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

[rightwinger]

Shoe fit?

At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion

Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually

See...now you are reduced to prevarication.

I source and link.

I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.

Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?

Could be?


Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......

Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions

 

[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.

OMG- you're right!!!

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

Nothing but.

Remember, "Communism never worked because American never LET it work! When WE'RE in charge, it'll work GREAT!!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion

Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually

See...now you are reduced to prevarication.

I source and link.

I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.

Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?

Could be?


Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......

Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions

Became some kind of thorn in your side, huh?

Seems excessive to post over and over how you object to 'cut and paste'...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Nope, It must be the content that you are objecting to....right-wing rectitude, and corrections of your misinformation.
I believe that's it.

Better get used to it.

Now, there is the suggestion that you attended college....then you should know:

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critically Analyzing Information Sources | olinuris.library.cornell.edu)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.


I'm gonna guess that #3 applies to you.....

...true?

 

[daveman]

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?

How would you know?

Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries. You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.

This is undeniable. Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.

 

[daveman]

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.

Clear, concise and spot on. And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum. Thanks.

One retard echoing another retard's opinion does not make it fact.

It just means you like the opinions of retards.

 

[daveman]

The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"

These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....

What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .

Many still are

Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."

Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies Modern Liberals....

Didn't think so.

You mean your cut and paste?

Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion

At least she's provided citations. All you offer is petulant foot-stamping.

How's that working out for you?

 

[daveman]

At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion

Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually

See...now you are reduced to prevarication.

I source and link.

I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.

Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?

Could be?


Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......

Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions

Then you're intellectually lazy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See...now you are reduced to prevarication.

I source and link.

I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.

Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?

Could be?


Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......

Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions

Then you're intellectually lazy.

Whistle!

Piling on!

15-yards!

 

[rightwinger]

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?

How would you know?

Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries. You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.

This is undeniable. Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.

Historically invalid

It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives

 

[rightwinger]

Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions

Then you're intellectually lazy.

Whistle!

Piling on!

15-yards!

Sorry Chic...

But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go

 

[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.

"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.....

white hispanic is a census designation. it wasn't made up by the New York Times. Mr. Zimmerman is only HALF hispanic, you know that, right? And he is most certainly white.

Again, you can pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better. If that helps you justify his hunting a black kid then have at it.

And why do I use the word "hunting"? (just so you're not confused by it). I use the word "hunting" because Mr. Zimmerman was TOLD not to pursue the young man and he did so anyway saying "f*****g coons always get away with it".

I'd think even you would understand that under those circumstances an INVESTIGATION would have been appropriate and it seems that racial hatred MAY have been A motivating factor.

Again, so you aren't confused, I use the word "may" simply because the matter WASN'T investigated properly and needs to be.

Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much.


Right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then you're intellectually lazy.

Whistle!

Piling on!

15-yards!

Sorry Chic...

But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go

Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
it with your petulance.

My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
And, of course, a sense of humor.

Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.

And, voilà!

 

[rightwinger]

Whistle!

Piling on!

15-yards!

Sorry Chic...

But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go

Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
it with your petulance.

My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
And, of course, a sense of humor.

Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.

And, voilà!

Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about

 

[koshergrl]

You have "lesser posters" now?

Shoe fit?

At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion

Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually

You're a fucking idiot.

In COLLEGE you are REQUIRED to provide citations and to reference supporting material. Otherwise you have no argument.

The cites and references SUPPORT your opinion. Your opinion without them is worthless. Which is why your opinions are worthless.

PC, Foxy, some others, and I consistently provide links and evidence to SUPPORT the veracity of our OPINIONS. That is the way argument (at the college level) works, you lazy ignoramus.

Only at usmb have I ever heard somebody criticized for backing up their opinion with evidence. What a loon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.....

white hispanic is a census designation. it wasn't made up by the New York Times. Mr. Zimmerman is only HALF hispanic, you know that, right? And he is most certainly white.

Again, you can pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better. If that helps you justify his hunting a black kid then have at it.

And why do I use the word "hunting"? (just so you're not confused by it). I use the word "hunting" because Mr. Zimmerman was TOLD not to pursue the young man and he did so anyway saying "f*****g coons always get away with it".

I'd think even you would understand that under those circumstances an INVESTIGATION would have been appropriate and it seems that racial hatred MAY have been A motivating factor.

Again, so you aren't confused, I use the word "may" simply because the matter WASN'T investigated properly and needs to be.

Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much.


Right?

"...it wasn't made up by the New York Times."
Let's be accurate: what I said was "hat's why the NYTimes used the term..."

Census. Not in the press. Not in my memory...in yours?

When was the last time you saw it in the press?

It is selected by the Left-wing media to give impetus to folks like you who love to pretend that America is a white racist nation....while the proof of the contrary is looking at you from the Oval Office.

And as a flimsy cover for the administration's strategy of ginning up the minority vote.

You agree to that, don't you?

 

[Listening]

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.

Maybe we could get back to the original (and I might add thought provoking) OP.

If I had to guess, the founding fathers might have taken a look at today's U.S.A. and decided it was to big.

It is clear they feared an overarching central government. The Articles of Confederation were an example of just how far they were willing to go to keep the federal government from getting to much power. Alas, they were to weak.

So we got a wonderful U.S. Constitution whose primary function was to LIMIT the federal government in favor of the states. History bears out this was their intent and it is reflected in the way the country behaved (despite John Marshall) up until we get to FDR (the wanna be king).

By then things are changing fast. The industrial revolution, our ability to kill each other en mass, and communications are all moving at a torid pace. We have progress and wars and social upheaval.

We also have all kinds of information. In fact, it is quite clear that anyone who has a point of view can go find the information/disinformation they need to glom together an argument (it is unfortunate that people like Chris still won't do it...but that's a different story).

The population of the country was about 6,500,000 (from memory) when it was formed. Even then, decentralization was considered key.

How would they feel about centralizing 310,000,000 people on things like health care ?

Do you really believe there is an economy of scale past 5,000,000 that you get with 310,000,000 ? Really ?

There is no doubt in my mind where Burke would wind up.

As to Sandra Fluke.....I can only guess he'd be rolling on the floor. More than likely laughing at both sides.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry Chic...

But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go

Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
it with your petulance.

My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
And, of course, a sense of humor.

Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.

And, voilà!

Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about

Face-saving? 'Cause you know better.

The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.

 

[Listening]

Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much.


Right?

Yes, but this is America !!!

 

[sparky]

I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....

Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC

you see, things political are not a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that

but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do

that they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links

it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly

a shame it sells so well.....

~S~

What you've failed to consider is that some of those "actual sheepskins in history" are, actually, worthless.

If you have been 'educated' under the wings of biased professors....perhaps education is no more than indoctrination in that case.

biased professors?

too good.........

i rest my case

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC

you see, things political are not a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that

but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do

that they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links

it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly

a shame it sells so well.....

~S~

What you've failed to consider is that some of those "actual sheepskins in history" are, actually, worthless.

If you have been 'educated' under the wings of biased professors....perhaps education is no more than indoctrination in that case.

biased professors?

too good.........

i rest my case

~S~

Your case was lost as soon as you accepted the professors' tales without doing your own research.