The Second Greatest Political Lie

There is no such thing as the Charter of American Principle. Google it.

ROFLMNAO!

Poor Gilligan...

Once again Gilligan... YOU are the one who cited from the Charter of American Principle.

Here, let's review:


And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL! Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.


Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said Gilligan, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.

I cited the Declaration of Independence. There no such thing as the Charter of American Principles.

The Declaration of Independence declares the necessity for government.

Obviously none of you noted that the original post I responded to was made by a self-identified ANARCHIST.
 
The Industrial Revolution and its horrors proved for all time that business/industry/capitalism had to be strictly regulated by the government.

Oh my yes...

Let's list the horrors of the "Industrial Revolution"...

The Power Grid...
The Telephone
Continental Transportation
Individual Transportation
Steel Buildings
And of course ... The renewable Carbon Energy resources.

THE HORROR!

You know Reader, we're so very fortunate that Gilligan and the cult are incapable of humiliation... as if they were, the entertainment value of this venue would be reduced to roughly zilch.

So you would like to bring back child labor.

You're an interesting character.




Gads, you're a dope.

1. Throughout human history there has been child labor.

2. If it is a pejorative, is was so when children had to work on family farm, as well.

3. The Industrial Revolution provided economic relief for agricultural workers, which is why they flocked to the cities to work in factories.

4. As soon as adults make enough to support the family,the children were withdrawn from working and sent to schools. This occurred in every society,and continues today.

5. True imbeciles but the propaganda that government was needed to keep children out of the workforce.

6. One can only conclude that they never had a family that loved them, and looked out for their interests.
For these Leftists, government became their daddy.


Isn't it adorable how they cling to their myths and expect the fallacious appeals to cow opposition?

LOL! It never gets old.
 
I cited the Declaration of Independence.

Yes you did. And given that the DoI is the Charter of American Principle...

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted, dumbass.

Let's take a moment to allow the Reader to review our discussion:

There is no such thing as the Charter of American Principle. Google it.

ROFLMNAO!

Poor Gilligan...

Once again Gilligan... YOU are the one who cited from the Charter of American Principle.

Here, let's review:


And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL!
Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.

Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said Gilligan, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.
 
The Industrial Revolution and its horrors proved for all time that business/industry/capitalism had to be strictly regulated by the government.

Oh my yes...

Let's list the horrors of the "Industrial Revolution"...

The Power Grid...
The Telephone
Continental Transportation
Individual Transportation
Steel Buildings
And of course ... The renewable Carbon Energy resources.

THE HORROR!

You know Reader, we're so very fortunate that Gilligan and the cult are incapable of humiliation... as if they were, the entertainment value of this venue would be reduced to roughly zilch.

So you would like to bring back child labor.

You're an interesting character.




Gads, you're a dope.

1. Throughout human history there has been child labor.

2. If it is a pejorative, is was so when children had to work on family farm, as well.

3. The Industrial Revolution provided economic relief for agricultural workers, which is why they flocked to the cities to work in factories.

4. As soon as adults make enough to support the family,the children were withdrawn from working and sent to schools. This occurred in every society,and continues today.

5. True imbeciles but the propaganda that government was needed to keep children out of the workforce.

6. One can only conclude that they never had a family that loved them, and looked out for their interests.
For these Leftists, government became their daddy.

So you agree with that other nut that child labor should be brought back.

Your demented misunderstanding of history belongs in 'Fractured Fairy Tales'.



When one begins "So..." it implies that you are summarizing what has been posted.
Unfortunately, there are congenital liars who use it as a form of lying.

Rise your paw.

Your post was a clear denunciation of child labor laws. Feel free to deny that you wish to get rid of child labor laws,

or feel free to acknowledge the NECESSITY of government regulation of child labor.

Pick one or the other. Disagree with me in the former, or concede I was right all along in the latter.

Or do your stunned silence routine. Or your change the subject routine.
 
In political parlance, a lie is not just something that is not true, but something that is untrue, but serves the purpose of advancing a political agenda.


1. Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

b. "For Sen. [Hillary] Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. "
The case against Hillary Clinton. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine]




2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country, convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.' And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.




3. The "Second Greatest Lie" is also designed to benefit Leftists. It is that the political spectrum has communists on the left, and the Nazis on the right. It is a conscious and carefully crafted lie. And it is because the Left controls the schools and the media that it has been allowed to survive.

This is what a careful study of history shows:
When the worldwide recession, known as the Great Depression, caused many to believe that capitalism had failed, big government command and control economies took control, promising solutions.

The economic plans of Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt were all variations on the same theme.

a. Many government school grads have been trained to see FDR as a demigod.
"Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “too far in the Russian direction,” and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.” Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.



This thread will expound on that "Second Greatest Lie."
By doing so, it will explain why Leftist government schools won't teach real history.

It's really a war of the psychology of termenology.

It's like HIllary renaming illegal aliens as Dreamers.



1. It is to the great detriment of society that the left controls the language via the media and the schools.
Hence, they get away with this version of lying.


2. One of the most outrageous of lies is Hillary's name-claim:

"On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer.

The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.

Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking.

For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. "
The case against Hillary Clinton. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine]
 
Oh my yes...

Let's list the horrors of the "Industrial Revolution"...

The Power Grid...
The Telephone
Continental Transportation
Individual Transportation
Steel Buildings
And of course ... The renewable Carbon Energy resources.

THE HORROR!

You know Reader, we're so very fortunate that Gilligan and the cult are incapable of humiliation... as if they were, the entertainment value of this venue would be reduced to roughly zilch.

So you would like to bring back child labor.

You're an interesting character.




Gads, you're a dope.

1. Throughout human history there has been child labor.

2. If it is a pejorative, is was so when children had to work on family farm, as well.

3. The Industrial Revolution provided economic relief for agricultural workers, which is why they flocked to the cities to work in factories.

4. As soon as adults make enough to support the family,the children were withdrawn from working and sent to schools. This occurred in every society,and continues today.

5. True imbeciles but the propaganda that government was needed to keep children out of the workforce.

6. One can only conclude that they never had a family that loved them, and looked out for their interests.
For these Leftists, government became their daddy.

So you agree with that other nut that child labor should be brought back.

Your demented misunderstanding of history belongs in 'Fractured Fairy Tales'.



When one begins "So..." it implies that you are summarizing what has been posted.
Unfortunately, there are congenital liars who use it as a form of lying.

Rise your paw.

Your post was a clear denunciation of child labor laws. Feel free to deny that you wish to get rid of child labor laws,

or feel free to acknowledge the NECESSITY of government regulation of child labor.

Pick one or the other. Disagree with me in the former, or concede I was right all along in the latter.

Or do your stunned silence routine. Or your change the subject routine.



"Your post was a clear denunciation of child labor laws."

Then why didn't you quote it?

How about you simply admit that you are a serial liar, and unable to break the habit.
In truth, your value is the stain you put on all other Liberals.
 
I cited the Declaration of Independence.

Yes you did. And given that the DoI is the Charter of American Principle...

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted, dumbass.

You're the only person around that doesn't know enough to call the D of I by its proper name. Aren't you special.

Oh.. Gilligan. I'm describing the Declaration of Independence for what it IS... The Charter of American Principle.

And as simple as that Key point is, you're simply insufficient to understand it.

But in fairness to you, no Prog is sufficient. In truth, if you were sufficient, you wouldn't be a Prog.
 
Last edited:
Oh my yes...

Let's list the horrors of the "Industrial Revolution"...

The Power Grid...
The Telephone
Continental Transportation
Individual Transportation
Steel Buildings
And of course ... The renewable Carbon Energy resources.

THE HORROR!

You know Reader, we're so very fortunate that Gilligan and the cult are incapable of humiliation... as if they were, the entertainment value of this venue would be reduced to roughly zilch.

So you would like to bring back child labor.

You're an interesting character.




Gads, you're a dope.

1. Throughout human history there has been child labor.

2. If it is a pejorative, is was so when children had to work on family farm, as well.

3. The Industrial Revolution provided economic relief for agricultural workers, which is why they flocked to the cities to work in factories.

4. As soon as adults make enough to support the family,the children were withdrawn from working and sent to schools. This occurred in every society,and continues today.

5. True imbeciles but the propaganda that government was needed to keep children out of the workforce.

6. One can only conclude that they never had a family that loved them, and looked out for their interests.
For these Leftists, government became their daddy.

So you agree with that other nut that child labor should be brought back.

Your demented misunderstanding of history belongs in 'Fractured Fairy Tales'.



When one begins "So..." it implies that you are summarizing what has been posted.
Unfortunately, there are congenital liars who use it as a form of lying.

Rise your paw.

Your post was a clear denunciation of child labor laws. Feel free to deny that you wish to get rid of child labor laws,

or feel free to acknowledge the NECESSITY of government regulation of child labor.

Pick one or the other. Disagree with me in the former, or concede I was right all along in the latter.

Or do your stunned silence routine. Or your change the subject routine.

Gilligan... be honest. You're trying to protect the Mexicans from Children, who will move in and begin to take the jobs that Mexicans will not do!
 
You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.


False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

The founders cannot be said to have supported free markets. You lie.

Of course they can.

Pat Buchanan said "“Behind a tariff wall built by Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the Republican presidents who followed, the United States had gone from an agrarian coastal republic to become the greatest industrial power the world had ever seen — in a single century. Such was the success of the policy called protectionism that is so disparaged today.” From his book "The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy" Ideologies clash and history is open to interpretation.

Caveat: I'm not endorsing Buchanan of course, just saying.

Pat Buchanan has always been a protectionist. Neither Clay or Lincoln can properly be called a "Founding Father." Hamilton supported tariffs, but most of the other Founding Fathers didn't.

The theory that tariffs are beneficial for an economy has been debunked time after time after time. David Ricardo was the first to point out the flaw in the theory.

I think it's important to remember your Founders were influenced by Adam Smith and influenced in different ways. Smith's defence of tariffs in certain situations may have rang Hamilton's bell more than it did other's.

I think your a fan of Trump, yes? Ever heard that Trump's position on retaliatory tariffs were influenced by Smith? I haven't heard their names mentioned in the same sentence but then I've never heard his name mentioned in the same sentence as any other philosopher. But surely if he went to Wharton he must of studied Smith.
 
Somehow, a small mind imagines that the question is whether to have a government, or no government.

One would imagine that even a grade school grad would understand that there are a myriad version of 'government.'

The quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, '"That government is best which governs least,' fits my concept best.

Classical liberals....called conservatives today, saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly,...as our Founders did.


Progressives/Liberals have the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve' into the welfare state.


Please don't make such an egregious error again.

Classical liberals learned their lesson, or at least some of them did, when confronted with the Industrial Revolution. That's when it became clear that powerful governments were needed to rein in capitalism.


OMG!

The Industrial Revolution was the validation of capitalism!

1. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.”

Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory.



2. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

3. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

The Industrial Revolution and its horrors proved for all time that business/industry/capitalism had to be strictly regulated by the government.



No, what it proved was that capitalism is the holy grail of economic theory.
It consequenced an advance in society that has never been equaled by any other remunerative system.

Thanks to government controlled schools and Leftist media, there are fools who refuse to accept what is clear and evident.
Raise your paw.

You're willing to repeal all laws regulating capitalism?

That's pretty sick.

NO one wants to repeal laws against robbing, killing and fraud. It would also still be legal to sue people who harm you or damage your property. Nothing more is required
 
I'm also an anarchist, but I'm also a capitalist who believes in private property and free exchange.

You need a government to protect private property, so you can't be both.



Somehow, a small mind imagines that the question is whether to have a government, or no government.

One would imagine that even a grade school grad would understand that there are a myriad version of 'government.'

The quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, '"That government is best which governs least,' fits my concept best.

Classical liberals....called conservatives today, saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly,...as our Founders did.


Progressives/Liberals have the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve' into the welfare state.


Please don't make such an egregious error again.

Classical liberals learned their lesson, or at least some of them did, when confronted with the Industrial Revolution. That's when it became clear that powerful governments were needed to rein in capitalism.


OMG!

The Industrial Revolution was the validation of capitalism!

1. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.”

Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory.



2. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

3. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

The Industrial Revolution and its horrors proved for all time that business/industry/capitalism had to be strictly regulated by the government.

I've jumped into a thread here that I haven't followed very closely, tends to be a habit of mine with PC's posts. I've glanced over some of it now and it looks like you guys are having kind of an interesting and substantive conversation, not to bash PC but I usually don't get that impression in her threads. Should I pay more attention to them, I don't know. Her premises are so whacked out most of the time it hurts. I'm running around in and out but before I run out again I'll throw this in first. Your injection on the IR is right on. I've always thought people draw too many straight lines through history, they miss even the most obvious dots (like the IR) I mentioned Adam Smith earlier because he was a big deal with the Founders and too many people take him and squish him down to a small dot (more often than not representing Free Trade!) they forget how complex he actually was. Hell even Karl Marx had great admiration for his empathy with abused and suffering undervalued labor - workers. Smith told us when Corporations claim they are acting in the national interest you better put that claim under a microscope, the "horrors" of the IR, child labor, 16 hr.days, and all the rest, were definitely not in the national interest. Gotta run, I'll Be Back.
 
... the original post I responded to was made by a self-identified ANARCHIST.

Gilligan, you are an imbecile. But compared to a self-described Anarchist... you'd be a genius beyond measure.

With only one exception in over 25 years of debate on the internet, self declared anarchist count themselves as part of a movement or collective.

Anarchism is only viable as a model of individual order.... much along the lines of the fabled 'jihad'. Anything beyond a single individual and anarchy simply becomes chaos.

Thus Anarchy as applied by the intellectually less fortunate is merely a manifestation of evil... just like Islam and just like every other applied facet of Relativism.
 
Your injection on the IR is right on.

Moderating Notification:

Operating more than one account at a time is a violation of site policy and can result in immediate termination.

You must delete either this account or your other one.

You will not be warned again.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to understand this argument about the Industrial Revolution.

Are some arguing that if regulations were placed on the economy, many of the inventions of the IR would never have existed?
 
Socialism and democracy are irreconcilable.

Every socialist is a disguised dictator.

From the great Dr. Mises...

Some of us instinctively know these quotes are true. Others of us are not capable of recognizing truth.

The quote is nonsense. Some people instinctively believe nonsense is the truth when it makes them feel good.
Please explain WHY the quotes are nonsense?
 
I am trying to understand this argument about the Industrial Revolution.

Are some arguing that if regulations were placed on the economy, many of the inventions of the IR would never have existed?

Of course, and economic growth would have been much slower.
 
Your injection on the IR is right on.
Moderating Notification:

Operating more than one account at a time is a violation of site policy and can result in immediate termination.

You must delete either this account or your other one.

You will not be warned again.







Informational Notification:


Remember, the normal human being uses 10% of his brain.

This leaves you with 1% of normal thought capacity.

You must try harder. You will not be advised again.
 
Your injection on the IR is right on.
Moderating Notification:

Operating more than one account at a time is a violation of site policy and can result in immediate termination.

You must delete either this account or your other one.

You will not be warned again.






Informational Notification:


Remember, the normal human being uses 10% of his brain.

This leaves you with 1% of normal thought capacity.

You must try harder. You will not be advised again.

Gilligan... You should at least try to alter the syntax and tactics used in your primary account when employing a sock and ... that proxy you're using is a joke.

Staff has been given all of the information I have and I warned you. So I've done all I can for ya.

Reader... Gilligan, OKA: Nycarbineer is using multiple accounts... Which is forbidden by the site and a ban-able offense.

The two screen names promote identically and are now... as all socks must... promoting each other.

If this contributor were an American... They'd already be gone.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to understand this argument about the Industrial Revolution.

Are some arguing that if regulations were placed on the economy, many of the inventions of the IR would never have existed?

Of course, and economic growth would have been much slower.

Economic growth may have been slower, but I doubt regulations, in themselves, would have stopped innovations from hitting the market.
 

Forum List

Back
Top