Tea Party

[angelofdeath]

progressives created a monolithic state to enforce morals, and centralized the power in the central government and wanted it to intervene in every manner of human life..

 

the founding generation created a central government that most people today would consider anarchy, restrained the state, and wanted it to do as little as possible.

 

the revolution was fought over miniscule taxes that are nothing but a mere fraction of a percent of what are foisted on us today. the revolution started when the british attempted to confiscate citizens newly illegal military style assault weapons.

 

yeah, these guys all voted for barack, bush, pelosi, mccain and reid.

[angelofdeath]

That's a LIBERAL idea you dumb fuck! :lol:

 

hmmm.

CONSERVING traditional liberties is a revolutionary idea?

[TheoHuxtable..]

dude.

 

if you make the case that the people who seceded from great britain were 'progressives' but the people who seceded from the united states government in 1861 were conservative, your compass must be royally fucked.

 

 

The act of secession/revolution alone does not determine one's political ideology; it's what you're seceding against, and why. In the 1860's, slavery and Southern culture, politics, and economics as a whole had existed in the South for a couple centuries. Conservatives wanted to maintain this way of life. You can't compare that to the founding fathers wanting to secede from Britain since a democratic Republic and a United States had not existed, and thus the idea of creating such a nation itself was a progressive idea.

[angelofdeath]

read some of the speeches right before the shooting started.

all are talking about reclaiming lost liberty as englishmen.

 

this aspect is 'conservative.'

 

seceding from the central government, creating your own government, is revolutionary.

 

 

but look at it this way.

if the government in DC, takes all of our rights away. and we just want them back. if we destroy the US government to return to the constitution, is this a conservative or liberal idea? its conservative in that we want our traditional rights back, but revolutionary means are used to RESTORE our rights.

 

that being said... the revolution was based in classical liberalism. which is essentially libertarianism today. it is not big govt conservatism or big govt liberalism.

[angelofdeath]

The act of secession/revolution alone does not determine one's political ideology; it's what you're seceding against, and why. In the 1860's, slavery and Southern culture, politics, and economics as a whole had existed in the South for a couple centuries. Conservatives wanted to maintain this way of life. You can't compare that to the founding fathers wanting to secede from Britain since a democratic Republic and a United States had not existed, and thus the idea of creating such a nation itself was a progressive idea.

 

the states that seceded in 1861 werent seceding to solely to keep slaves. this is fallacy. if this was the case, why was it still legal in new jersey of all places? oregon? other northern states? why were the black codes of illinois more harsh than southern black codes, even forbidding free blacks from SETTLING IN THE STATE!

there is much much much more involved with this than 'slavery.' more of an issue, was taxes. if you read lincolns speeches you will see that he would do anything to keep america together. he even drafted the corwin amendment to keep slavery legal forever in the united states to try to keep the country together. but he said that he would use whatever military force necessary to collect the tariff.

 

henceforth, the secession of 1861, based on keeping the traditional rights guaranteed by the constitution, and the traditional governmental functions. if you claim the revolution of 1776 was 'liberal' than so was the secession of 1861.

 

but you are wrong, both were classically liberal based. not statist liberal as in your sense of the word.

[TheoHuxtable..]

the states that seceded in 1861 werent seceding to solely to keep slaves. this is fallacy. if this was the case, why was it still legal in new jersey of all places? oregon? other northern states? why were the black codes of illinois more harsh than southern black codes, even forbidding free blacks from SETTLING IN THE STATE!

there is much much much more involved with this than 'slavery.' more of an issue, was taxes. if you read lincolns speeches you will see that he would do anything to keep america together. he even drafted the corwin amendment to keep slavery legal forever in the united states to try to keep the country together. but he said that he would use whatever military force necessary to collect the tariff.

 

henceforth, the secession of 1861, based on keeping the traditional rights guaranteed by the constitution, and the traditional governmental functions. if you claim the revolution of 1776 was 'liberal' than so was the secession of 1861.

 

but you are wrong, both were classically liberal based. not statist liberal as in your sense of the word.

 

 

I never said it was "solely to keep slaves". Did you even read what I wrote? I made a general statement referring to the preservation of Souther culture, economics, and political ideologies. Slavery was just a major facet of all of this.

 

I also never said that racism against blacks didn't exist in the North. It was harsh, but still more tolerant than in the South. I also never mentioned anything about statism. And I specifically stated that the revolution of 1776 was more "progressive" than liberal. And you are wrong, Southern secessionists were conservatives, as were the dominating Democratic party in the South at the time.

[angelofdeath]

'conservatives' is a very bad term to use.

the political philosophy of 'conservatism' didnt come about till russell kirk in the early 50's.

if you take 'conservative' it can mean any variety of things from conserving the habits of cavemen to preserving the policies of barack obama today.

 

by whatever term you want to call it...

the revolution of 1776 and the revolution of 1861 stood for the same thing.

limited government, rule of law, liberty and natural rights.

 

if you want to get technical... if the founding fathers were 'liberals' as you claim, and the democrats of the 1860's were preserving the founding generations' legacy (in your view, slavery, southern culture, constitution, etc) then the democrats were 'liberals'

 

this conversation would go much easier, if we talk about what certain groups ideologies were, instead of trying to confirm or deny if they were 'conservative' or not, as the term is subjective.

 

the only thing is for sure, is that the government set up by the founding fathers is a fairly minarchist libertarian set up, and has nothing to do with any of the modern policies passed since the civil war. most of the things the government has done since then, is unconstitutional.

 

when you say the founding generation was 'liberal,' do you really believe that barack obama would support secession from hte US government and that people have a right to hang tax collectors who extract money from the citizenry and to shoot through the head government agents who came to confiscate civilians assault weapons?

can you really say that the founding generation was comprised of 'liberals' and believe this with a straight face?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

dude.

as for healthcare and the constitution...

anybody with any education can skim the constitution and figure out that the only powers congress has are enumerated in article 1 section 8. all other powers are left to the people and/or the states through the 9th and 10th amendment. therefore 85-90% of what the federal government does, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL from a originalist, lets follow the constitution's rule of law, standpoint.

 

 

Sorry just wanted to highlight this.

 

Please read it again.

[El Mamerro]

DAO posts (18 of em) deleted.

 

If you're gonna clog up the thread with your dumb shit, use multi quotes. If not, kindly fuck off elsewhere.

[Decyferon]

so wait, americans, because people have a natural right to allow their children to be taught in a private school about religion, we are the laughing stock of the entire world?

i think this is nothing more than FREEDOM. suppressing religion is why this country was founded in the first place.

 

you may think that you want your kids to be taught to be athiests, others may want their kids to be brought up in a christian school... whose business is it what either of these parties does?

answer: its nobody's damn business who teaches their kids what. end of story.

 

 

 

this is impossible. by and large the right wants the wars, the left wants the social policies. for each to get their ways, they both log roll... so we have both. you cannot have one without the other.

 

the answer? get rid of it all.

 

the mistake hte left makes.... you cannot have a state that only does warm cuddly things like tends to the sick and dying and the underpriviledged minorities. its like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles or a viper that only does a little dance.

they will both tear your ass up.

 

No what I mean is if you want to have your child taught in a religious background then that is fine and up to you, you can fund it and you can send them to a school where you pay all the fees and they can be taught whichever fairytales you would like your child to believe.

 

If a school is funded by the state through taxes and that is where the vast majority of kids end up going then I think they should be taught things based on fact, I have no problem with people sending their kids to private schools where the school can determine what is taught, but I am looking at the world view and preparing my child for the real world, so for that a child should be taught what is real, language, math, geography, all the things I have mentioned before. Yes you do have the right to choose but a child also has the right to have an education that teaches them the subjects they need, if a parent is so positive they want to force religion down their child's throat then let them do that, but don't force it to be done in schools that are funded by tax payers.

 

I believe that it DOES matter what kids are being taught, otherwise you could have schools teaching kids that the world is flat, dinosaurs never existed, 2 +2 =5. I believe in a curriculum that kids should have a proper education the same as their peers, all school is is a function to prepare children for their lives, get jobs etc and religion has no part in that.

 

Tha laughing stock comment was aimed squarly at Creationism, which is frankly a load of bollocks, people may believe it but that just shows how narrowminded they are. If you teach your child that then you will be preparing them to be laughed at because it goes in the face of every piece of scientific eveidence, eveidence is something that just doesn't exist in religion.

 

I agree with you about the government issue, you can't just have social policies, but what I meant was that in America there seems to be a lack of social policies, a country as Rich as America should have free healthcare simple as that. In the UK we have all these things and the governemnt isn't all fluffy we fight wars but if I break my leg or need to see a doctor I don't have to apy for it, other than in the taxes that I pay.

[swineflu.]

i haven't been following this thread so i would expect this video to be posted hear already but in case it isn't here we go

 

 

now to add my opinion: if you actually agree with these people then your a fucking dumb shit.

 

if you don't want to see the mass population of any country being forced to work insane hours doing crappy jobs and still starving to death while some fat cunt sits in a gold thrown eating the finest food and the best wine. you will agree that socialism is the answer.

 

i am not an American so i don't really stay up to date with what obama's plans are but hear in Australia where we have a some what socialist government and life an't all that bad. if you get sacked from work and end up getting hammered to bury the depression and then accidently do something to seriously hurt yourself you still have the peace of mind that your not gonna get slugged with some health bill you can't afford.

 

don't get socialism and communism mixed up as i do not believe in dictatorship

[angelofdeath]

No what I mean is if you want to have your child taught in a religious background then that is fine and up to you, you can fund it and you can send them to a school where you pay all the fees and they can be taught whichever fairytales you would like your child to believe.

 

cool.

your blanket statements from before made it sound like someone doesnt have the right to instill religiousness in their kids.

 

If a school is funded by the state through taxes and that is where the vast majority of kids end up going then I think they should be taught things based on fact, I have no problem with people sending their kids to private schools where the school can determine what is taught, but I am looking at the world view and preparing my child for the real world, so for that a child should be taught what is real, language, math, geography, all the things I have mentioned before. Yes you do have the right to choose but a child also has the right to have an education that teaches them the subjects they need, if a parent is so positive they want to force religion down their child's throat then let them do that, but don't force it to be done in schools that are funded by tax payers.

 

this is a perfectly fine view, however, it is all clouded by the public schools issue.

at the very least, if someone doesnt wish to send their kids to public schools for whatever reason, they should be able to opt out of paying for them. in america most schooling is paid with local property taxes. some states and districts have designated school taxes. the rest of the income comes from the state and now federal government.

 

at the very least for whatever reason a parent doesnt want kids to be taught whatever is taught in public schools, they should be able to opt out of them, opt out of paying at least, dont you agree? why should everyone be forced to fund something they are against?

 

the fact of the matter is, in the US kids who are taught at private schools are heads and tails above people who attended public schools. and yes, there is a daily dose of religion in with their math, science, and history. i'd argue that private schools prepare kids better for the real world, despite any religious overtones to the teaching, than any public school does.

 

now no doubt, there are some decent public schools. the decent ones are almost always found in neighborhoods comprised of people in middle or upper class neighborhoods. the poor neighborhoods have bad schools because look at what teachers have to deal with? how can kids expect to be taught when their single parent is a hooker and dont give a crap if their child is slinging crack on the corner.

 

you are correct in the fact that you state that children shouldnt be forced to learn certain things and have them funded by tax payers. but the problem is, who decides? which shows the stupidity and at odds nature of public funding for schools. the only real alternative is to deregulate and privatize all the schools. at the very least funding and decisions should be made at neighborhood level for public schools to help eliminate any issues. that way if a neighborhood comprised of religious people send their kids to school, they can be taught what they want, and if a neighborhood of secular humanists live in an area, they can teach their kids along their guidelines.

 

this helps the issue, but doesnt solve it. you still will have a certain number of people that disagree with the schools. henceforth you cease making schooling compulsory, you allow total freedom of the parents to educate their children how they see fit, whether its at home, school or whatever.

 

another problem is you think that your view of the cirriculum is the only 'correct' view. my view is the best program to be taught in school is the one decided by the parents. children are essentially property of the parents and no one has any right to tell them what they can and cannot teach their kids. i think everyone should have the liberty to decide what to teach their kids, and that there really is no 'correct' blanket view other than the view you personally believe should be taught.

 

 

If you teach your child that then you will be preparing them to be laughed at because it goes in the face of every piece of scientific eveidence, eveidence is something that just doesn't exist in religion.

.

 

well this is really the decision of the parents isnt it? people made bad decisions all the time. hell, it would great if everyone became doctors, lawyers, and physicists, but that just isnt the way the world works. the US is made up of 300 million diverse people.

there are plenty of people who attend religious schools and are doing wonderful in the real world. i think most people who attend religious schools are doing atleast twice as good as someone who attends an inner city public school. my wife works with plenty of conservative jews who cant even show their own hair or eat meat cut from the back of a cow. they get along just fine. i personally take the view ... 'different strokes for different folks.' while i might not hang out with conservative muslims or ultra conservative baptists or hippies or gays, i just shrug and say...'eh, different strokes for different folks.' i dont feel the need to try to say my belief system is better and that i should foist my belief system on the entire populous. your approach of taking your superior scientific belief system and foisting it on the entire population and forcing the people to pay for it all, is the same as if a christian foisted their belief system on the entire population.

[angelofdeath]

wtf are those flix on my post ??

[Decyferon]

ghost attachments seems to be a glitch from when 12oz had all the server problems, luckily you seem to have had some ok pieces attached to yours and not some horrible graf lol I always like to see some colour so it adds to my crossfire enjoyment lol

 

thanks for your well made response, you have made some good points, again I think it is one of those issues that there is no real correct answer for, like most of the big decisions in life you have to do what you think is best for your child and it's future.

 

The only thing I would say about teaching your child what you think is right be it home schooling or religious schooling is that we live in a world economy and all countries are competing against each other in the marketplace. As long as Maths, Language, History Geography basically the core subjects are taught to the child then they should be fine, I just worry for the ones that don't have that level of education because they are starting their path into the real world at a disadvantage

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

[shai]

The problem is that funding for education is drying up so schools ARE becoming privatized, albeit somewhat indirectly and quietly via corporate funding. So there's really nothing stopping some televangelist from stepping in and offering a school district $10 million out of the kindness of his heart...with one small stipulation- the ministry gets the final say on the curriculum.

 

Theo hit the nail on the head- the issue isn't capitalism or "liberals vs. conservatives" or racism or rednecks, it's the anti-competitive nature of corporatism. That's what fucked up healthcare to the point where the government is obliged to step in and do something.

[angelofdeath]

The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are confusing in the US because they flipped parties in the '60s. In the rest of the world "conservative" and "liberal" have opposite meanings to what they do in the US. We really are backwards aren't we? Originally the slave states of the southern democrats were considered liberal because of their free trade policy, the north wanted to protect their nascent industries and help them grow so they instituted protectionism as far as trade is concerned. It worked and the North had twice the GDP of the South by the end of the civil war. There's a major point against free trade right there. I'm more for Fair Trade. But that's another topic altogether.

 

sort of true, but not.

 

liberal, before the progressives stole the word from the 'classical' liberals, meant limited government. period. government that governs the least governs the best. free trade. federalism/10th amendment, etc. freedom from government control.

sometime around the progressive era, the progressives stole the word liberal from the liberals. the progressives were statists. the wanted to mold the country on the national level to have certain morals. to clamp down on the 'evils of the market.' the passed the income tax, the federal reserve, and took the election of senators away from the states. the marched the country into the first world war. wilson wanted to remake the world and make it safe for democracy. bush got this from wilson. this was progressivism.

 

the term conservative as a political philosophy wasnt invented until russell kirk published the conservative mind. he traces the new post ww2 conservative philosophy to many people through out history. starting most notably with edmund burke, the famous english dude who supported the american revolution. there was no 'conservative' philosophy before this book came out. it was 'classical' liberal, if you favored freedom. the conservative philosophy simply sought to preserve the philosophies that founded the country. non intervention. the constitution etc. it also thought government had a role to play in morals, however on the state, not national level.

 

before the 1950's and the rise of the new right that came out of russell kirks book... was the 'old' right. this consisted of coalition far left wingers, far right wingers, radical individualists, free traders, free market businessmen. their arm in politics was robert taft. howard buffett. (warren's father) in the news media, you had albert jay nock and hl mencken. these people were mostly republicans. some southern democrats. they arose together in direct opposition to the new deal and the progressive era. they were unabashedly anti war. russell kirk ranks these people as the for fathers of 'the conservative' movement in the 20th century. however, bill buckley quickly took over kirk's new movement and made them cold warriors and made them willing to tolerate a totalitarian bureaucracy (his words not mine) on our shores, DC, in order to fight communism abroad.

 

some held out, murray rothbard never gave in for example. robert taft lost to eisenhower in 1952 and essentially ended the old right as viable political movement. goldwater arose in the 60's out of these ashes, with a firm backing of the new right.

there is much much more to the story than to say that 'the liberals and conservatives' switched names.

 

you are right, in europe, liberal means what the conservative political philosophy is supposed to mean here. the same as the anti federalists should of been called the federalists, and vice versa.

 

the north favored protectionism, and guess who paid all the got damn tariffs? the south! they exported everything they sold. now taht the north wanted a 50% tariff on things, everything either imported or bought from the northern industrial interests was now 50% MORE. you do the math.

doesnt take a rocket scientist to see who profited off of this. the northern business interest was thriving, the rest of the country, north and south, was hurt severly.

 

 

 

So if you think about it the only REAL difference between Republicans and Democrats today is that the Republicans are often racist, sexist, and theists (crypto-fascists anyone?) and the Democrats try to make more social measures. Which is why obviously, I support the Democrats more than the Republicans. But I'm an Anarchist so fuck all that old bullshit.

 

 

the democrats and republicans are both corporatists. they are not 'liberal.' both parties support tariffs, managed protectionist trade agreements like nafta, cafta, etc, and any kind of intervention into the market place you can think up. neither party wants to abolish the fed. you ever talk to black democrats? i think you would find there are plenty of 'racists' that are in that party. its pretty silly to say republicans are racists and democrats arent, and that is the only difference.

i think there isnt much difference at all to talk about between them. same shit, different pile.

 

For AngelofDeath to say that the American Revolution was "conservative" or "liberal" is a misnomer since both sides wanted secession from Britain. I would argue that the "liberals" are more influential Revolutionary times however. The "second" "revolution" (to even group the south's rebellion with that of the Revolutionary War does an injustice to the principles this country was founded on IMO) of the civil war was a conservative (contemporary terminology) aggression, or in the old nomenclature, a liberal southern democrat aggression.

 

if you disagree with the secession of 1861, and think they are totally different from the secession 1776, you must not of cracked open to many history books, or you are only reading the ones written by marxists like eric foner.

 

the south wasnt the aggressor, any more than the americans in 1775 were the aggressors. they were both simply defending themselves. if someone takes away your rights, and you react to that, how can you be the aggressor?

 

I do not understand constitutionalists. To me they are antiquated romantics with a nostalgia for the past. The constitution was never perfect. It was very good but inherently flawed (i.e. making blacks less than a free, equal man). Besides, living by one single document for an indefinite period of time sounds like fantasy to me. Life is complex, times change, amendments are going to be needed, inevitably. I do agree however that the extent of the bureaucracy today is in need of a reduction in complexity or removed altogether, but that's about all I think I agree with Constitutionalists about.

 

im not a constitutionalist. im only making constitutional arguments because that is what i am dealing with right now. i'd rather have the constitution re-instated than live with what we have now. how would i be most happy? abolishing the federal government. the constitution is highly flawed. super highly flawed. the articles of confederation were MUCH better. this is an entirely different topic. i usually dont bring it up in these debates because it gets to complex and most people either lose interest or get off track really quick.

bottom line, i'd rather return to the constitution and its restraints on the state than live with the living document we have today and all the abuses we have going on.

 

I think its really ignorant to raise your child with a religious bias in this day and age. The state promoting science is not oppressive because its the TRUTH.

 

and you are an ANARCHIST??

wtf. you totally have me fooled, you sound like nothing but a statist left winger.

i have yet to hear you say anything bad about the government, YET.

it doesnt matter, ANYTHING the state promotes is an injustice. what about freedom? isnt the most basic definition of freedom...'the absence of coercion, mainly from the state' ?

you have just laid out a frame work for the government to do anything it pleases as long as it is environmentally friendly, anti racist, and if its 'TRUE.' to hell with freedom! just give me an totalitarian state that tells the truth!

 

 

I don't know how AngelofDeath can say that religious schools are better? The standards are so little regulated that there are schools that can teach unscientific things and even FALSE things while other schools of thought are more progressive. How is that better than a public schools standard? Don't get me wrong, it's not always like this. There are some private schools that are better than some public schools (which do sometimes lack funding and are not all that great, but at least they have standards). But these private schools that are better than public schools are the progressive ones, the college preparatory schools that really give gifted students a grade A education.

As far as christian schools go they really run the gamut. Some give you a decent education for the REAL world, and others will give you a PhD from doing 2 weeks of coursework by mail. There is hardly any standard at all with Christian schools. Which is why public schools like Harvard remain the standard for the REAL world.

 

private schools consistently out perform public schools. where have you been? alot of people in america, even mostly non religious people save alot of their money and do everything they can to send their kids to private schools around my way. they are almost always some variety of a catholic school. hardly anyone that i know, that lives in teh inner city, has gone to a public school. they have all been taught at those rotten religious schools. and this is even total 100% liberals!

 

leave it to the government... to spend twice as much on a student and get much poorer results than a private school who spends have as much and the kids are twice as smart! check the stats... john taylor gatto. read up on this stuff.

 

maybe we have totally different definitions of private and public schools... harvard is a private school, its a college. it is not a public school. unless you know something i dont. are you defining a public school as any school 'the public' can go to? im defining public schools are tax payer funded schools that teaches grades k-12 because the state feels the need to tell parents they must force their kids to go to these communist propaganda camps for 6 hours a day or the parents can go to jail.

a private school is a school that is funded through the private sector through tuition paid by the students and/or private grants, even though some private schools get subsidies.

 

what ever happened to freedom and abolishing the state!?

[El Mamerro]

I really don't mind DAO. He's entitled to his opinion. I'm all for free speech. Be it posting in tiny snippets in large quantities or not, I don't really mind so much. Seems like he's taking things too seriously and needs to calm down before he has a heart attack though. But I don't know anything about DAO so whatever I think doesn't mean much. Maybe he just really is that in your face.

 

Too bad, I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit and not digging DAO dropping giant 18-post grenades of Stupid in it. If he wants to join, he can use multi-quotes keep his shit to few posts, and also not waste time crying about getting deleted (such posts will be replaced by pictures of puppies. See above).

[angelofdeath]

...

[angelofdeath]

i just spent 10 min's writing a reply and quick reply only posted one paragraph.

 

i'll post a rebuttal tomorrow.

good debate.

[Smart]

wtf are those flix on my post ??

 

THIS! I just read your last paragraph 3 times.

[angelofdeath]

To say that blacks are just as racist as whites is pure chicanery and whitewashing the issue. I've spent alot of time personally in both cultures and there are way less racist blacks than whites. Even the black empowerment party the Black Panthers are not racist but a defense party created to address racism. Being the original man blacks are the first multiculturalists and black culture in Africa is probably the most diverse and numerous assortment of societies anywhere in the world.

 

i'll gladly invite you to come to the where i lived for 5 or 6 years and allow you to walk through some of the black neighborhoods (assuming you are white) and see how everything works out. it only took me a few times of being called 'fucking white motherfucker' for me to cease walking through these neighborhoods. even if someone's 'racism' is a reaction to someone else's, dont you think its stupid for someone to immediately yell that to someone? besides, you only have a right to have 'reverse' racism against people who think you are the racist to begin with.

 

if you think the black panthers are not racist, i dont know what to say.

racism is racism. its an ugly form of collectivism.

 

to further illustrate. a few years back this group of lefty/hippie/anarchist type dudes were hanging out with my friends on and off. a group of them moved to a really bad neighborhood with the same view points you have on race and racism. it ended up after a few months they were ran out, half of them were beaten half to death, and others had their property damaged.

this is wrong any way you cut it.

needless to say, the people who did the beating up ... were of a different race than the anarchist gutter punk/hippy kids.

 

 

I wouldn't say Progressives stole the word Liberal. Liberal and Conservative have come to mean many different things over the years, even before it became an official ideology in the Noosphere. Its all about the issues. To break it down to a science, "liberals" are conservative about some issues, and "conservatives" are liberal about other issues. It all depends on the zeitgeist of the times and the circumstances. Perhaps you are right to say that its an oversimplification to say they swapped parties in the '60s, but it's a small one and its essentially the truth. There is no more concise way of putting it.

 

'liberal' originally meant that you supported laissez faire, in favor of federalism and limited government, and favored freedom as opposed to government power. the progressives were big government statists, many of which were socialists, that used the power of the state to enforce morals, engage in overseas intervention, and trample free markets. liberal was stolen by these people and forever corrupted. people like ludwig von mises, fa hayek, henry hazlitt, and milton friedman still called themselves 'liberals' well into the 60's and 70's, however they had nothing in common with the new dealers or progressives, they still clung to the old meanings. FA HAYEK penned a great peice on 'why he wasnt a conservative' but a classical liberal.

 

dont feel to bad though, the neo cons stole the word 'conservative' and altered its meaning, from basically conserving the philosophies of the founders, to being a big government idiot that engaged in endless foreign and domestic intervention.

 

 

Now hold on, you're making alot of accusations here. I don't know who exactly came up with income tax in the US but it is a very statist idea and it was originally instituted to pay to for the Civil War effort, to feed the war machine all along. It actually makes sense, however, for a government to tax income and profit so that way it can grow evenly with society. The government would be heavily overburdened and not be able to provide hardly any services otherwise. Unfortunately our tax money has been used to spurn on the war economy very heavily since WW2, the profligate profiteering of private interests within the CIA bears testimony to this.

 

the income tax came about during the civil war as a way for lincoln to try to pay for the war of aggression against the southern people. the supreme court ruled it unconstitutionally pretty quickly. the 16th amendment was part of the progressive platform and was passed during the progressive era. they all supported it. they needed more revenue to fund their foreign and domestic interventions.

 

the government, if it only does what is supposed to do, was easily funded with revenue tariffs for 100 years. the income tax is plain tyrannical. considering that the americans revolted against great britain largely over a 1% tax on a morning breakfast beverage. and most americans still today think that its fine and dandy and a great thing that we revolted over this. why in the hell arent we revolting over a government who takes 20-50% of our incomes in taxes? inflation, created by the FED adds about another 10% of a tax.

 

How are you blaming the Federal Reserve on progressives when it is in fact a conspiracy of private bankers that gained federal powers. It should be self explanatory. I thought private interests were represented by the right? Hello? Actually the Federal Reserve looks more like corporatism in action which is still the right however. I've never read the "Creature from Jekyll Island" but I know that the conspirators behind the Jekyll Island meeting were there to further private interests.

 

the progressives fought for and passed the federal reserve act. they claimed we needed it to save capitalism from its self, prevent depressions, then within 20 years it created the worst depression in US history with its boom and bust business cycles.

 

im not to well versed on the conspiracy behind the FED, there might of been some pay offs, etc, im not sure. talk to casek about that. im sure he knows more than me.

but however you want to spin it, the progressives fought for and passed the federal reserve act.

 

 

Took the election of Senators away from States? Senatorial elections seem to be to this very day still very much within the realm of state elections, after all the local populace of the state gets to choose the senator. That seems to be the basic requirement. Its not like the federal government appoints senators. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

 

the states used to have 'rights' or more properly certain powers that checked the federal government from usurping power. the 17th amendment passed between the income tax and prohibition, made it so US senators were elected by the citizens of the states. before this the state legislatures elected senators. this held US senators to the fire and when they might sign on to something that wasnt in the best interest of the state, the state legislature could pull them back home, impeach them, etc. the elimination of this practice, has made it so that senators are no longer ambassadors of the states to the federal government but rather the senators are ambassadors of the federal government to the states. not to mention this also led to the ways that senators can basically be elected by collecting money from other states, instead of the state legislatures being able to elect them. it eliminated the interest of the states being represented and led to more centralized power in DC.

 

They marched the country into the first world war? Everyone knows that the cause of the first world war was the assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. I'm not going to defend Wilson's policy but not getting embroiled in WWI was pretty much impossible since the stakes were so high. Germany was also much more aggressive towards the US:

 

- wikipedia

Wilson may have marched us into WWI but he didn't have much choice since it was happening on his watch. Its not like entering WWI led to a continuing war policy for progressives, I don't know how you can make that comparison with the neocons other than saying Wilson said he'd make the world safe for democracy first. Many politicians will invoke more noble predecessors when trying to promote their own underhandedness.

 

wilson spoke brazenly of making the world safe for democracy. he wanted to engage in a world wide crusade to remake the world. most progressives clamored for war, and wilson got it when he disregarded the warnings of germany after they basically said if you enter a war zone, you might get shot at.

 

when the US entered the war wilson proclaimed that he was ready to engage in an endless fight against the evils in the world. this is the same thing bush said he was going to do. pat buchanan and lots of others have written extensively on how bush has carried on the progressive foreign policy.

 

Yes both parties are classical liberals. They both believe in free trade.

 

both parties are for protectionism and managed trade that is otherwise known as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc. these are government bureaucracies that trample freedom in trade, not engage in free trade. the US has many protectionist tariffs. most notably the sugar tariff, which makes it so sugar cant economically used in coca cola because of government tariffs. steel has high tariffs to protect US steel interests. obama just slapped a tariff on imported tires, therefore raising the prices of tires in the US making it so the poor cant afford tires on their cars.

 

 

Oh so now because I don't agree with you I'm uneducated or biased? How was the north "taking away" the rights of southerners? Oh you mean the enslavement of southern blacks by southern whites? You believe in slavery? If anything the north was giving rights to southerners, specifically southern blacks. If you are defending slavery then you are way more fucked up than I thought.

 

i dont mean that you are uneducated on teh subject as a bad thing. the north trampled constitutional government. plain and simple. slavery was still legal in new jersey until the 13th amendment passed in 1865 for shits sake.

 

how can a libertarian endorse slavery? im 100% opposed to slavery.

but do not confuse the stupid treatment of blacks by 7% of the southern population (slave owners) as the reason why the north marched south to whoop the rebelling states. lincoln stated openly many times he would rather have slavery still in tact to save the union and even authored an amendment to the constitution forbidding the federal government from every interferring with slavery. lincolns plan for free blacks was to deport them to liberia. lincoln stated in the douglas debates that there was a definite superiority of the white race and that 'negro's' were incapable of becoming jurors or testifying in court, etc, because they belonged to an inferior race.

 

US grant was a slave OWNER when robert e lee didnt own ANY slaves. lincoln's wife's family held slaves. the war was not about slavery. history has created a myth that the war was solely about slavery.

tariffs played a much bigger role.

is it any coincidence lincoln said he would support keeping slavery as long as he still got his revenue from in teh form of the tariff? is it any coincidence lincoln abandoned some forts and reinforced fort sumter, a fort protecting a US customs house in charleston? is it just sheer coincidence the south fired on a US customs port first?? the south was exploited by the tariff, while northern industrialist got rich off of protectionism.

 

if any portion of teh US for whatever reason wants to leave, is it justified to kill 650K people, 50K civilians, abolish civil liberties, to force a people who no longer want to be associated with the US government from leaving? you would think any anarchist would realize the the stupidity of this. if the US government really wanted to strike the chains off the black men, they could of paid for their freedom for half the cost of the war, and no lives would of been lost and no civilians would of been tortured and no liberties lost.

 

it is a total myth to think the north marched south solely to strike the chains off the black man. did you know that free blacks owned other black slaves in south carolina and other areas? there is an entire book on this... 'black slaveowners' you should also check out 'black confederates' and get a much more full story.

 

I have a picture of my self with hk edgerton, a descendent of black confederates. we both belong to the sons of confederate veterans. he has marched across the entire south with the confederate flag educating people about this stuff. he even marched to washington when B.O. was inaugurated to try to talk to him.

 

needless to say, barack wouldnt talk to the group of blacks waiving confederate flags.

 

 

That's probably because Obama hasn't done too much to piss me off yet! lol. If I support statist policies its only because I feel its better than the alternative. I might be an Idealist but I know how to be a Realist. I live in the real world. And if the government has to be around promoting something, I want it to be the truth and science.

 

hey, atleast you admit that you love the state more than you love freedom from the state. its probably better if you just start calling yourself a green or a lefty than an anarchist. because i still havent seen you call for abolition of the state or its policies on any issues yet. besides some of the military industrial complex.

 

[qquote]

I'm mincing my words. I meant Harvard as a nondenominational open to the public school based on science. I know its privately funded. I have ancestors that founded Harvard and a small scholarship to go there.

Bottom line is alot of Christians teach alot of rubbish in the name of preserving their precious ideology. I'm not saying there aren't good Christian schools, but I find your blanket treatment of Christian schools as better in general than public schools is laughable. Maybe in some aspects but not in the most important aspect: curriculum.

 

i dont know where you are from, but everyone i know of white middle class origins from the inner city went to a private christian school. everyone i know of has parents who wish they could send their kids to private schools, most of which are religion based.

im guessing you dont realize which schools teach religion that are private. it is pretty much common knowledge private schools ALWAYS outperform public schools. not only that but they do it for half the price per student than a public school. that is the government for you. spend twice as much and get half the results.

 

most of these schools dwell lightly on religion anyway.

my wife went to a fairly prestigious all girls catholic college. i went to her pre graduation celebration. i learned that the catholic college is dominated by liberals, just like any other college and that they have diversity committees and the whole 9 yards. i think you would be surprised to find out just how common prestigious schools that are catholic (or other denominations)

 

im just going to assume you havent done your research on the topic of public and private schools performance, but to think that public schools out perform private schools.... is just not so.

[russell jones]

Anecdotal evidence isn't the best evidence. But I give my two cents anyway. I'm white and I've been living in mostly Black neighborhoods for the past ten years with my mostly white wife (she passes), in one of the cities w

with the highest crime rates in America, and no black person has ever fucked with me or said anything to me that I would consider racist. I'm not saying Black people aren't prejudiced, everybody is, but to say that it is as big of a problem as historical white racism is completely ridiculous. Have you opened a history book before? For every white person hurt in a race riot, or beat up, or taunted, there has been thousands of blacks hurt by whites.

 

But please, post the picture of the black guy with the Confederate Flag again, so I can believe that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

[fastZeetec302]

He's lowered most peoples taxes, started pulling troops out of Iraq, saved the auto industry from going under (at least for now) and is trying to get healthcare for everyone.

The nigga's just getting started. Give him some time.

 

 

 

ok now how do you feel about obama?, he hasn't done any of the shit you thought he was going to do. because he wants to higher my taxes, troops are still in iraq and where is this health care? how much more time do we need to give this guy before he does something?

[angelofdeath]

Nope, never said black vs white racism was more violent or worse than white vs black racism, but it's pretty stupid to act like it doesn't exist. It's there without a doubt.

 

However the racism the gov protected and supported, was not part of the lives of the latest generation of blacks coming up. So they are not reacting to anything. They are no different and are just as bad as any white racist. Racism for any reason is still racism. It is nothing but a particularily ugly form of collectivism

[russell jones]

Nope, never said black vs white racism was more violent or worse than white vs black racism, but it's pretty stupid to act like it doesn't exist. It's there without a doubt.

 

However the racism the gov protected and supported, was not part of the lives of the latest generation of blacks coming up. So they are not reacting to anything. They are no different and are just as bad as any white racist. Racism for any reason is still racism. It is nothing but a particularily ugly form of collectivism

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that institutionalized racism is no longer a factor in the lives of Blacks today.

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFCBeKcd-Wk

[fastZeetec302]

look at all those racist people pissed off about higher taxes, they should all be put in jail..

[lord_casek]

Yep. Look at all those Americans who want their country back. An excellent example of what we are supposed to do when things the govt. does pisses us off.

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

Casek I find it troubling that you condone blatant manipulation of the people by corporate media simply because you are unhappy with the sitting president.