Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[Woyzeck]

Yeah, yeah, we get it. If it's good, it's liberal. If it's bad, it's conservative.

But I'm agreeing with you! Oddball's understanding of American history is proof that the liberal education system has failed.

That's only if you believe his view of history is incorrect.

You had a public school education, right?

It's a bit hard to have an opinion on stuff that happened. He doesn't count the American Civil War as the decentralized government not working, even though most people would agree any kind of government isn't working if the country goes into a civil war. And apparently we kicked the snot out of every other nation during the Industrial Revolution... even though we only ever went to war with the British (ended in a draw), Mexico, ourselves, various Native Americans and Spain. The British will be most surprised that their Pax Britannica was apparently Pax Americana. That's not even counting Oddball marks the advent of the twentieth century (the Progressive era) with the decline of American power.

And yes.

 

[daveman]

But I'm agreeing with you! Oddball's understanding of American history is proof that the liberal education system has failed.

That's only if you believe his view of history is incorrect.

You had a public school education, right?

It's a bit hard to have an opinion on stuff that happened. He doesn't count the American Civil War as the decentralized government not working, even though most people would agree any kind of government isn't working if the country goes into a civil war. And apparently we kicked the snot out of every other nation during the Industrial Revolution... even though we only ever went to war with the British (ended in a draw), Mexico, ourselves, various Native Americans and Spain. The British will be most surprised that their Pax Britannica was apparently Pax Americana. That's not even counting Oddball marks the advent of the twentieth century (the Progressive era) with the decline of American power.

And yes.

Thought so.

 

[Woyzeck]

That's only if you believe his view of history is incorrect.

You had a public school education, right?

It's a bit hard to have an opinion on stuff that happened. He doesn't count the American Civil War as the decentralized government not working, even though most people would agree any kind of government isn't working if the country goes into a civil war. And apparently we kicked the snot out of every other nation during the Industrial Revolution... even though we only ever went to war with the British (ended in a draw), Mexico, ourselves, various Native Americans and Spain. The British will be most surprised that their Pax Britannica was apparently Pax Americana. That's not even counting Oddball marks the advent of the twentieth century (the Progressive era) with the decline of American power.

And yes.

Thought so.

And your point is...?

 

[daveman]

It's a bit hard to have an opinion on stuff that happened. He doesn't count the American Civil War as the decentralized government not working, even though most people would agree any kind of government isn't working if the country goes into a civil war. And apparently we kicked the snot out of every other nation during the Industrial Revolution... even though we only ever went to war with the British (ended in a draw), Mexico, ourselves, various Native Americans and Spain. The British will be most surprised that their Pax Britannica was apparently Pax Americana. That's not even counting Oddball marks the advent of the twentieth century (the Progressive era) with the decline of American power.

And yes.

Thought so.

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

 

[Woyzeck]

Thought so.

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

As Oddball's misunderstanding of history shows.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

There's simply no point in arguing with a moron. The progressives did nothing to make this country grow into the largest and wealthiest country in the world. That all happened before they got control and turned the world into a hell-hole.

On the one hand, you admit that the country didn't instantaneously transform from some impoverished backwater into a superpower over night, but on the other hand you want to give the progressives all the credit. Either it happened before they took power, or it happened instantaneously the minute they got their sorry asses elected.

You can't have it both ways, you stupid turd.

 

[ShackledNation]

Yet America doesn't become the top dog until the twentieth century, and the Progressive Era is around the turn of the century. Which is when you're decentralized golden era ends.

So what did the progressives bring us? The great depression. Two world wars. the holocaust. Totalitarian governments all over the world. Mass starvation. Inflation. eugenics. Social Darwinism. Fascism. Massive government debt. A significant decrease in the growth rate of the economy.

Here are the facts: The United States grew to become the largest economy in the world under laizzes fair economics, and then the progressives took over. They didn't create the economy growth, the simply cashed in on it.

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

And Britain was a centralized power that fell to the more decentralized United States. That is the point exactly. They wore themselves thin with their centralized government.

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

 

[ShackledNation]

Progressives brought us the welfare-warfare state. If you want to argue the welfare-warfare state is a blessing of prosperity, good luck.

 

[Woyzeck]

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

There's simply no point in arguing with a moron. The progressives did nothing to make this country grow into the largest and wealthiest country in the world. That all happened before they got control and turned the world into a hell-hole.

On the one hand, you admit that the country didn't instantaneously transform from some impoverished backwater into a superpower over night, but on the other hand you want to give the progressives all the credit. Either it happened before they took power, or it happened instantaneously the minute they got their sorry asses elected.

You can't have it both ways, you stupid turd.

Please point out where I said this. I said we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which is true. The British were number one until we took over, which is generally agreed upon to have happened in the twentieth century. Oddball is the one who keeps saying we were the greatest power ever until the Progressives took over. The Progressive era is usually cited as being around the turn of the twentieth century. You know what they call that century? The American century.

But apparently, not being number one is the same thing as saying impoverished backwater. Modesty is not in your vocabulary.

 

[Woyzeck]

So what did the progressives bring us? The great depression. Two world wars. the holocaust. Totalitarian governments all over the world. Mass starvation. Inflation. eugenics. Social Darwinism. Fascism. Massive government debt. A significant decrease in the growth rate of the economy.

Here are the facts: The United States grew to become the largest economy in the world under laizzes fair economics, and then the progressives took over. They didn't create the economy growth, the simply cashed in on it.

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

And Britain was a centralized power that fell to the more decentralized United States. That is the point exactly. They wore themselves thin with their centralized government.

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

They wore themselves thin by fighting world wars, not by their centralized government.

And yes decentralized government is the only thing that results in huge growth. No other factors matter, just decentralized government.

My, my, the right-wing is right about the public education system!

 

[ShackledNation]

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

And Britain was a centralized power that fell to the more decentralized United States. That is the point exactly. They wore themselves thin with their centralized government.

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

They wore themselves thin by fighting world wars, not by their centralized government.

Yes, wars that were made possible by a centralized government, similar to what the US is doing today.

And yes decentralized government is the only thing that results in huge growth. No other factors matter, just decentralized government.

My, my, the right-wing is right about the public education system!

 

[Woyzeck]

And Britain was a centralized power that fell to the more decentralized United States. That is the point exactly. They wore themselves thin with their centralized government.

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

They wore themselves thin by fighting world wars, not by their centralized government.

Yes, wars that were made possible by a centralized government, similar to what the US is doing today.

Hrm... gee, we had a decentralized government before 1900 (the Progressive era), that means we couldn't have had any wars!

Wait, no that's stupid. The situation leading up to the world wars is a mite more complicated than your simple "centralized government did it."

And yes decentralized government is the only thing that results in huge growth. No other factors matter, just decentralized government.

My, my, the right-wing is right about the public education system!

Says the guy who attributes mainly our economic growth with decentralized government and decentralized government only. Don't blame me for only bringing that up.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

There's simply no point in arguing with a moron. The progressives did nothing to make this country grow into the largest and wealthiest country in the world. That all happened before they got control and turned the world into a hell-hole.

On the one hand, you admit that the country didn't instantaneously transform from some impoverished backwater into a superpower over night, but on the other hand you want to give the progressives all the credit. Either it happened before they took power, or it happened instantaneously the minute they got their sorry asses elected.

You can't have it both ways, you stupid turd.

Please point out where I said this. I said we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which is true. The British were number one until we took over, which is generally agreed upon to have happened in the twentieth century. Oddball is the one who keeps saying we were the greatest power ever until the Progressives took over. The Progressive era is usually cited as being around the turn of the twentieth century. You know what they call that century? The American century.

But apparently, not being number one is the same thing as saying impoverished backwater. Modesty is not in your vocabulary.

Wilson was elected in 1912. The Federal Reserve was created in 1914, and the income tax was passed in 1916, so the twentieth century includes some time before the progressives took over.

One thing you keep trying to ignore is that fact that economies don't become wealthy overnight. Once the right policies are in place, it takes a few generations of economic growth for the wealth to accumulate. The progressives took over at the end of the process and cashed in. They weren't responsible for the wealth that made the US powerful.

And being "No One" means only that under the progressives the US started throwing its weight around, interfering in foreign countries and getting involved in foreign wars that we had no interest in. In other words, imperialism was the prime directive under the progressives.

What is there to admire about the progressives?

 

[Oddball]

There's simply no point in arguing with a moron. The progressives did nothing to make this country grow into the largest and wealthiest country in the world. That all happened before they got control and turned the world into a hell-hole.

On the one hand, you admit that the country didn't instantaneously transform from some impoverished backwater into a superpower over night, but on the other hand you want to give the progressives all the credit. Either it happened before they took power, or it happened instantaneously the minute they got their sorry asses elected.

You can't have it both ways, you stupid turd.

Please point out where I said this. I said we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which is true. The British were number one until we took over, which is generally agreed upon to have happened in the twentieth century. Oddball is the one who keeps saying we were the greatest power ever until the Progressives took over. The Progressive era is usually cited as being around the turn of the twentieth century. You know what they call that century? The American century.

But apparently, not being number one is the same thing as saying impoverished backwater. Modesty is not in your vocabulary.

Wilson was elected in 1912. The Federal Reserve was created in 1914, and the income tax was passed in 1916, so the twentieth century includes some time before the progressives took over.

1913 for the Fed, 16th AND 17th Amendments...The progressive authoritarians wasted no time in seizing and centralizing power.

Also, the progressive push really gained traction under the regime of Teddy Roosevelt...The prototype neocon.

 

[bripat9643]

They wore themselves thin by fighting world wars, not by their centralized government.

They didn't "wear themselves thin." They committed economic suicide by adopting progressive policies.

And yes decentralized government is the only thing that results in huge growth. No other factors matter, just decentralized government.

My, my, the right-wing is right about the public education system!

The free market is what produces huge economic growth. Decentralized government is an arrangement that keeps government from becoming powerful and imposing controls on private business. The two things go together hand-in-glove. A strong central government is always a threat to the free market.

 

[Woyzeck]

There's simply no point in arguing with a moron. The progressives did nothing to make this country grow into the largest and wealthiest country in the world. That all happened before they got control and turned the world into a hell-hole.

On the one hand, you admit that the country didn't instantaneously transform from some impoverished backwater into a superpower over night, but on the other hand you want to give the progressives all the credit. Either it happened before they took power, or it happened instantaneously the minute they got their sorry asses elected.

You can't have it both ways, you stupid turd.

Please point out where I said this. I said we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which is true. The British were number one until we took over, which is generally agreed upon to have happened in the twentieth century. Oddball is the one who keeps saying we were the greatest power ever until the Progressives took over. The Progressive era is usually cited as being around the turn of the twentieth century. You know what they call that century? The American century.

But apparently, not being number one is the same thing as saying impoverished backwater. Modesty is not in your vocabulary.

Wilson was elected in 1912. The Federal Reserve was created in 1914, and the income tax was passed in 1916, so the twentieth century includes some time before the progressives took over.

One thing you keep trying to ignore is that fact that economies don't become wealthy overnight. Once the right policies are in place, it takes a few generations of economic growth for the wealth to accumulate. The progressives took over at the end of the process and cashed in. They weren't responsible for the wealth that made the US powerful.

And we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which was my main point. The the original point we're debating and you've been ignoring is....

Wrong...America was top dog before the progressives laid their greedy war mongering little mitts on it.

Which Oddball is grossly incorrect about, seeing as we've become number one in the twentieth century and maintained that up until the present.

And being "No One" means only that under the progressives the US started throwing its weight around, interfering in foreign countries and getting involved in foreign wars that we had no interest in. In other words, imperialism was the prime directive under the progressives.

What is there to admire about the progressives?

You mean imperialistic ventures like... Hawaii?

 

[ShackledNation]

They wore themselves thin by fighting world wars, not by their centralized government.

Yes, wars that were made possible by a centralized government, similar to what the US is doing today.

Hrm... gee, we had a decentralized government before 1900 (the Progressive era), that means we couldn't have had any wars!

Wait, no that's stupid. The situation leading up to the world wars is a mite more complicated than your simple "centralized government did it."

Let me redirect you to the picture of the strawman...

Did I ever say decentralized powers could never win wars? No. Did I ever say centralized government was the only factor? No. And if I did, it would be stupid. But you are the only one who keeps saying that because you cannot address the real arguments.

I simply pointed out centralized power was a contributing factor, with which the wars would not be possible. Empire is is made possible by centralization of power, and wars come with it. In the 20th century, the US was engaged in many more wars than it had prior to the 20th century, and major wars at that. The 20th century was also a period of expanding executive power, diminishing importance of states rights, and the centralization of power. When power is concentrated in fewer hands, it is easier to be abused.

And yes decentralized government is the only thing that results in huge growth. No other factors matter, just decentralized government.

My, my, the right-wing is right about the public education system!

Says the guy who attributes mainly our economic growth with decentralized government and decentralized government only. Don't blame me for only bringing that up.

I never said that, hence the strawman.

 

[Woyzeck]

Please point out where I said this. I said we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which is true. The British were number one until we took over, which is generally agreed upon to have happened in the twentieth century. Oddball is the one who keeps saying we were the greatest power ever until the Progressives took over. The Progressive era is usually cited as being around the turn of the twentieth century. You know what they call that century? The American century.

But apparently, not being number one is the same thing as saying impoverished backwater. Modesty is not in your vocabulary.

Wilson was elected in 1912. The Federal Reserve was created in 1914, and the income tax was passed in 1916, so the twentieth century includes some time before the progressives took over.

1913 for the Fed, 16th AND 17th Amendments...The progressive authoritarians wasted no time in seizing and centralizing power.

Also, the progressive push really gained traction under the regime of Teddy Roosevelt...The prototype neocon.

Oh you're back! Perhaps you'd care to share your views on history, like how our civil war wasn't really a civil war, and decentralized government worked all throughout it? What about the Progressives ruining America's prosperity? We weren't number one once they took over! Yes sir, it's been a downhill for a hundred years. I wish we were sure like the current number one superpower on earth!

 

[bripat9643]

Oh you're back! Perhaps you'd care to share your views on history, like how our civil war wasn't really a civil war, and decentralized government worked all throughout it? What about the Progressives ruining America's prosperity? We weren't number one once they took over! Yes sir, it's been a downhill for a hundred years. I wish we were sure like the current number one superpower on earth!

First off, our "Civil War" wasn't actually a Civil War. A Civil War is a battle between two or more opposing factions to gain control of the central government. The South had no interest in gaining control of the Federal government. The war was more accurately described as the war of Northern aggression. The South wanted to secede and the tyrant Lincoln was determined to do everything in his power to prevent it, including utterly destroying the South.

If anything, the Civil War shows that de-centralized government worked very well. It prevented the statists in the Central government from imposing unpopular laws on the country and obstructed the schemes of looter politicians to tax away the wealth of citizens for the benefit of their cronies. That's why Lincoln was determined to destroy decentralized government. The fact that conquest was the only way he could do it shows how well it worked.

 

[Woyzeck]

Yes, wars that were made possible by a centralized government, similar to what the US is doing today.

Hrm... gee, we had a decentralized government before 1900 (the Progressive era), that means we couldn't have had any wars!

Wait, no that's stupid. The situation leading up to the world wars is a mite more complicated than your simple "centralized government did it."

Let me redirect you to the picture of the strawman...

Did I ever say decentralized powers could never win wars? No. Did I ever say centralized government was the only factor? No. And if I did, it would be stupid. But you are the only one who keeps saying that because you cannot address the real arguments.

This is what you said:

And Britain was a centralized power that fell to the more decentralized United States. That is the point exactly. They wore themselves thin with their centralized government.

and

Yes, wars that were made possible by a centralized government, similar to what the US is doing today.

You more or less said centralized government was to blame. If you wanted to post other stuff besides that, then you should've instead of letting your post be characterized by that.

I simply pointed out centralized power was a contributing factor, with which the wars would not be possible. Empire is is made possible by centralization of power, and wars come with it. In the 20th century, the US was engaged in many more wars than it had prior to the 20th century, and major wars at that. The 20th century was also a period of expanding executive power, diminishing importance of states rights, and the centralization of power. When power is concentrated in fewer hands, it is easier to be abused.

Then don't leave out information.

Says the guy who attributes mainly our economic growth with decentralized government and decentralized government only. Don't blame me for only bringing that up.

I never said that, bud. Hence the strawman.[/QUOTE]

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

You say an awful lot in your posts by the information you choose to omit.

And gloss over the actual point, is that we weren't number one until the twentieth century, around the time that Oddball pegs as our downfall due to Progressives.