOT all freedom is created equal! Deserving people should have MORE freedom than undeserving people. Our Founding Fathers thought so…ESPECIALLY when it came to running the government. Read for yourselves.

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government in a speech before the Constitutional Convention, 1787

“The people who own this country ought to govern it.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court commenting that a wide expansive right to vote is illogical and un-American

Fast forward those sacred sentiments to the Gilded Age and it is clear that owners deserved the complete and unfettered right to unilaterally make any and all decisions about how to run their business. Heck the Robber Barons were so beloved for creating a roaring economy which made the U.S. the leaders of the free world that the History Channel finally got around to dedicating a series to them called “The Men Who Built America.”

The History Channel did NOT dedicate this series to the everyday wage earners who were attached to the machines that produced the goods which were sold in the market. No, this show was properly created to highlight the Top Dogs, the creative and greed-driven entrepreneurs at the top. These are the people who today deserve much more freedom than anyone else in society.

Omaha, as a Colbert Conservative, selecting Alexander Hamilton as your exemplar founder is a good choice. After all, it was Hamilton who supported the president as sort of a constitutional monarch. Since the current leadership of both parties agrees with Hamilton on this, he has proven to be ahead of his time. Why, without such a concept, how would it be even possible for modern presidents to overthrow foreign nations without the consent of congress, raise congressional salaries, or overturn immigration laws with executive orders. Alexander Hamilton understood the need for monarchs to take action when Congress acts too slowly or passes bad legislation. All that business of only Congress legislating is ok if it doesn't get in the way of modern corporatism. Hamilton, as a forerunner of Colbert Conservatism laid the groundwork for the corporate state.

Pesky liberals and libertarians have been a hindrance, of course, to the Bush/Obama continuum. Chris Hedges suspects that, "the real purpose of [[Obama's NDAA provision) is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state."Of course, President Obama has promised that he won't utilize the provison he supported.

John Jay was also a bit ahead of his time with that comment. he would be so proud of the invention of the Federal Reserve an extra constitutional invention allowing the rich to print money, lending it out at interest for their own profit, and being above congressional scrutiny. This has allowed oil wars and vote buying to be paid for by our children so the sheeple don't complain. This week, we found out that $4T the Fed printed that was designated for saving small banks went directly the banks of Federal Reserve directors. There were no arrests of course. After all, laws are for little people.More recently, the Federal Reserve has been branching out asking for the privilege of spying on Americans and by providing information leading to the arrests of occupiers.

The imperial state is a work in progress. That is why we have presidents using executive orders, acting like monarchs, and buying up 1.6 billion hollow point bullets for domestic use just in case it doesn't work out so good. An especially nice touch was Goldman-Sachs being Obama's second largest donor in 2008 and Romney's largest donor, but only through the primaries, in 2012. By pre-selecting our candidates, the bankers couldn't lose. It was good insurance for protecting the elite. Colbert conservatives like W and Obama have fulfilled Hamilton's vision. Third term anyone?

[Omaha]

Oladub: Thanks for joining the growing throng of Colbert Conservatives. We have a lot to teach others about the true meaning of conservatism as practiced by Steven Colbert.

Your writing and insights imply both political parties are basically identical in their world view and were since the beginning. If true, that would mean that they are running a game on the electorate...and have been for a very long time! It may be true, it may not.

All I know as a Colbert Conservative and a Social Darwinist there IS a significant difference between the rich and poor.

The rich are rich because they are MORE deserving. They are smarter, work harder and choose their parents better...ergo, they are more DESERVING.

The poor are poor because they don’t CONTINUALLY pick themselves up by their bootstraps and work tirelessly to improve themselves. Moreover, they don’t choose their parents very well either.

[oladub]

Oladub: Thanks for joining the growing throng of Colbert Conservatives. We have a lot to teach others about the true meaning of conservatism as practiced by Steven Colbert.

Your writing and insights imply both political parties are basically identical in their world view and were since the beginning. If true, that would mean that they are running a game on the electorate...and have been for a very long time! It may be true, it may not.

All I know as a Colbert Conservative and a Social Darwinist there IS a significant difference between the rich and poor.

The rich are rich because they are MORE deserving. They are smarter, work harder and choose their parents better...ergo, they are more DESERVING.

The poor are poor because they don’t CONTINUALLY pick themselves up by their bootstraps and work tirelessly to improve themselves. Moreover, they don’t choose their parents very well either.

Omaha, While I don't quite consider myself a Colbert Conservative, I stand in awe at Machiavellian machinations so caringly construed to protect the interests of the elite.

More homage should be paid to the contributions of Woodrow Wilson by Colbert Conservatives. Woodrow Wilson not only created the Federal Reserve to circumvent Congress, he fought the war to end all wars, imprisoned dissenters, impressed working people into the army, and amended the Constitution to allow the income tax. This last effort was a stroke of genius. The federal income tax removed so much of the burden of taxation from the owners of import corporations and transferred them to the middle class. Not only that but it allowed the owners of corporations to replace US workers with more cost efficient foreign labor. This Wilsonian gift keeps giving. Corporate owners will now be able to shift more jobs abroad to avoid new and onerous Obamacare costs. The preselection of candidates I previously mentioned guarantees that NAFTA will be defended and even expanded under TPP that our current Goldman-Sachs Designee was caught working on.

Game? What game? The electorate is still being offered clear choices between Obama phones and free birth control for single middle aged ladies on the one hand and the restoration of school prayers and teaching creationism on the other. There are still so many choices for the electorate to choose from besides choosing between preselected candidates paid for by that class of Soros, Buffet, Adelson, and Kochs who don't seem to be at each others throats thus providing the masses with an example of how to get along. They bring to mind the royal families of England and Germany who, during WWI, as cousins, all prospered while their nations' poor made war profiteering possible. Holding the bottom 99% in debt, the top 1% only need to persuade voters to pursue immigration, trade, war, and other policies that benefit the financial sector at the expense of labor, industry, and democratic government as we know it.

“Only the little people pay taxes.” -Leona Helmsley

"Freedom" has only been redefined to better accommodate the needs of the deserving rich.