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

[daveman]

Of course this is only one of the outrageous allegations you make in this single post. Shame on you.

Yeah, PC. You're supposed to kiss Wry's ass because he thinks he's entitled to it.

 

[daveman]

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.

And of course, you NEVER do that. NEVER EVER.

And when you do, it's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right?

 

[sparky]

Do i look fat in this avatar?

~S~

 

[rightwinger]

What does that have to do with self-respect, initiative, a desire for freedom and liberty?

Americans have the same self respect, initiative and desire for freedom and liberty as they always have

Even more so

I have no doubt they will recoup same in November,

...after they send “Après moi le Déluge” and his ilk packing.

Elections have little bearing on the spirit of Americans. We have always served as a model for the rest of the world in the passion that Americans have for basically........doing the right thing

Our founding fathers had that passion, Americans during WWII had that passion....as do Americans today

What has changed through time is what "the right thing" is for each era

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.

And of course, you NEVER do that. NEVER EVER.

And when you do, it's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right?

I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized: "libtards, ain't they awful".

 

[daveman]

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.

And of course, you NEVER do that. NEVER EVER.

And when you do, it's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right?

I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized: "libtards, ain't they awful".

"And when you do, it's different. Somehow. It just is."

Yep, I called it.

You are such a flaming hypocrite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why. She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person. Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?

"Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."

Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.


So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
You've earned each and every one.


If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.

 

[Wry Catcher]

" Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why. She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person. Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?

"Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."

Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.


So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
You've earned each and every one.


If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.

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.

 

[sparky]

So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests

They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century

Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits

and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition

and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?



~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests

They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century

Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits

and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition

and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?



~S~

You didn't sum up....you purloined Howard Zinn's version of United States history....

And "... a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system..." ???
That's the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" version of the United States Constitution.

Now, focus like a laser:

1.Individualism,

2. Free markets,

3. and Limited constitutional government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why. She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person. Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?

"Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."

Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.


So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
You've earned each and every one.


If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

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 people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion....Edmund Burke

It's ironic that I find Burke quotes as some of the best antiseptic for modern conservatism.

Here is a few of my favorites...

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

 

[sparky]

So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests

They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century

Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits

and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition

and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?



~S~

You didn't sum up....you purloined Howard Zinn's version of United States history....

And "... a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system..." ???
That's the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" version of the United States Constitution.

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.

Now, focus like a laser:

ok...

1.Individualism,

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

2. Free markets,

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

3. and Limited constitutional government.

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~

 

[PoliticalChic]

So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests

They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century

Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits

and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition

and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?



~S~

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

3. and Limited constitutional government.

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?

 

[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
http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/vernon/100809

 

[Listening]

If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.

No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.

I can see that logical fallacy still exists today as it did in their day.

 

[yidnar]

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 ...

 

[Listening]

Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context, especially if you consider the historical reality of the times you worship.

What context would that be ? One where a set of colonies (and just a subset within that) pulls away from the mother country and has to establish a government from first principles having studied the history of other governments....and somehow comes up with a system of government that has survived pretty well and allowed the U.S. to become somewhat prominent relative to the rest of the world ?

[Read a bit of history sometime - but allow me again, for maybe the hundred time, to ask what conservatism has done for all the people?

And what part of that history don't you understand. "Conservatism" has provided the world plenty as it has been a philosphy that has allowed the U.S. business community to flourish in ways you can't find in any other nation. Now, what was the question ?

[No one can answer, as conservatism is merely reactionary partisanship,

I just answered....of course it would be great if you defined conservatisim for us. Because, as a rule most people can't do it universally.

[and when given the reigns of power a complete failure as Bush Jr demonstrated so well. 'All you need is freedom, freedom is all you need....'

GWB is a poor choice of example given he was not much of a true conservative. But then, the left can't let go because without Chimera there is no Bellerophon (the likes of Obama). Of course, this is all mythology, just like the Greeks had. But you need it to survive.

[Sing it enough times and it still means nada. More to it than empty phrases.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....

[
"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought, that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used - the theses of perversity, futility, and jeopardy. He illustrates these propositions by ciung writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray." From backcover http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews

Case in point.....

[
Your tries are here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322

[/QUOTE]

In your own words...nada.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."

Welcome to Ouch-town, bro…Population: you.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.


So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
You've earned each and every one.


If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.

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.