on the backs of free labor.Capitalism is what built this country.
They weren't free.
Semantics? They weren't paid for their labor, someone ELSE was paid for their labor.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
on the backs of free labor.Capitalism is what built this country.
They weren't free.
I'm still wondering how it's possible for a Democrat to be a Nazi.
Nazis are right wingers.
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 fuck this is new is beyond me.
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!!
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.
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 fuck 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.
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 fucking stupid.
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 fuck this is new is beyond me.
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 fucking 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.
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 fuck 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? Fucking moronic nanny state full of whining children demanded to be fed. They bore me.
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
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 guy's a moron.
No-one in their right mind thinks that "Socialist" means "******".
That's just fucking 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.