On partisan hyperbole

[Lonestar_logic]

Semantics? They weren't paid for their labor, someone ELSE was paid for their labor.

They were given room and board and some earned their freedom.

that and a whipping when they got out of hand

Not a bad deal

Whipping them wasn't as common as you may think, slaves were needed to perform work much like a draft animal so harming them wasn't in the best interest of the slave or the owner. How much work do you think you would get out of someone after whipping them? Whipping was limited to serious disobedience. Fact is many slaves stayed on the plantations where they worked even after the emancipation.

From Ira Berlin’s Generations of Captivity (Harvard University Press, 2003), "Other aspects of the new work regimen operated to the slaves’ advantage. Slave lumbermen, many of them hired out for short periods of time, carried axes and, like slave drovers and herdsmen, were generally armed with knives and guns – necessities for men who worked in the wild and hunted animals for food and furs. Woodsmen had access to horses, as did slaves who tended cattle and swine. Periodic demands that slaveowners disarm their slaves and restrict their access to horses and mules confirmed that many believed these to be dangerous practices, but they did nothing to halt them. In short, slave lumbermen and drovers were not to be trifled with. Their work allowed considerable mobility and latitude in choosing their associates and bred a sense of independence, not something planters wanted to encourage. Slaves found it a welcome relief from the old plantation order.

As the slaveholders’ economy faded, the slaves’ economy flourished. Black men and women became full participants in the system of exchange that developed within the lower Mississippi Valley, trading the produce of their gardens and provision grounds, the fruits of their hunting and trapping expeditions, and a variety of handicrafts with European settlers and Indian tribesmen. Many hard-pressed planters turned to the production of foodstuffs for internal consumption and sometimes for export to Saint Domingue and Martinique. To cut costs, they encouraged and sometimes required slaves to feed themselves and their families by gardening, hunting, and trapping on their own time. Indeed, some slaveholders demanded that their slaves not only feed themselves but also provide their own clothes and purchase other necessities. Such requirements forced slaveowners to cede their slaves a portion of their time to work independently. "It is because the slaves are not clothed that they are left free of all work on Sunday," argued one advocate in an affirmation of the slaves’ right to maintain gardens, market produce, and work independently on Sunday. "On such days some of them go to the neighbors’ plantations who hire them to cut moss and to gather provisions. This is done with the tacit consent of their masters who do not know the where-abouts of their slaves on the said day, nor do they question them, nor do they worry themselves about them and are always satisfied that the Negroes will appear again on the following Monday for work."

 

[ABikerSailor]

It used to be their dirty word was.....LIBERAL

Then they transitioned to...................SOFT ON TERROR

Then it became.............SOCIALIST

The name calling worked for Joseph McCarthy, I guess they think it will still work today

McCarthy, as it turns out, was 100 percent right...

And so are we.

McCarthy was right? Really?

You know Always Babbling, wikipedia is your friend.......

Joseph McCarthy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Joe mccarthy)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy.
This article is about the U.S. Senator from Wisconsin (1947-1957). For other people named Joseph McCarthy, see Joseph McCarthy (disambiguation).
Joseph Raymond McCarthy

United States Senator
from Wisconsin
In office
January 3, 1947 – May 2, 1957
Preceded by Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
Succeeded by William Proxmire
Born November 14, 1908(1908-11-14)
Grand Chute, Wisconsin
Died May 2, 1957 (aged 48)
Bethesda, Maryland
Nationality American
Political party Republican
Democratic (at least until 1936)
Spouse(s) Jean Kerr McCarthy
Children Tierney Mary McCarthy
Religion Roman Catholicism
Signature

Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion.[1] He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.[2]

If McCarthy was so "right", why was he not able to provide evidence, and why was he censured from the Senate?

Try again Babbling Bitch.

 

[Barb]

There have been a whole lot of comments lately claiming that progressives are "Socialists" or "Communists".

The reason why this is effective is that if one were to take some progressive ideas to the extreme radical point of utter hyperbole, these terms would apply.

In reality, most progressives simply want a public safety net, and to have capitalism be the rule of thumb for just about everything.

The reason that folks on the right insist on exaggerating the left's point of view so much is that they want to get people to see things only in terms of Black and White, when it comes to the left-hand side of the fence.


But the right should really remember that the same logic can be applied to both sides of the equation...


When taken to it's logical conclusion, the "Tea Partiers", for example, are ANARCHISTS.

Libertarians believe in doing away with as much government as possible, thus the hyperbole, when applied to the "Tea Partiers" or to Libertarians in general, makes them Anarchists, pure and simple.

So, I think every time someone from the Tea Party crowd calls me or any of my fellow progressives a "Socialist", I personally will respond by labeling them an "Anarchist".

Perhaps this will catch on. We'll see.

Capitalism is what built this country.

on the backs of free labor.

You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor.

http://despair.com/lithographs.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

They were given room and board and some earned their freedom.

that and a whipping when they got out of hand

Not a bad deal

Whipping them wasn't as common as you may think, slaves were needed to perform work much like a draft animal so harming them wasn't in the best interest of the slave or the owner. How much work do you think you would get out of someone after whipping them? Whipping was limited to serious disobedience. Fact is many slaves stayed on the plantations where they worked even after the emancipation.

From Ira Berlin’s Generations of Captivity (Harvard University Press, 2003), "Other aspects of the new work regimen operated to the slaves’ advantage. Slave lumbermen, many of them hired out for short periods of time, carried axes and, like slave drovers and herdsmen, were generally armed with knives and guns – necessities for men who worked in the wild and hunted animals for food and furs. Woodsmen had access to horses, as did slaves who tended cattle and swine. Periodic demands that slaveowners disarm their slaves and restrict their access to horses and mules confirmed that many believed these to be dangerous practices, but they did nothing to halt them. In short, slave lumbermen and drovers were not to be trifled with. Their work allowed considerable mobility and latitude in choosing their associates and bred a sense of independence, not something planters wanted to encourage. Slaves found it a welcome relief from the old plantation order.

As the slaveholders’ economy faded, the slaves’ economy flourished. Black men and women became full participants in the system of exchange that developed within the lower Mississippi Valley, trading the produce of their gardens and provision grounds, the fruits of their hunting and trapping expeditions, and a variety of handicrafts with European settlers and Indian tribesmen. Many hard-pressed planters turned to the production of foodstuffs for internal consumption and sometimes for export to Saint Domingue and Martinique. To cut costs, they encouraged and sometimes required slaves to feed themselves and their families by gardening, hunting, and trapping on their own time. Indeed, some slaveholders demanded that their slaves not only feed themselves but also provide their own clothes and purchase other necessities. Such requirements forced slaveowners to cede their slaves a portion of their time to work independently. "It is because the slaves are not clothed that they are left free of all work on Sunday," argued one advocate in an affirmation of the slaves’ right to maintain gardens, market produce, and work independently on Sunday. "On such days some of them go to the neighbors’ plantations who hire them to cut moss and to gather provisions. This is done with the tacit consent of their masters who do not know the where-abouts of their slaves on the said day, nor do they question them, nor do they worry themselves about them and are always satisfied that the Negroes will appear again on the following Monday for work."

Unfortunately most peoples knowledge of slavery came from watching Roots

 

[rightwinger]

Whipping them wasn't as common as you may think, slaves were needed to perform work much like a draft animal so harming them wasn't in the best interest of the slave or the owner. How much work do you think you would get out of someone after whipping them? Whipping was limited to serious disobedience. Fact is many slaves stayed on the plantations where they worked even after the emancipation.

Yes, it was reserved for serious offenses. Like looking at a white woman

 

[Vast LWC]

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

The founders clearly intended our nation to be a Representative Republic, not a state "close to anarchy" or a form of individual "self-governance", which would be an egalitarian Democracy.

Some of the founding fathers believed in a larger role for the federal government, and some for a smaller. This whole assumption some people have that the founding fathers' "intent" just so happens to be the same as their personal philosophy is a load of bunk.

And Progressivism does not necessarily "erode and diminish" individual liberties. Allowing people to survive and prosper, by providing a social safety net, often allows people to excel in ways that they never would have been able to otherwise.

I agree that the Founders did not march in lockstep on their opinions or in their vision for a new nation, and the documents we have illustrating the great debates and conversations that went on between them shed a bright light on the process that gave us the Constitution.

But your conclusion that the 'intent' of the Founding Fathers was the same as their personal policy was 'a load of bunk' is.....well.....bunk.

Please re-read the following and get back to me on that. If you can find compelling evidence that any of the Founders substantially disagreed with or had a different intent than what was incorporated into the final draft of the US Constitution, please point that out.

Madison's Notes on the Convention
The Papers of George Washington
The Papers of James Madison
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Rights and Grievances (1774)
Articles of Association (1774)
Benjamin Franklin's Articles of Confederation (1775)
Common Sense (1776)
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Richard Henry Lee's Independence Resolution (1776)
Declaration of Independence (1776)
Articles of Confederation (1778)
The Treaty of Paris (1783)
Report of the Annapolis Conference (1786)
The Virginia Plan (1787)
Charles Pinckney's Plan (1787)
The New Jersey Plan (1787)
The British Plan (1787)
August 6 Draft of the Constitution (1787)
September 12 Draft of the Constitution (1787)
Speech of Benjamin Franklin (1787)
The United States Constitution (1787)
The Letter of Transmittal (1787)
Washington's Letter to Congress (1787)
Wilson's 4th of July Address (1788)
Madison Introduces the Bill of Rights (1789)
Twelve Articles of Amendment (1789)

And as for "Progressivism does not necessarily "erode and diminish" individual liberties", I agreed with that. When Progressivism pushes back against Right Wing authoritarianism, it is defending individual liberties and in that it shares a common value with modern Conservatism.

Most Progressivism seeks to prohibit people from doing this or that or mandate that people do this or that, and that DOES frequently erode and dminish individual liberties.

I'm sorry, that sentence was not clear. When I said:

"This whole assumption some people have that the founding fathers' "intent" just so happens to be the same as their personal philosophy is a load of bunk."

I meant "their" to mean the personal philosophy of the people doing the assuming, not the personal philosophy of the founding fathers.

Thus some people should not assume that their personal philosophy is the same as the founding fathers, because the founding fathers were all over the place. They were creating a new nation and each of them had all kinds of ideas on how that nation should proceed.

And I did not say that the founding fathers ideas differed from the Constitution's final draft, I said that it differs from people's various interpretations of what is written.

For instance, the "General Welfare" clause, which obviously applies to the situation at hand was argued over in depth by several of the founding fathers, who disagreed on the interpretation of what they meant by the clause.

 

[Vast LWC]

As illustrated here:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

To wit:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot. - Alexander Hamiton

 

[Foxfyre]

As illustrated here:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

To wit:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot. - Alexander Hamiton

Okay, referring to the quoted post of yours and the one immediately preceding it, Hamilton is often the darling of the Progressives but only when taken out of his full context. He was not nearly so pro big government as some of his fans wished him to be though he did argue for a more authoritarian role for government than most of the founders thought wise or acceptable.

The much larger representation of the two philosophies argued we can call the Anti-Federalists or Jeffersonians. They represented the farmers and small shop keepers and laborers and other of the 'little people' and believed such people are fully capable of self government. They favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, supported states rights, and resisted giving a central federal government any more authority or power than it absolutely had to have. Freedom of speech and press was to be unfettered by government restraint or control at all costs.

This group is closely aligned with modern American conservatives.

The much smaller group can be called the Federalists or Hamiltonians. They represented big business--commerce and industry. They admired the English aristocracy and wanted to maintain as much of the English system as possible. A careful review of their writings shows that they considered the common people to be mostly ignorant and incapable of self-government and even favored making voting standards so high that most of these would not be able to vote. Democracy was not admired for its own sake nor to be allowed a great deal of license. They wanted a broad, flexible interpretation of the Constitution and a strong central government with considerable authority. Both government should have oversight of both free speech and the press. Hamilton especially wanted meticulous organization and order; therefore, a laizzez-faire approach to economics or a society that would order itself was neither appealing or appropriate to him.

As you can see, this group is closely aligned with modern Progressivism.

Fortunately, the Hamiltonians were very much outnumbered and, therefore, did not have their way or much influence in the writing of the Constitution. Hamilton himself served wtih Washington in the Revolutionary War and was the first Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, but he was not a player at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and he was not a signatory of the Constitution. He did accept it, however, and worked diligently to help get it ratified.

To say the Founders were 'all over the place' re the Constitution is a really big stretch.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm no tea partier and I'm not sure if you libby progressives are socialists but the new libby attempt pass off Socialist as a code word for ****** certainly is a good example of the left's tactics of marginalizing their opposition.

[youtube]f3dFh8YYd70[/youtube]

So let's have you take on this bit of libby hyperbole.

Hmmmm. I have to say, it really is more than a bit of a stretch to get from "socialists" or "socialism" to the N-word, as this guy is trying to do.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay......let's talk about the robber barons who paid a barely livable wage.

Remember the song "Sold my soul to the Company Store"? In some coal mining towns, that is still true today.

Wanna see another example? Minimum wage vs. Wall St. and CEO bonuses.

What was paid for with the blood of women and children at Ludlow is gradually being take back by the oligarchs. With many of the people on this board puckering up and kissing the asses that are shitting on them.

Ludlow Massacre on the Santa Fe Trail National Scenic and Historic Byway Mountain Branch