Thank You, President Obama!

[daveman]

No need for that. The ballot box is the only weapon necessary.

Oh, and the "conservatives are all proto-terrorists" bit is funny. Are you really that scared of different ideas?

Well, good to see you feel that way. I didn't say "conservatives are all proto-terrorists", though.

Ahhh. The Timothy McVeigh picture just popped in on its own, huh? Or did someone hack your account, maybe?

 

[EriktheRed]

you see that we have come full circle. Except this time, it is a national government, from the people, divorced of the people, to rule the people.

Notice, he did not answer the question. Only attempted to smear me. I guess the addage is right, when you can't argue facts, smear.

I would like an explanation then on how seeking to destroy the foundations of this nation enshrined in the constitution is patriotic OR supporting of the founding fathers? Please, do elucidate.

When you characterise things as you do, why bother trying anyway? You and Dave obviously don't have any good answers as to why your views should be the only defining characteristic of what "America" is.

 

[EriktheRed]

No need for that. The ballot box is the only weapon necessary.

Oh, and the "conservatives are all proto-terrorists" bit is funny. Are you really that scared of different ideas?

Well, good to see you feel that way. I didn't say "conservatives are all proto-terrorists", though.

Ahhh. The Timothy McVeigh picture just popped in on its own, huh? Or did someone hack your account, maybe?

Like I said, I didn't say "conservatives are all proto-terrorists".


Anyway, it's been fun, but I gotta run.

 

[Big Fitz]

No need for that. The ballot box is the only weapon necessary.

Oh, and the "conservatives are all proto-terrorists" bit is funny. Are you really that scared of different ideas?

Well, good to see you feel that way. I didn't say "conservatives are all proto-terrorists", though.

Nooooo... you just implied it is all. Nothing like little sly character assassination to grease the gears of conversation, wouldn't you agree? But, I expect no less from people who get a smug smirk a the professional terrorists of the Ruckus Society, ELF, Greenpeace or World Worker's Party when they show up at the G-20 summits.

 

[Big Fitz]

you see that we have come full circle. Except this time, it is a national government, from the people, divorced of the people, to rule the people.

Notice, he did not answer the question. Only attempted to smear me. I guess the addage is right, when you can't argue facts, smear.

I would like an explanation then on how seeking to destroy the foundations of this nation enshrined in the constitution is patriotic OR supporting of the founding fathers? Please, do elucidate.

When you characterise things as you do, why bother trying anyway? You and Dave obviously don't have any good answers as to why your views should be the only defining characteristic of what "America" is.

The current liberal definitions of 'patriotism' are absolutely contrary to all definitions that served this country well for 230 years.

But, when you want a fascist state, as long as you are in charge... I can see why you don't understand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The current reactionary far right conservatives today (Big Meow, for starters) would be the Loyalists of the American Revolution, still stuck in the old ways and worshipping their version of King George.

The current rational conservatives, centrists, moderates, and liberals of today would be the Patriots of the American Revolution, knowing that it was time to part with George, the neo-cons, neo-corporatists, and the social conservatives. The future is now, and we embrace it.

 

[Big Fitz]

The current reactionary far right conservatives today (Big Meow, for starters) would be the Loyalists of the American Revolution, still stuck in the old ways and worshipping their version of King George.

The current rational conservatives, centrists, moderates, and liberals of today would be the Patriots of the American Revolution, knowing that it was time to part with George, the neo-cons, neo-corporatists, and the social conservatives. The future is now, and we embrace it.

You never passed history did you.

You realize that most of the founding fathers WERE big business of it's day fighting against the royal monopoly of mercantilism, the Hudson Bay Company and other crown owned/supported enterprises, right? Of course you didn't. Your answer proved that fast enough. Sam Adams is not only a modern ad campaign and name of a current brewing company you know. George Washington was a major colonial "Agribusiness" as well as Thomas Jefferson and dozens others. John Adams was a friggen lawyer for Pete's Sake and Ben Franklin was a publisher and printer!

I can't believe the lack of historical knowledge people have! I mean it's just appalling and explains a helluva lot with why they fall for such idiotic drivel as collectivism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fitz continually shows his ignorant bias. Washington and Hancock were wealthy while most of the patriots were small bourgeois. Many of the Loyalists were politicians, landowners, some quite well off, and generally the far conservative establishment. The Loyalists supported Big Business like the East India Company and the tea monopoly, while the patriots opposed it. None of the Founders (possible exception of Hamilton) would have tolerated the influence of corporatists on government. Madison considered the influence of wealth on government the single greatest danger to the Republic. He was right. Big Meow does not know that is espousing the argument of Beard, the leftist. How funny.

I watch to see what stupid thing Big Meow will do next, and then I don't do that thing.

 

[Big Fitz]

Since when did the left ever support the small business man? Shit... try never. They love supporting unions. You also do realize that Hamilton did not want the constitutional government that was created. He wanted just another king... an American king and continuation of English tradition. Probably aren't aware of that either.

Yes, you're very smart. Shut up.

ps, I like Big Meow. It fitz.

 

[daveman]

The current reactionary far right conservatives today (Big Meow, for starters) would be the Loyalists of the American Revolution, still stuck in the old ways and worshipping their version of King George.

The current rational conservatives, centrists, moderates, and liberals of today would be the Patriots of the American Revolution, knowing that it was time to part with George, the neo-cons, neo-corporatists, and the social conservatives. The future is now, and we embrace it.

Wow. That's some imagination you have there.

The current liberals of today, ironically enough, don't care much for liberty. They've turned into statists, seeking to expand government control over individual lives, because the collective is more important than the individual.

You'd have had your heads firmly up King George's arse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where do you come up with this revisionist history, big meow? You simply do not know American or constitutional history. You are hilarious. Alexander Hamilton wanted a nationalist government. The strong national government was James Madison's plan. They opposed the tyranny of King George III and Parliament, which were supported by the better-off Loyalists and their supporters. Liberals, moderates, centrists (Patriots) were for change, reactionaries (Loyalists) wanted things to remain the same. The days of Reagan are over, and life is moving on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sad man, daveman, delusional. Very delusional.

 

[Big Fitz]

The current reactionary far right conservatives today (Big Meow, for starters) would be the Loyalists of the American Revolution, still stuck in the old ways and worshipping their version of King George.

The current rational conservatives, centrists, moderates, and liberals of today would be the Patriots of the American Revolution, knowing that it was time to part with George, the neo-cons, neo-corporatists, and the social conservatives. The future is now, and we embrace it.

Wow. That's some imagination you have there.

The current liberals of today, ironically enough, don't care much for liberty. They've turned into statists, seeking to expand government control over individual lives, because the collective is more important than the individual.

You'd have had your heads firmly up King George's arse.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Debating this guy's like having a fist fight with a revolving door. He's just about as intelligent and thinks in the same manner. Round and around and around and around and around and around and stuck and stuck and stuck and around and around and aroud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All either of you clowns need to do is:

1. Make a premise
2. Give solid evidence for your premise (this is where Yurt and Big Fitz particularly fail, and daveman
simply ignores)
3. Don't think your opinion is evidence; it's not.
4. Don't ask for refutation for something that exists only in your opinion

If you can follow those basic steps, make most folks here will stop laughing at you. But right now the three of you are the comedy show this evening.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No need for that. The ballot box is the only weapon necessary.

Oh, and the "conservatives are all proto-terrorists" bit is funny. Are you really that scared of different ideas?

Well, good to see you feel that way. I didn't say "conservatives are all proto-terrorists", though.

You said what we say you said!!!! Dang it!!! You must assume the form of the imaginary person daveman is arguing with and proceed with the argument in that form.

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay Jake, we'll out you again as an intellectual fraud.

I went to Dictionary.com and used the cultural definitions. Here's a bit of comparison for you. A game of "one of these things is not like the others... or is it?"

Liberalism

In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.

A strong central government REGULATING (controlling) capitalism and a welfare state. Huh.

Communism

An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals ( see Marxism and Marxism-Leninism). In practice, a single authoritarian party controls both the political and economic systems. In the twentieth century, communism was associated with the economic and political systems of China and the Soviet Union and of the satellites of the Soviet Union. ( Compare capitalism and socialism.)

And who deals with the day to day business of running what the Common 'owns'? The government. Government control of industry... again.

Socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Again, direct government control of business but they pretend here to be "cooperating". Another word for government trust. But if the government DOES allow private ownership it's only as long as they obey the government. A distinction without meaning.

Marxism

The doctrines of Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels on economics, politics, and society. They include the notion of economic determinism — that political and social structures are determined by the economic conditions of people. Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned ( communism), a system to be reached as an inevitable result of the struggle between the leaders of capitalism and the workers.

A classless society owned production. Means the common, means government run. Distinctions without meaning when you apply it.

Fascism

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “ cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism.

Sure, you can have your own business, make whatever you want... but if the state decides you are not to their best interest... you're done. State control of business through other means of coercion. Again a distinction of government control without meaning.

I find it interesting though that I can only find progressivism as an 'educational reform' as listed in the dictionary, making me wonder why it was scrubbed from this site. So I dug around more to find the political definition of Progressivism, since it is relevant to this assertion.

The best definition I found, amazingly enough was on Wikipedia for American Progressivism. Just read down to the Tenents of this philosophy and found the following:

Regulation

Progressives such as Benjamin Parke De Witt argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable [24]. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest.

I just love that. State controlled MONOPOLIES. Same as fascism. You can own your business as long as you do as the state says.

My point is of course, ultimately we all march to state control, regardless of whether you call the 'state' government, the common, the community, the proletariat, or the gooniegoogoo chorus.

I then further point to the fact that you always see self proclaimed liberals, progressives, socialists and communists associating with one another.

Then look at this one little tidbit from the Fascist definition from Wiki as well (which is surprisingly one of the best definitions I found...

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong

Huh... Lots of distinctions without meanings.

So Jake... ball's in your court. Let's watch you run away like a little bitch again when faced with practical and logical progressions of why these are the same damn thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fitz, quit pretending as if you have done well here.

Make a premise, support it with evidence, suspend your bias, follow the evidence objectively (not automatically discounting bad about your side and ignoring good about the other side), then come to a good decision. Maturity includes being able to change your mind when the evidence dictates that decision.

Take a logic or philosophy class if you are having trouble with these concepts.

 

[Big Fitz]

Big Fitz, quit pretending as if you have done well here.

Make a premise, support it with evidence, suspend your bias, follow the evidence objectively (not automatically discounting bad about your side and ignoring good about the other side), then come to a good decision. Maturity includes being able to change your mind when the evidence dictates that decision.

Take a logic or philosophy class if you are having trouble with these concepts.

Ding! There it is ladies and Gentlemen.

15 minutes to intellectual bankruptcy. He's working on the obfuscation through insult defense because he's got nothing... like he always does.

Oh I'm not going to try because I can't change your mind and you're sooooo immature if you don't agree with meeeeeee..... You're not fooling anyone here. I did what you asked, and you ran away like a little bitch, just as you always do.

Whine elsewhere dumbass.

 

[Greenbeard]

Okay Jake, we'll out you again as an intellectual fraud.

I went to Dictionary.com and used the cultural definitions. Here's a bit of comparison for you. A game of "one of these things is not like the others... or is it?"

Liberalism

In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.

A strong central government REGULATING (controlling) capitalism and a welfare state. Huh.

Communism

An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals ( see Marxism and Marxism-Leninism). In practice, a single authoritarian party controls both the political and economic systems. In the twentieth century, communism was associated with the economic and political systems of China and the Soviet Union and of the satellites of the Soviet Union. ( Compare capitalism and socialism.)

And who deals with the day to day business of running what the Common 'owns'? The government. Government control of industry... again.

Perhaps I'm not following but are you attempting to argue that the existence of any regulatory apparatus is equivalent to the abolition of property rights?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fitz, quit pretending as if you have done well here.

Make a premise, support it with evidence, suspend your bias, follow the evidence objectively (not automatically discounting bad about your side and ignoring good about the other side), then come to a good decision. Maturity includes being able to change your mind when the evidence dictates that decision.

Take a logic or philosophy class if you are having trouble with these concepts.

Ding! There it is ladies and Gentlemen.

15 minutes to intellectual bankruptcy. He's working on the obfuscation through insult defense because he's got nothing... like he always does.

Oh I'm not going to try because I can't change your mind and you're sooooo immature if you don't agree with meeeeeee..... You're not fooling anyone here. I did what you asked, and you ran away like a little bitch, just as you always do.

Whine elsewhere dumbass.

Son, really I am being quite gentle here with you. Your opinion is not evidence; it is only your opinion, only good for you and beholden on no one else. So let's try it again.

Your way is:
Premise
Now prove me wrong

The correct way:
Premise
Evidence
Argumentation
Counter Premise
Evidence
Argumentation
etc.

Come on, Big Meow, you can do this.