'Education' According To The Left.

[there4eyeM]

"The one world government movement is opposed to American values such as property rights, and individual freedoms. They fabricate enviro-crises for that purpose.


4. The environmental movement is based on voiding of property rights. Land which is not public can be so bound by regulation that it ceases to be private property. In effect, the handmaiden of collectivism, environmentalism’s claim to be of a higher value is a step backward….toward a time when slavery was common."

Shouldn't this be in 'Conspiracy Theories'?

Shouldn't you be in the 'Home For The Cryptically Inane'?

Hare-brained ideas like this usually go there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The one world government movement is opposed to American values such as property rights, and individual freedoms. They fabricate enviro-crises for that purpose.


4. The environmental movement is based on voiding of property rights. Land which is not public can be so bound by regulation that it ceases to be private property. In effect, the handmaiden of collectivism, environmentalism’s claim to be of a higher value is a step backward….toward a time when slavery was common."

Shouldn't this be in 'Conspiracy Theories'?

Shouldn't you be in the 'Home For The Cryptically Inane'?

Hare-brained ideas like this usually go there.

Hare (sic)-brained?

Well....I constructed the OP with specifics, as opposed to your bloviation-of-a-post....

It should be simple enough to determine which of us is a simpleton.....( although, that's clear already....)

Rather than your 'is not' .....how about specific attack on the OP?
Same challenge I've offered to other Lefties.....
....none of you has stepped up to the plate.


Afraid of a brush-back?

 

[there4eyeM]

Shouldn't you be in the 'Home For The Cryptically Inane'?

Hare-brained ideas like this usually go there.

Hare (sic)-brained?

Well....I constructed the OP with specifics, as opposed to your bloviation-of-a-post....

It should be simple enough to determine which of us is a simpleton.....( although, that's clear already....)

Rather than your 'is not' .....how about specific attack on the OP?
Same challenge I've offered to other Lefties.....
....none of you has stepped up to the plate.


Afraid of a brush-back?

That's right, 'hare', as in as intelligent as a rabbit.

 

[there4eyeM]

Now who is 'sic'?

 

[rdean]

What's funny is that you insist the left subscribes to the policies of a bunch of people I never heard of before. And let's review some of those:

Cultural Studies Association Conference - never heard of it. Not interested. It's in California.

One young faculty member - sounds vaguely familiar

Maurice Strong - never heard of him so that means I follow his policies?

Another young speaker - Funny, I was trying to remember the first one.

Phan Thị Kim Phúc - a girl from a single 1972 photo? Everyone but me remembers her. I actually do remember the photo, but the name? I can't even pronounce it.

the author of a paper - another name that sounds only vaguely familiar.

And you tried to pass those off as "names"????

1. This is a truly interesting issue, and I look forward to the exposition.

The difference between what you expect, and what I furnish shines a bright light, a light which illuminates the very essence of the OP.
The title I chose was "Education According to the Left."

2. We would probably agree that you serve as an example of 'the Left.'
You also serve as the result of the education according to the Left.


3.While I have no desire nor intention of watering down my OP's to the lowest common denominator of reader, you have been brought up to expect that adulteration.

When I read something that interests me, I fully expect to do whatever research is necessary to bring me to the level required to understand same.....

...I use a dictionary, google, source books, etc. I often read the original work of an author who is quoted.

Really.
I actually enjoy studying.


4. So, you see, friend deanie, "...difficult to get through such nonsense..." and "... from people I never heard of..." are the words or one who demands to be allowed to remain a simpleton.

And ".... if there is a point buried there, it's buried much too deep (sic)."
Not for one who thrives on learning.
And, of course, this is where Leftist 'education' has failed you: it has taught you that
it is unnecessary to broach the world unfamiliar.



5. In conclusion, what has transpired is the most beneficial aspect of debate. I would hope it is read by many, as it explains why conservatives will always win in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, I hope that you will continue to read my OP's, and comment on them, even your critiques such as today's....
....because, in a way you didn't intend, your posts are important to the debate.
Regards.

You enjoy memorizing radical right wing propaganda talking points. That's not considered "study". That's considered "propaganda".

Now, explain to us what the right wing "studies". Something that includes "data" and "debate".

You can't get the right to explain something they "study". Why? Because they don't study. Look at so called think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. They write papers. They don't study. Their policies are based on what they imagine will happen. Like their economic policies.

Or better yet, Iraq. The Iraqis were supposed to act this way or that way. The problem is they never acted the way the right imagined they would. Course, the right didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite. That would have required study.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hare-brained ideas like this usually go there.

Hare (sic)-brained?

Well....I constructed the OP with specifics, as opposed to your bloviation-of-a-post....

It should be simple enough to determine which of us is a simpleton.....( although, that's clear already....)

Rather than your 'is not' .....how about specific attack on the OP?
Same challenge I've offered to other Lefties.....
....none of you has stepped up to the plate.


Afraid of a brush-back?

That's right, 'hare', as in as intelligent as a rabbit.

Still afraid to confront the OP?

 

[there4eyeM]

Silwy wabbit!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Silwy wabbit!

In the words of the Brown Bomber....you can run, but you can't hide.

Even in your rabbit hole.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm afraid you're the one that isn't even close. All the land except for the original thirteen and Vermont was federal, either by purchase, treaty, conquest or cession of the western claims of the original thirteen to the federal government.

Well, then.
Let's examine the issue....I believe I can do this simply that you might be able to understand it....

From the OP:
2. One young faculty member gives a talk in which he criticizes homeowners for "participating in global capitalism." It is filled with plenty of rhetoric about "the hegemony of absolute space," and "ontological security,' and so on. His point: "We have no claim on family property." He goes further:
"When we succumb to pity for an old woman losing her house we abandon social justice." Mark the theme: no individual's monopolistic rights!

a. One can see the effects: the eco-fascists have imposed the same kind of thinking on the environment: " The delusion has led to the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!" http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_...LeakedMemo.pdf


The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

The conservationists like TR had no such view. Federal lands were permitted to be used for grazing, harvesting lumber, and even mining.

Not so according to the new breed.

Not only is private land confiscated, but restrictions 'steal' privately owned property to preserve some imaginary ecosystem.


More?
Sure.


For purposes of comparison, George Washington and his compatriots promoted the idea of saving the wretched land-poor peasantry of Europe. They believed that the postrevolutionary reconfiguration of America’s land was their mission from God, to rescue their brethren. [See Paul Johnson, “The Birth of the Modern: World Survey, 1815-1830,” p. 202-225]

Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

And, of course, President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act, which gave government-owned land to small family farmers ("homesteaders"). The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try his hand at farming for five years.


So, you see....your view is....what's the word?....Oh....horse-feathers.



Oh....one more thing: did you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" (John Locke)?

That's private property...not collective property.

You're ignoring the point that except for the original thirteen, Texas and Hawaii, most of the rest of the U.S. was federal land from its acquisition. The fact that you reference the Homestead Act proves it. If it wasn't federal land, how could the government have given it away?

I believe it's because our government is instituted among men for the will of the people, to whom the representatives of government submit and serve to. PC was absolutely correct in saying the colonists ideal was for private ownership, as was those involved in the framing of our Constitution. Here are some quotes that serve to better articulate the view and importance placed upon property and private ownership. If you are implying that acquisition of Federal land is to be viewed as a means of government authority over an individual's right to property and private ownership, that would be incorrect.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." Thomas Jefferson

“Life, Faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place.” No finer statements of natural or God-given rights have been made than those found in our Declaration of Independence and The Law. (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, p. 5-6. in 1850 )

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
- SAMUEL ADAMS

A cousin of 2nd President John Adams, Samuel Adams wrote in The
Rights of Colonists, 1772:

"Among the natural rights of Colonists are: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to
defend them..."
"The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his
property without his consent."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, then.
Let's examine the issue....I believe I can do this simply that you might be able to understand it....

From the OP:
2. One young faculty member gives a talk in which he criticizes homeowners for "participating in global capitalism." It is filled with plenty of rhetoric about "the hegemony of absolute space," and "ontological security,' and so on. His point: "We have no claim on family property." He goes further:
"When we succumb to pity for an old woman losing her house we abandon social justice." Mark the theme: no individual's monopolistic rights!

a. One can see the effects: the eco-fascists have imposed the same kind of thinking on the environment: " The delusion has led to the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!" http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_...LeakedMemo.pdf


The globalists/eco-fascists/progressives do no believe any individual should own property.

No individual property....only the collective.

The conservationists like TR had no such view. Federal lands were permitted to be used for grazing, harvesting lumber, and even mining.

Not so according to the new breed.

Not only is private land confiscated, but restrictions 'steal' privately owned property to preserve some imaginary ecosystem.


More?
Sure.


For purposes of comparison, George Washington and his compatriots promoted the idea of saving the wretched land-poor peasantry of Europe. They believed that the postrevolutionary reconfiguration of America’s land was their mission from God, to rescue their brethren. [See Paul Johnson, “The Birth of the Modern: World Survey, 1815-1830,” p. 202-225]

Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

And, of course, President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act, which gave government-owned land to small family farmers ("homesteaders"). The act gave "any person" who was the head of a family 160 acres to try his hand at farming for five years.


So, you see....your view is....what's the word?....Oh....horse-feathers.



Oh....one more thing: did you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "life, liberty, and property" (John Locke)?

That's private property...not collective property.

You're ignoring the point that except for the original thirteen, Texas and Hawaii, most of the rest of the U.S. was federal land from its acquisition. The fact that you reference the Homestead Act proves it. If it wasn't federal land, how could the government have given it away?

I believe it's because our government is instituted among men for the will of the people, to whom the representatives of government submit and serve to. PC was absolutely correct in saying the colonists ideal was for private ownership, as was those involved in the framing of our Constitution. Here are some quotes that serve to better articulate the view and importance placed upon property and private ownership. If you are implying that acquisition of Federal land is to be viewed as a means of government authority over an individual's right to property and private ownership, that would be incorrect.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
- SAMUEL ADAMS

A cousin of 2nd President John Adams, Samuel Adams wrote in The
Rights of Colonists, 1772:

"Among the natural rights of Colonists are: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to
defend them..."
"The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his
property without his consent."

"...the colonists ideal was for private ownership, as was those involved in the framing of our Constitution."


I'd say so.....and even early on:

1. Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.
a. William Bradford knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.

2. 'Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor. '
http://www.aier.org/research/commen...g-the-triumph-of-capitalism-over-collectivism


3. Even the Soviet experiment found out that rewarding individual's labor was the only way forward: " The basis of the Stakhanovite movement is essentially “an intensification of labor.”(4) Stalin himself views it as a “preparation of the conditions for the transition from socialism to communism.”(5) In reality, this movement constitutes movement away from the ideals of the revolution, for in this movement, one can see the beginnings of capitalist control and exploitation."
Soviet Underground: Stakhanovite Movement - December 1935

The 'Stakhanovite Revolution' represented the death of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

 

[there4eyeM]

Where did 'Chic go? She logged out.

Perhaps she's gone to comb her hare.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where did 'Chic go? She logged out.

Perhaps she's gone to comb her hare.

There must be a reason your posts are so content-bare.....

It might be related to your mistaking 'hair' for 'hare.'

 

[there4eyeM]

Where did 'Chic go? She logged out.

Perhaps she's gone to comb her hare.

There must be a reason your posts are so content-bare.....

It might be related to your mistaking 'hair' for 'hare.'

It was not that I mistook, my dear.
It's just that you're so wordy here.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In place of education, the Left has substituted politicization.
What they have produced is not a generation of educated thinkers, but a cadre
of robots who take their orders from the movement.

.....As-opposed-to "conservatives", who take all their orders from their Patriarchy....

....if they know what's GOOD-for-them!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where did 'Chic go? She logged out.

Perhaps she's gone to comb her hare.

There must be a reason your posts are so content-bare.....

It might be related to your mistaking 'hair' for 'hare.'

It was not that I mistook, my dear.
It's just that you're so wordy here.

I'd rather fail my Wassermann exam
Than read another post from 4eyeM!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who are the current 'great Americans' who graduated from conservative universities?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who are the current 'great Americans' who graduated from conservative universities?

What a coincidence!

4eyes and I are writing rhymes....

...and who shows up?

A couplet short of a sonnet.



Did I say couplet?
Where's your better half?
Pee-ew et taking a break?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There must be a reason your posts are so content-bare.....

It might be related to your mistaking 'hair' for 'hare.'

It was not that I mistook, my dear.
It's just that you're so wordy here.

I'd rather fail my Wassermann exam
Than read another post from 4eyeM!

I heard you're the only person ever to go in for a Wasserman test with the answers written on your arm.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who are the current 'great Americans' who graduated from conservative universities?

What a coincidence!

4eyes and I are writing rhymes....

...and who shows up?

A couplet short of a sonnet.



Did I say couplet?
Where's your better half?
Pee-ew et taking a break?

I knew the answer was zero, but I thought you might at least amuse us with a 1000 word non-answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who are the current 'great Americans' who graduated from conservative universities?

What a coincidence!

4eyes and I are writing rhymes....

...and who shows up?

A couplet short of a sonnet.



Did I say couplet?
Where's your better half?
Pee-ew et taking a break?

I knew the answer was zero, but I thought you might at least amuse us with a 1000 word non-answer.

I can always tell when I've wounded one of you Lumbricus....

...you try to hide behind some imaginary crowd of supporters...

as in "....you might at least amuse 'US'..."


Why would any want to associate with you: you're dull, insipid, and useless...

...and those are your better points.