On partisan hyperbole

[California Girl]

I'm still wondering how it's possible for a Democrat to be a Nazi.

Nazis are right wingers.

As per usual, it is a ranting leftie who falls back on the 'Nazi' card.

It is the last resort of a failed argument and those who use it are failures. That's you, a failure.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am highly entertained that Vast thinks that this is an original idea.... when, in fact, some of us have been stating on the board on various occasions - that the the Founders meant this country to be as close to Anarchy as possible without falling into chaos.

How the **** this is new is beyond me.

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure, jettison yourself back to the pre Civil-War era, when the Country was being built.

Some of the greatest gains this country ever made were made after slavery was ended or is it your contention that all we ever built and accomplished was done in the first century of our country's existence?

Umm, no that's not my contention.

I take it you just like to argue?

K...........

Basketball is better than football.

Ready? ....
..
.
.


go!!

You said this country was built on the backs of free labor. Didn't you?

And I don't waste my time on those pampered overpaid idiots who play pro sports so you can have that argument alone.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm no tea partier and I'm not sure if you libby progressives are socialists but the new libby attempt pass off Socialist as a code word for ****** certainly is a good example of the left's tactics of marginalizing their opposition.


So let's have you take on this bit of libby hyperbole.

That guy's a moron.

No-one in their right mind thinks that "Socialist" means "******".

That's just ******* stupid.

 

[California Girl]

I am highly entertained that Vast thinks that this is an original idea.... when, in fact, some of us have been stating on the board on various occasions - that the the Founders meant this country to be as close to Anarchy as possible without falling into chaos.

How the **** this is new is beyond me.

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

That's what I meant but I can't be arsed to expand on posts when I'm working. The founders meant for this country to have just enough government to stop us from descending into chaos.

What do we have now? ******* moronic nanny state full of whining children demanded to be fed. They bore me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm no tea partier and I'm not sure if you libby progressives are socialists but the new libby attempt pass off Socialist as a code word for ****** certainly is a good example of the left's tactics of marginalizing their opposition.


So let's have you take on this bit of libby hyperbole.

That guy's a moron.

No-one in their right mind thinks that "Socialist" means "******".

That's just ******* stupid.

Yep.......by stating that someone is now equating socialist with ******, it's now apparent that the Republicans are trying to call Obama a "******" by equating it with socialist.

 

[Vast LWC]

I am highly entertained that Vast thinks that this is an original idea.... when, in fact, some of us have been stating on the board on various occasions - that the the Founders meant this country to be as close to Anarchy as possible without falling into chaos.

How the **** this is new is beyond me.

No-one said it was an original idea Cali.

I have personally said this on a number of occasions.

I was suggesting that use of this term as a general name for partisan libertarian types should become status quo, if we are going to all start using Hyperbole, that is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm no tea partier and I'm not sure if you libby progressives are socialists but the new libby attempt pass off Socialist as a code word for ****** certainly is a good example of the left's tactics of marginalizing their opposition.


So let's have you take on this bit of libby hyperbole.

That guy's a moron.

No-one in their right mind thinks that "Socialist" means "******".

That's just ******* stupid.

Yep.......by stating that someone is now equating socialist with ******, it's now apparent that the Republicans are trying to call Obama a "******" by equating it with socialist.

Hey I'm just the messenger here. But it was said and I have yet to see any Dimocrats refuting it. And certainly this idiot was not called on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am highly entertained that Vast thinks that this is an original idea.... when, in fact, some of us have been stating on the board on various occasions - that the the Founders meant this country to be as close to Anarchy as possible without falling into chaos.

How the **** this is new is beyond me.

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

That's what I meant but I can't be arsed to expand on posts when I'm working. The founders meant for this country to have just enough government to stop us from descending into chaos.

What do we have now? ******* moronic nanny state full of whining children demanded to be fed. They bore me.

LOL, I knew that. Which is why I expanded on it since I'm not working--except on personal projects--this afternoon.

I just thought the point you was making was important enough that it should not be ignored on a thread of this particular theme.

 

[AllieBaba]

It used to be their dirty word was.....LIBERAL

Then they transitioned to...................SOFT ON TERROR

Then it became.............SOCIALIST

The name calling worked for Joseph McCarthy, I guess they think it will still work today

McCarthy, as it turns out, was 100 percent right...

And so are we.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

The founders clearly intended our nation to be a Representative Republic, not a state "close to anarchy" or a form of individual "self-governance", which would be an egalitarian Democracy.

Some of the founding fathers believed in a larger role for the federal government, and some for a smaller. This whole assumption some people have that the founding fathers' "intent" just so happens to be the same as their personal philosophy is a load of bunk.

And Progressivism does not necessarily "erode and diminish" individual liberties. Allowing people to survive and prosper, by providing a social safety net, often allows people to excel in ways that they never would have been able to otherwise.

 

[Vast LWC]

That guy's a moron.

No-one in their right mind thinks that "Socialist" means "******".

That's just ******* stupid.

Yep.......by stating that someone is now equating socialist with ******, it's now apparent that the Republicans are trying to call Obama a "******" by equating it with socialist.

Hey I'm just the messenger here. But it was said and I have yet to see any Dimocrats refuting it. And certainly this idiot was not called on it.

Yeah, I can see that, but I think that's more of a case of people not paying attention rather than intentionally not calling him on it.

Who is that guy anyway?

 

[Vast LWC]

It used to be their dirty word was.....LIBERAL

Then they transitioned to...................SOFT ON TERROR

Then it became.............SOCIALIST

The name calling worked for Joseph McCarthy, I guess they think it will still work today

McCarthy, as it turns out, was 100 percent right...

And so are we.

Who's we? You and your fellow Anarchists?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

on the backs of free labor.

Gee I never worked for free.

My parents never worked for free

My grandparents never worked for free

none of my employees work for free.

Do you know where I can get me some of that free labor?

Sure, jettison yourself back to the pre Civil-War era, when the Country was being built.

You're showing your ignorance. There was only a small percentage of negroes that were held as slaves compared to the total number of negroes and the total population. Fact is many slaves were held by free blacks.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners. This according to the authors of "Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South", Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak.

Census Year # Slaves # Free blacks Total black % free blacks Total US population%Total
1790 697,681 59,527 757,208 7.9% 3,929,214 19%
1800 893,602 108,435 1,002,037 10.8% 5,308,483 19%
1810 1,191,362 186,446 1,377,808 13.5% 7,239,881 19%
1820 1,538,022 233,634 1,771,656 13.2% 9,638,453 18%
1830 2,009,043 319,599 2,328,642 13.7% 12,860,702 18%
1840 2,487,355 386,293 2,873,648 13.4% 17,063,353 17%
1850 3,204,313 434,495 3,638,808 11.9% 23,191,876 16%
1860 3,953,760 488,070 4,441,830 11.0% 31,443,321 14%
1870 0 4,880,009 4,880,009 100% 38,558,371 13%

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lonestar_logic]

on the backs of free labor.

They weren't free.

Semantics? They weren't paid for their labor, someone ELSE was paid for their labor.

They were given room and board and some earned their freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

It used to be their dirty word was.....LIBERAL

Then they transitioned to...................SOFT ON TERROR

Then it became.............SOCIALIST

The name calling worked for Joseph McCarthy, I guess they think it will still work today

McCarthy, as it turns out, was 100 percent right...

And so are we.

I figured you would agree with him

 

[rightwinger]

They weren't free.

Semantics? They weren't paid for their labor, someone ELSE was paid for their labor.

They were given room and board and some earned their freedom.

that and a whipping when they got out of hand

Not a bad deal

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank goodness the Republicans were around to free them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not Anarchy, but self government which I think is not exactly the same thing. They knew full well that under Anarchy or any kind of authoritarianism whether that be Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, or enforced Communism, nobody's rights would be secure.

The US Constitution was a great experiement in self government. The government would enact and enforce such laws and regulation as necessary to secure our unalienable, civil, legal, Constitutional rights and then would stay entirely out of our way so that we could order whatever society we wanted.

LWC in the opening post did raise a valid point in that ALL progressivism is not necessarily socialist or communist in character. That which counters or pushes back against rightwing authoritarianism, for instance, is good progressivism.

But all progressivism or rightwing authoritarianism serves to erode and diminish our individual liberties, and those are wrong from both sides and do deserve the socialist or communist labels attached to it.

The founders clearly intended our nation to be a Representative Republic, not a state "close to anarchy" or a form of individual "self-governance", which would be an egalitarian Democracy.

Some of the founding fathers believed in a larger role for the federal government, and some for a smaller. This whole assumption some people have that the founding fathers' "intent" just so happens to be the same as their personal philosophy is a load of bunk.

And Progressivism does not necessarily "erode and diminish" individual liberties. Allowing people to survive and prosper, by providing a social safety net, often allows people to excel in ways that they never would have been able to otherwise.

I agree that the Founders did not march in lockstep on their opinions or in their vision for a new nation, and the documents we have illustrating the great debates and conversations that went on between them shed a bright light on the process that gave us the Constitution.

But your conclusion that the 'intent' of the Founding Fathers was the same as their personal policy was 'a load of bunk' is.....well.....bunk.

Please re-read the following and get back to me on that. If you can find compelling evidence that any of the Founders substantially disagreed with or had a different intent than what was incorporated into the final draft of the US Constitution, please point that out.

Madison's Notes on the Convention
The Papers of George Washington
The Papers of James Madison
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Rights and Grievances (1774)
Articles of Association (1774)
Benjamin Franklin's Articles of Confederation (1775)
Common Sense (1776)
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
Richard Henry Lee's Independence Resolution (1776)
Declaration of Independence (1776)
Articles of Confederation (1778)
The Treaty of Paris (1783)
Report of the Annapolis Conference (1786)
The Virginia Plan (1787)
Charles Pinckney's Plan (1787)
The New Jersey Plan (1787)
The British Plan (1787)
August 6 Draft of the Constitution (1787)
September 12 Draft of the Constitution (1787)
Speech of Benjamin Franklin (1787)
The United States Constitution (1787)
The Letter of Transmittal (1787)
Washington's Letter to Congress (1787)
Wilson's 4th of July Address (1788)
Madison Introduces the Bill of Rights (1789)
Twelve Articles of Amendment (1789)

And as for "Progressivism does not necessarily "erode and diminish" individual liberties", I agreed with that. When Progressivism pushes back against Right Wing authoritarianism, it is defending individual liberties and in that it shares a common value with modern Conservatism.

Most Progressivism seeks to prohibit people from doing this or that or mandate that people do this or that, and that DOES frequently erode and dminish individual liberties.