This Day in Antidemocratic Bullshit

[Pogo]

Uhhh, they forgot this tidbit-


A debate on the floor took almost 24 hours and ended on April 1, 1920, with all five members expelled. Speaker Sweet was congratulated with “scores of telegrams, some from persons of prominence in the political, financial, or industrial world,” according to the account in The Times.

Messrs. Waldman, Claessens and Solomon went down, 116 to 28, with members of both parties in both camps. Messrs. DeWitt and Orr were expelled, 104 to 40.

The bold again amplifies my point of the mob mentality described. None of this is about political parties, at least not the Duopoly. This is all about the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, blatant violations thereof, the mob mentality that greases its wheels (see Earnest Starr above, the Palmer Raids above, the "Red Scare" in general, and the fact that the link I eventually dragged out of you depicts at least one assemblyan's causation as having spoken ill of Woodrow Wilson (oh the horror)).

So if anything you've alluded here to a point about mob mentality I could have made stronger -- thanks for that. This type of hypernationalistic or hyper-anything bullshit depends on an unquestioning body of the unwashed to do its dirty deeds.

And that is exactly why I drag these nefarious episodes out of the history calendar and expose them to the sunlight.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, excuse me, for failing you, pogo.
And this argument on my quoting is stupid. I have told you, when I use the pad it the most efficient way to post above. If I use the laptop, dear, I post below. And I am in between them both these days, so at least part of the time I can keep from so taxing your brain.

New York Times good enough for you?
When the Assembly Expelled Socialists for Disloyalty

Uhhh, they forgot this tidbit-


A debate on the floor took almost 24 hours and ended on April 1, 1920, with all five members expelled. Speaker Sweet was congratulated with “scores of telegrams, some from persons of prominence in the political, financial, or industrial world,” according to the account in The Times.

Messrs. Waldman, Claessens and Solomon went down, 116 to 28, with members of both parties in both camps. Messrs. DeWitt and Orr were expelled, 104 to 40.

That's very nice creative writing. Find a link for it and it will actually be real. It still won't have a point though -- you just confirmed what I reported in the OP.

Was it such a painful chore that you couldn't attribute it in the first place?

Is it still such a painful chore that you still can't learn how the quote button works as everybody else does?

Now that we have more story, even though I had to pull teeth to get it, we still have no legal basis. Five duly elected officials, expelled for "disloyalty" ------------------- without any evidence at all OF such "disloyalty".

It does add a colorful component that in the course of the debate to expel, “Some even got so drunk that they had to be carried out of the Assembly chamber.”. That might explain somewhat. But it's still a blatant violation of the First Amendment and of election results completely legal in the State of New York.

Prove that wrong.

And learn how the FUCKING QUOTE BUTTON WORKS before you do, Nimrod.

Oh fucking bullshit. Millions have pads and you're the only one who can't figure it out? Don't insult my intelligence. You're just doing this to be a dick. It's plain as day.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As predicted, right on time.......

Dateline: January 7, 1920 (Actually yesterday -- got too busy to post on the day of)

>> The [143rd New York State] Legislature met for the regular session at the State Capitol in Albany on 7 January, 1920. Thaddeus C. Sweet (R) was re-elected Speaker. At the beginning of the session, the five Socialist assemblymen were suspended by Speaker Sweet, pending a trial before the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary to determine whether they were fit to take their seats. Charles Evans Hughes (Rep.) and Governor Al Smith (Dem.) condemned Speaker Sweet and the Republican majority for taking this course of action.

On 30 March, a majority of 7 members of the 13-member Judiciary Committee recommended the expulsion the five Socialists. Minority reports recommended the seating of all or part of the Socialist assemblymen. In the early morning of 1 April, the five Socialist assemblymen were expelled.<< --- 1920: The New York State Assembly Refuses to Seat Five Duly Elected Socialist Assemblymen​

Later in the year after Gov. Smith ordered new elections to replace the five, all five were again elected to the same seats, whereupon three of them were again expelled. The other two were permitted to be seated but both resigned in protest.

So much for the illusion of "free and fair elections" huh.

For temporal perspective --- later that year Eugene Debs ran as a Socialist for President for the fourth time. By 1920 he had to do so while in prison, having been incarcerated under the blatantly unConstitutional "Sedition Act" of 1918 -- the same year Earnest Starr was jailed for refusing a mob's demands that he kiss an American flag.

Those who ignore their history are doomed to arrive shortly to trash this thread as per usual.

Those halcyon days!

After a century of worldwide Communist/socialist destruction and murder, common sense clearly indicates they be outlawed.

Yeah um.... number one the Constitution of the United States of America emphatically prevents that --- First Amendment, which is entirely what the events described are about, in several different examples ---- and number two these five were duly elected in accordance with the laws of the State of New York --- TWICE.

Number three, all six subject politicians in the OP were Socialists, not "communists", number three-B those are two different things, and number three-C, both are economic systems anyway that have nothing whatever to do with "destruction" or "murder".

Other than that at least you spelled the word halcyon correctly. That's a start I guess. Might want to return to that point where you were still on the rails and start over.

1) It did then too. And yet, they were removed.

3-B) No appreciable difference. Out of the same box.

3-C) 20th Century history tells a different tale.

1 - yes, exactly my point. You want to ignore that?

Nope. Merely pointing out that rules don't always protect the evil as well as the good.

3 B "they all look alike to me" is the favourite crutch of those who can't deal with nuance; It is the wages of the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

Indeed they look alike. Difference is but a matter of degree.

3 C Link?

History. Start in 1914. Oh, and use sources provided prior to the revisions that began creeping in at the beginning of the 1970s.

 

[depotoo]

Honey, I never said I couldn’t figure it out. I said it was easier. Yeah, I do it to screw with you. Lol. So sorry you don’t like it, but I’m not really caring. Suck it up. You are the only one that complains they have a hard time with it.

Oh, excuse me, for failing you, pogo.
And this argument on my quoting is stupid. I have told you, when I use the pad it the most efficient way to post above. If I use the laptop, dear, I post below. And I am in between them both these days, so at least part of the time I can keep from so taxing your brain.

New York Times good enough for you?
When the Assembly Expelled Socialists for Disloyalty

Was it such a painful chore that you couldn't attribute it in the first place?

Is it still such a painful chore that you still can't learn how the quote button works as everybody else does?

Now that we have more story, even though I had to pull teeth to get it, we still have no legal basis. Five duly elected officials, expelled for "disloyalty" ------------------- without any evidence at all OF such "disloyalty".

It does add a colorful component that in the course of the debate to expel, “Some even got so drunk that they had to be carried out of the Assembly chamber.”. That might explain somewhat. But it's still a blatant violation of the First Amendment and of election results completely legal in the State of New York.

Prove that wrong.

And learn how the FUCKING QUOTE BUTTON WORKS before you do, Nimrod.

Oh fucking bullshit. Millions have pads and you're the only one who can't figure it out? Don't insult my intelligence. You're just doing this to be a dick. It's plain as day.

 

[Pogo]

As predicted, right on time.......

Dateline: January 7, 1920 (Actually yesterday -- got too busy to post on the day of)

>> The [143rd New York State] Legislature met for the regular session at the State Capitol in Albany on 7 January, 1920. Thaddeus C. Sweet (R) was re-elected Speaker. At the beginning of the session, the five Socialist assemblymen were suspended by Speaker Sweet, pending a trial before the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary to determine whether they were fit to take their seats. Charles Evans Hughes (Rep.) and Governor Al Smith (Dem.) condemned Speaker Sweet and the Republican majority for taking this course of action.

On 30 March, a majority of 7 members of the 13-member Judiciary Committee recommended the expulsion the five Socialists. Minority reports recommended the seating of all or part of the Socialist assemblymen. In the early morning of 1 April, the five Socialist assemblymen were expelled.<< --- 1920: The New York State Assembly Refuses to Seat Five Duly Elected Socialist Assemblymen​

Later in the year after Gov. Smith ordered new elections to replace the five, all five were again elected to the same seats, whereupon three of them were again expelled. The other two were permitted to be seated but both resigned in protest.

So much for the illusion of "free and fair elections" huh.

For temporal perspective --- later that year Eugene Debs ran as a Socialist for President for the fourth time. By 1920 he had to do so while in prison, having been incarcerated under the blatantly unConstitutional "Sedition Act" of 1918 -- the same year Earnest Starr was jailed for refusing a mob's demands that he kiss an American flag.

Those who ignore their history are doomed to arrive shortly to trash this thread as per usual.

Those halcyon days!

After a century of worldwide Communist/socialist destruction and murder, common sense clearly indicates they be outlawed.

Yeah um.... number one the Constitution of the United States of America emphatically prevents that --- First Amendment, which is entirely what the events described are about, in several different examples ---- and number two these five were duly elected in accordance with the laws of the State of New York --- TWICE.

Number three, all six subject politicians in the OP were Socialists, not "communists", number three-B those are two different things, and number three-C, both are economic systems anyway that have nothing whatever to do with "destruction" or "murder".

Other than that at least you spelled the word halcyon correctly. That's a start I guess. Might want to return to that point where you were still on the rails and start over.

1) It did then too. And yet, they were removed.

3-B) No appreciable difference. Out of the same box.

3-C) 20th Century history tells a different tale.

1 - yes, exactly my point. You want to ignore that?

Nope. Merely pointing out that rules don't always protect the evil as well as the good.

What the hell does that mean?

3 B "they all look alike to me" is the favourite crutch of those who can't deal with nuance; It is the wages of the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

Indeed they look alike. Difference is but a matter of degree.

At this point it's irrelevant, except to note you're still addicted to a Generalization Fallacy as a campaign of intentional ignorance. But it has no effect on the greater point so you may as well wallow there.

But moreover --- even if you could somehow make this association into a causation ---- this event took place in 1920. You'd be requiring political officials in 1920 to have foreknowledge of the next hundred years in your wispy theory. They can't do that --- not only are they rip-roaring drunk, they live in 1920. What basis do they have to deny seats to duly elected officials in 1920?

Imagine it's 1920. The grand Association Fallacies you think you're going to get away with -- do not yet exist. HItler and Stalin do not exist. Nazi Germany does not exist. The USSR does not exist -- the Russian Revolution isn't even settled yet, and Woodrow Wilson still has troops in Russia. "Red" Vietnam and "Red" Korea and "Red" China and "Red" Cuba" and the "Red" eastern Europe, are all off in the future. None of them exist.

Where then is your basis, even if you could make the Association Fallacy work, for expelling five duly elected state officials in a free and fair election?

3 C Link?

History. Start in 1914. Oh, and use sources provided prior to the revisions that began creeping in at the beginning of the 1970s.

Actually the source is from 1920. And I already did start in 1914 with the citation of the NSL as part of the context.

This is, after all, the History forum. We're in this forum on purpose.

And again --- another poster brought up "revisionism", I challenged him to demonstrate it and he either ran away or is busy catching up on reading he should have done before he started --- where do you see "revisionism"? Did this event not happen? Did Earnest Starr's even not happen? Did the Palmer Raids not happen? Did the NSL and the Klan --- not exist?

Do tell.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What the hell does that mean?

Use a dictionary for each word. Crack the code.

At this point it's irrelevant, except to note you're still addicted to a Generalization Fallacy as a campaign of intentional ignorance. But it has no effect on the greater point so you may as well wallow there.

But moreover --- even if you could somehow make this association into a causation ---- this event took place in 1920. You'd be requiring political officials in 1920 to have foreknowledge of the next hundred years in your wispy theory. They can't do that --- not only are they rip-roaring drunk, they live in 1920. What basis do they have to deny seats to duly elected officials in 1920?

Imagine it's 1920. The grand Association Fallacies you think you're going to get away with -- do not yet exist. HItler and Stalin do not exist. Nazi Germany does not exist. The USSR does not exist -- the Russian Revolution isn't even settled yet, and Woodrow Wilson still has troops in Russia. "Red" Vietnam and "Red" Korea and "Red" China and "Red" Cuba" and the "Red" eastern Europe, are all off in the future. None of them exist.

Where then is your basis, even if you could make the Association Fallacy work, for expelling five duly elected state officials in a free and fair election?

Communism had already been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy. After all, "Das Kapital" had been around since 1867.

Do tell.

I have, ad infinitum. Get thee hence and look.

 

[Pogo]

Guess we'll wait for that post to return. It wasn't that the quote brackets couldn't be negotiated but w

What the hell does that mean?

Use a dictionary for each word. Crack the code.

At this point it's irrelevant, except to note you're still addicted to a Generalization Fallacy as a campaign of intentional ignorance. But it has no effect on the greater point so you may as well wallow there.

But moreover --- even if you could somehow make this association into a causation ---- this event took place in 1920. You'd be requiring political officials in 1920 to have foreknowledge of the next hundred years in your wispy theory. They can't do that --- not only are they rip-roaring drunk, they live in 1920. What basis do they have to deny seats to duly elected officials in 1920?

Imagine it's 1920. The grand Association Fallacies you think you're going to get away with -- do not yet exist. HItler and Stalin do not exist. Nazi Germany does not exist. The USSR does not exist -- the Russian Revolution isn't even settled yet, and Woodrow Wilson still has troops in Russia. "Red" Vietnam and "Red" Korea and "Red" China and "Red" Cuba" and the "Red" eastern Europe, are all off in the future. None of them exist.

Where then is your basis, even if you could make the Association Fallacy work, for expelling five duly elected state officials in a free and fair election?

Communism had already been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy. After all, "Das Kapital" had been around since 1867.

Do tell.

I have, ad infinitum. Get thee hence and look.

So two complete absence of answers and a number 2.

Since the only thing left IS that number 2 --- correct, Capital had been around half a century, was an economic model, and had already been in practice among, for one, Christian Communists for centuries. But it was neither employed as a model in government, nor had it "been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy" --- whatever that means. This too is a non-answer but at least it invites a flesh-out.

We sit, and we wait for that. Meanwhile I accept your contrite concessions/withdrawals on points one and three.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess we'll wait for that post to return. It wasn't that the quote brackets couldn't be negotiated but w

What the hell does that mean?

Use a dictionary for each word. Crack the code.

At this point it's irrelevant, except to note you're still addicted to a Generalization Fallacy as a campaign of intentional ignorance. But it has no effect on the greater point so you may as well wallow there.

But moreover --- even if you could somehow make this association into a causation ---- this event took place in 1920. You'd be requiring political officials in 1920 to have foreknowledge of the next hundred years in your wispy theory. They can't do that --- not only are they rip-roaring drunk, they live in 1920. What basis do they have to deny seats to duly elected officials in 1920?

Imagine it's 1920. The grand Association Fallacies you think you're going to get away with -- do not yet exist. HItler and Stalin do not exist. Nazi Germany does not exist. The USSR does not exist -- the Russian Revolution isn't even settled yet, and Woodrow Wilson still has troops in Russia. "Red" Vietnam and "Red" Korea and "Red" China and "Red" Cuba" and the "Red" eastern Europe, are all off in the future. None of them exist.

Where then is your basis, even if you could make the Association Fallacy work, for expelling five duly elected state officials in a free and fair election?

Communism had already been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy. After all, "Das Kapital" had been around since 1867.

Do tell.

I have, ad infinitum. Get thee hence and look.

So two complete absence of answers and a number 2.

Since the only thing left IS that number 2 --- correct, Capital had been around half a century, was an economic model, and had already been in practice among, for one, Christian Communists for centuries. But it was neither employed as a model in government, nor had it "been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy" --- whatever that means. This too is a non-answer but at least it invites a flesh-out.

We sit, and we wait for that. Meanwhile I accept your contrite concessions/withdrawals on points one and three.

You have been clearly answered. You simply (key word) don't comprehend.

 

[Pogo]

Guess we'll wait for that post to return. It wasn't that the quote brackets couldn't be negotiated but w

What the hell does that mean?

Use a dictionary for each word. Crack the code.

At this point it's irrelevant, except to note you're still addicted to a Generalization Fallacy as a campaign of intentional ignorance. But it has no effect on the greater point so you may as well wallow there.

But moreover --- even if you could somehow make this association into a causation ---- this event took place in 1920. You'd be requiring political officials in 1920 to have foreknowledge of the next hundred years in your wispy theory. They can't do that --- not only are they rip-roaring drunk, they live in 1920. What basis do they have to deny seats to duly elected officials in 1920?

Imagine it's 1920. The grand Association Fallacies you think you're going to get away with -- do not yet exist. HItler and Stalin do not exist. Nazi Germany does not exist. The USSR does not exist -- the Russian Revolution isn't even settled yet, and Woodrow Wilson still has troops in Russia. "Red" Vietnam and "Red" Korea and "Red" China and "Red" Cuba" and the "Red" eastern Europe, are all off in the future. None of them exist.

Where then is your basis, even if you could make the Association Fallacy work, for expelling five duly elected state officials in a free and fair election?

Communism had already been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy. After all, "Das Kapital" had been around since 1867.

Do tell.

I have, ad infinitum. Get thee hence and look.

So two complete absence of answers and a number 2.

Since the only thing left IS that number 2 --- correct, Capital had been around half a century, was an economic model, and had already been in practice among, for one, Christian Communists for centuries. But it was neither employed as a model in government, nor had it "been determined to be antithetical to American philosophy" --- whatever that means. This too is a non-answer but at least it invites a flesh-out.

We sit, and we wait for that. Meanwhile I accept your contrite concessions/withdrawals on points one and three.

You have been clearly answered. You simply (key word) don't comprehend.

So you're gonna bag out on all three then is it?

OK -- I win. No fun winning by default but if it's all ya got, better luck next time.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

OK -- I win.

Only within the depths of your delusion.

 

[Pogo]

OK -- I win.

Only within the depths of your delusion.

So you're the little kid who walks off the field because he has no game, then sits at home moaning that he didn't.

Isn't that special.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

OK -- I win.

Only within the depths of your delusion.

So you're the little kid who walks off the field because he has no game, then sits at home moaning that he didn't.

Isn't that special.

No, I'm the adult chuckling at the child who, accustomed to Velcro straps, is bewildered to tears at finding laces for the first time on his new shoes.

 

[Pogo]

OK -- I win.

Only within the depths of your delusion.

So you're the little kid who walks off the field because he has no game, then sits at home moaning that he didn't.

Isn't that special.

No, I'm the adult chuckling at the child who, accustomed to Velcro straps, is bewildered to tears at finding laces for the first time on his new shoes.

The "adult" who has no answers.

You'd better keep the shoes. You'll need them to run away. Especially if you want to catch that other revisionism guy who also ran away. He's hours ahead of you.