What Americans Were.....sigh....

[daveman]

Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.

That's exactly what you do.

 

[daveman]

"Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was — (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was — a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.

Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda — who — BTW — paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH — at his quisling best — publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack" — Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
Howard Zinn: Communist liar
Howard Zinn: Communist liar

You know that will only make them love him more.

 

[editec]

I laught at you guys who imagine that the Floundering Fathers believed the same things you do.

FREE MARKETS?

Clearly if you imagine that the FF's stood for those you don't know jackshit about American trade policy.

 

[sparky]

perspective counts.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?pagewanted=all

American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.





ok...

Individualism is often contrasted[10] either with totalitarianism or with collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies (a term the UK has used[citation needed] in the post-World War II period) to collectivist. Also, many collectivists (particularly supporters of collectivist anarchism or libertarian socialism) point to the enormous differences between liberty-minded collectivism and totalitarian practices.Individualism, sometimes closely associated with certain variants of anarchism or liberalism, typically takes it for granted that individuals know best and that public authority or society has no right to interfere in the person's decision-making process, unless a very compelling need to do so arises (and maybe not even in those circumstances). This type of argument can occur in policy debates regarding regulation of industries, as well as in relation to personal choice of lifestyle.
Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services.
Free-market anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution. It is written in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. It is related to free market libertarianism and classical liberalism and some tendencies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States.[1] The theory of limited government contrasts, for example, with the idea that government should intervene to promote equality and opportunity through regulation of property and wealth redistribution.[2] This definition is generally assumed by those who identify "limited government" with "small government." The national government is only allowed some powers, not supreme power.

The meaning of "limited government" is most easily grasped in contrast to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine, the king, and by extension his entire government, held unlimited sovereignty over its subjects. The king could do what he wanted to do to whomever he wanted to it whenever he chose. Limited government exists where some effective limits restrict governmental power.

In Western civilization, the Magna Carta stands as the early exemplar of a document limiting the reach of the king's sovereignty. While its limits protected only a small portion of the English population, it did state that the king's barons possessed rights which they could assert against the king. The English Bill of Rights associated with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established limits of royal sovereignty. The United States Constitution of 1787 created a government limited by the terms of the written document itself, by the election by the people of the legislators and the executive, and by the checks and balances through which the three branches of government limited each others' power.

Limited government can take many forms. As a conception it has no bearing on whether a government is "large" or "small." It has little to say about how a government should be organized or what policies it should pursue. For example, European social democratic states like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or France, which sustain programs of government supported medicine and other social welfare programs, have limited governments.
Limited government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~S~

So, your point is.....obfuscation?

No, you asked that i focus on topics of your choice

i did

unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy your OP, it doesn't seem to jive with your narrow world view

thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion

the waste of time is not unexpected.....

~S~

 

[jillian]

No, you asked that i focus on topics of your choice

i did

unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy your OP, it doesn't seem to jive with your narrow world view

thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion

the waste of time is not unexpected.....

~S~

ah...I see you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.

 

[sparky]

more fodder for the futility>

In recent years, there has been a stigma attached to the word “protectionism.” But in order for a nation to thrive economically, it is vital to make sure its businesses are protected from unregulated foreign competition. And just as the most successful nations in the world right now embrace that principle, the United States has gotten away from it.
During the first century of American independence, the United States was financed through protectionism. After just 100 years, the national net worth was twenty-five billion dollars more than the world’s next wealthiest country, Great Britain. U.S. gross national product was more than twice that of Germany and Russia. The United States was so rich in goods and services that it was more self-sustaining than any industrial power in history. In fact, there wasn’t even a need for a federal income tax until 1913. Up until then, the government was supported almost entirely through tariffs and protectionism.

In those days, more than half of the world’s cotton, corn, copper and oil flowed from America, and at least one-third of all steel, iron, silver and gold. Even though the U.S. was not flush with raw materials, excellent manufacturing guaranteed dominance of world markets. Wall Street was overflowing with foreign capital. It was estimated that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom, along with all of their national debt. Even the world-leading Bank of England began to borrow money on Wall Street. In short order, New York City was destined to replace London as the world’s financial center.

The Importance of Protecting Our Economy | Economy In Crisis

~S~

 

[sparky]

During colonial times, British law was to arrest and jail anyone with manufacturing talent who relocated from Great Britain to the colonies. In response to this and several trade practices that impeded our ability to manufacture our own resources, economist and founding father Alexander Hamilton drew up steps to build up our own manufacturing – and begin our own country.

Decades later, Abraham Lincoln decided against importing steel from England to build a transcontinental railroad. Instead, he decided to encourage development of our own steel plants. He put import restrictions on British steel thereby giving birth to one of the key industrial engines of growth in this country.

In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed a system of import quotas and subsidies for American agriculture. This system remains in place to this day and that same group of farmers now receives annually over $180 billion worth of subsidies.

President Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, applied oil import quotas. John F. Kennedy produced the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961. Ronald Reagan put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors and a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles.


What Made Leaders of the Past Successful? Focusing on American Industry | Economy In Crisis

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks for sharing and proving my point. I explained my reasoning for using a quote by RFK which you ignore and focus on defending your ego from a 'scurrilous" attack.

An attack which simply pointed out how I perceive you, an honest analysis, unlike your comments about Ms Fluke which were not only exaggerated but vile and mendacious.

Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion. That's fine on the internet but in a debate or a seminar that behavior would be greeted by laughter and evaluated as a failure.

Stop sobbing.

Ya' know, jerk, you have the nerve to use the hyperbolic term 'mendacity' with reference to me, and carp that I wipe up the street with you...and every single thing I said is true.

You start a fight with me, and before we begin,
a) you may want to have the first responders on alert.
b) state where should we send the flowers
c) be sure you sign the release form that has the skull and crossbones on it and
d) did you fill out your organ-donor card?



I flunked anger management.
My favorite soup is Cream of Gristle!

Now, step off.

And with that I LMAO, the "S" on your T-Shirt must stand for for silly; I can think of other words which begin with the letter S, one popularized by Rush Limbaugh. But, unlike you, I woud never characterize a women using that word. Its use is reserved for abusers, bullys and cowards.

Now you just leave Bill Clinton out of this!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was — (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was — a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.

Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda — who — BTW — paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH — at his quisling best — publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack" — Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
Howard Zinn: Communist liar
Howard Zinn: Communist liar

You know that will only make them love him more.

OMG- you're right!!!

It's resume enhancement to the Left!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I laught at you guys who imagine that the Floundering Fathers believed the same things you do.

FREE MARKETS?

Clearly if you imagine that the FF's stood for those you don't know jackshit about American trade policy.

Although I always like to give you a good laugh, that your downward trajectory is increasing due to the effects of political gravity....

Let me show you what has happened to the free market: Regulation


1. Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. USC : Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE | LII / Legal Information Institute
Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

From his lecture, James L. Buckley “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State”



There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, your point is.....obfuscation?

No, you asked that i focus on topics of your choice

i did

unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy your OP, it doesn't seem to jive with your narrow world view

thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion

the waste of time is not unexpected.....

~S~

I believe that I obviated your blather by showing what a poor source Zinn is for American history...

and find that you prove that you have no understanding of the Constitution, once you refer to a 'living Constitution.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you asked that i focus on topics of your choice

i did

unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy your OP, it doesn't seem to jive with your narrow world view

thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion

the waste of time is not unexpected.....

~S~

ah...I see you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.

"they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate."
Couldn't agree more!

1. That's why the NYTimes used the term 'white Hispanic' for Mr. Zimmerman....

2. ..and ignored this story:
‘YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, WHITE BOY’: 13-YEAR-OLD SET ON FIRE IN HORRIFIC RACIALLY CHARGED ATTACK"
Horrifying: 13-Year-Old White Boy Set On Fire In Racially-Charged Attack | Video | TheBlaze.com


I'm certain that you noted that strategy from the Left.....

 

[rightwinger]

March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.

They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.”
Edmund Burke, “The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies,” p.15-17.

Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.

What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?

November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

the left is what happened to America ...

The left created America

 

[PoliticalChic]

March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.

They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.”
Edmund Burke, “The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies,” p.15-17.

Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.

What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?

November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.

the left is what happened to America ...

The left created America

So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[rightwinger]

the left is what happened to America ...

The left created America

So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?

I did quite well actually..

It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown

 

[PoliticalChic]

During colonial times, British law was to arrest and jail anyone with manufacturing talent who relocated from Great Britain to the colonies. In response to this and several trade practices that impeded our ability to manufacture our own resources, economist and founding father Alexander Hamilton drew up steps to build up our own manufacturing – and begin our own country.

Decades later, Abraham Lincoln decided against importing steel from England to build a transcontinental railroad. Instead, he decided to encourage development of our own steel plants. He put import restrictions on British steel thereby giving birth to one of the key industrial engines of growth in this country.

In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed a system of import quotas and subsidies for American agriculture. This system remains in place to this day and that same group of farmers now receives annually over $180 billion worth of subsidies.

President Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, applied oil import quotas. John F. Kennedy produced the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961. Ronald Reagan put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors and a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles.


What Made Leaders of the Past Successful? Focusing on American Industry | Economy In Crisis

~S~

This is my fav:

"In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed..."

Another of those FDR hagiographies....


In actuality:
"How to Turn a Recession into a Depression

by William A. Niskanen

Four federal economic policies transformed the Hoover recession into the Great Depression: higher tariffs, stronger unions, higher marginal tax rates, and a lower money supply. President Obama, unfortunately, has endorsed some variant of the first three of these policies, and he will face a critical choice on monetary policy in a year or so."
How to Turn a Recession into a Depression

 

[Triton]

Keep the collectivism in the compact urban areas where it belongs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left created America

So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?

I did quite well actually..

It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown

Here's your remedial:


1. Classical liberalism
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.


Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."

So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.

Ain't knowledge great?

 

[rightwinger]

So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?

I did quite well actually..

It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown

Here's your remedial:


1. Classical liberalism
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online

d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.


Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."

So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.

Ain't knowledge great?

Revisionist crapola.......

Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change.

During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.

Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?

 

[regent]

The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.