# OWS Echoes The French Revolution.



## PoliticalChic

1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with 
"*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."

a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.

2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*. 

a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob. 
The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.

3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.

4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.

a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.

b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68

c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.

d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7


----------



## Dragon

If it does, it's only because today's America resembles the Ancien Régime.


----------



## eots

NEWYORK LIVESTREAM
Occupy Live Streams ~ Easily Switch Between Live Occupy Video Streams!


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> If it does, it's only because today's America resembles the Ancien Régime.



Then move. No one is forcing you to stay.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it does, it's only because today's America resembles the Ancien Régime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move. No one is forcing you to stay.
Click to expand...


I may in fact do that, as a lot of other Americans are doing. However, there is something to be said for at least trying to fix a problem before abandoning one's country. There is such a thing as patriotism.


----------



## Mr Natural

And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?


----------



## SAT

Dragon said:


> If it does, it's only because today's America resembles the Ancien Régime.



I wondered if she knew where her analogy was leading.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mr Clean said:


> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?



Fat cats?

600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.


And it didn't end in France...

...you have no idea, no understanding of the spin-offs of the French Revolution: think Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Che, and millions upon millions slaughtered.

1. From "Demonic:"	The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being indifferent as well. And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent. William Ayers, Fugitive Days, p. 130.

2. "Rousseau presages the rise of the Romantic movement in art and caused a sensation among the aristocrats of Bourbon France. Later on Napoleon is supposed to have claimed, "If there had been no Rousseau, there would have been no Revolution, and without the Revolution, I should have been impossible." *Stalin and Hitler could say the same in recognizing their debt to the concept of "the Sovereign" of Rousseau *and its mystical identification with the people. 200 years later we have only *millions and millions of innocents murdered in the "name of the people," etc. ad nauseam. *"
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


You are exactly the kind of individual the Left requires.

Here's an idea: pick up a book now and then.


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
> 
> 
> And it didn't end in France...
> 
> ...you have no idea, no understanding of the spin-offs of the French Revolution: think Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Che, and millions upon millions slaughtered.
> 
> 1. From "Demonic:"	The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being indifferent as well. And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent. William Ayers, Fugitive Days, p. 130.
> 
> 2. "Rousseau presages the rise of the Romantic movement in art and caused a sensation among the aristocrats of Bourbon France. Later on Napoleon is supposed to have claimed, "If there had been no Rousseau, there would have been no Revolution, and without the Revolution, I should have been impossible." *Stalin and Hitler could say the same in recognizing their debt to the concept of "the Sovereign" of Rousseau *and its mystical identification with the people. 200 years later we have only *millions and millions of innocents murdered in the "name of the people," etc. ad nauseam. *"
> French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror
> 
> 
> You are exactly the kind of individual the Left requires.
> 
> Here's an idea: pick up a book now and then.
Click to expand...


Take your own advice! You have no conception of the events you're posting about. You don't pay the slightest attention to the condition of the poor in France at the time of the revolution, nor do you have any understanding of the totalitarian regimes you mention.


----------



## Mr. H.

Let them eat Twinkies.


----------



## Luissa

I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden. 

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.


----------



## martybegan

Mr Clean said:


> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?



it didnt work out so great for the revolutionaries as well. The Reign of Terror was a cannabalistic feeding frenzy of revolutionaries, leading the way from Ancien Regime, to Revolutionary Republic, to the terror of the Directory, and then to Empire.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
> 
> 
> And it didn't end in France...
> 
> ...you have no idea, no understanding of the spin-offs of the French Revolution: think Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Che, and millions upon millions slaughtered.
> 
> 1. From "Demonic:"	The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being indifferent as well. And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent. William Ayers, Fugitive Days, p. 130.
> 
> 2. "Rousseau presages the rise of the Romantic movement in art and caused a sensation among the aristocrats of Bourbon France. Later on Napoleon is supposed to have claimed, "If there had been no Rousseau, there would have been no Revolution, and without the Revolution, I should have been impossible." *Stalin and Hitler could say the same in recognizing their debt to the concept of "the Sovereign" of Rousseau *and its mystical identification with the people. 200 years later we have only *millions and millions of innocents murdered in the "name of the people," etc. ad nauseam. *"
> French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror
> 
> 
> You are exactly the kind of individual the Left requires.
> 
> Here's an idea: pick up a book now and then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your own advice! You have no conception of the events you're posting about. You don't pay the slightest attention to the condition of the poor in France at the time of the revolution, nor do you have any understanding of the totalitarian regimes you mention.
Click to expand...


I hate to admit it, SAP, but it's great having you here on the board!

Aren't enough folks who are both as dumb as a box of rocks, AND willing to prove it to the whole world!!!

"...no conception of the events you're posting about. You don't pay the slightest attention to the condition of the poor..."
Not just uneducated, and unread, but a complete maroon!


Pick out any of the French Revolution and/or it's spin-offs, in Russia, Cuba, China, Cambodia, Iran, etc., that 

1. didn't result in the slaughter of thousands, or millions

2. weren't promulgated by 'intellectuals,' and/or elites....

3. ...the educated and middle class or better, academics

4.  didn't require a submission to a central authority, the total state

5.  didn't champion the collective over the individual

Waiting....

Here...let me make fun of your post while I'm waiting.
"...no conception of the events you're posting about. You don't pay the slightest attention to the condition of the poor..."

If you would entertain this question, SAP, which is better...to be poor or to be dead?

Now, write soon...and don't hesitate to prove how stupid you are!

(I'd recommend several scholarly books for you to read, but, then, who would I have fun slapping around?)


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mr. H. said:


> Let them eat Twinkies.



Twinkies are definitel racist!

I might sign on if you include Yodels and ya' definitely got me for
Ring Dings!


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7



And the conservative solution is what?

Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands.

Go for it.

See how it works out in the end.

Because historically..that's been the downfall of plenty of nations. But conservatives love to do the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again. Expecting different results.


----------



## Sallow

Luissa said:


> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.



Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.

Why?

Because they suck.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luissa said:


> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.



Time for some remediation.

The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...

The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or

The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.

1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.

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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.

2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.

3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.

4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.

a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker

b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.


Wake up.
Wise up.
Grow up.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
Click to expand...


Sallow, grow up. Totalitarianism under any brand sucks and you know it. The concept of Unalienable Rights, including Private Property Rights, foe Each of us, both Rich and Poor, a cornerstone in the Defense against Tyranny. You abandon Property Rights, and it's end game.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.
> 
> 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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
Click to expand...


Oh bullshit.

The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.


----------



## Truthmatters

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Funny you should mention that it echo the French revolution.

It is these very types of historical facts like the French revolution that Pareto studied to discover that there is a breaking  point of concentrated wealth in a society.


We have now proved pareto correct yet agin


----------



## Truthmatters

Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto (Italian pronunciation: [vil&#712;fre&#720;do pa&#712;re&#720;to]; 15 July 1848 &#8211; 19 August 1923), born Wilfried Fritz Pareto, was an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist and philosopher. He made several important contributions to economics, particularly in the study of income distribution and in the analysis of individuals' choices. "His legacy as an economist was profound. Partly because of him, the field evolved from a branch of moral philosophy as practiced by Adam Smith into a data intensive field of scientific research and mathematical equations. His books look more like modern economics than most other texts of that day: tables of statistics from across the world and ages, rows of integral signs and equations, intricate charts and graphs."[1] He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He also was the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution. The Pareto principle was named after him and built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He also contributed to the fields of sociology and mathematics.


----------



## Intense

Truthmatters said:


> Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that it echo the French revolution.
> 
> It is these very types of historical facts like the French revolution that Pareto studied to discover that there is a breaking  point of concentrated wealth in a society.
> 
> 
> We have now proved pareto correct yet agin



Yeah, let's Execute everyone that can spell better than us, or can count past our fingers and toes,  or uses soap when they bathe, so we can feel better about ourselves. Good plan.

If you are not serving Justice, you are as much a part of the problem./ Remember that when you are dictating to people what to do with their resources and personal property.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, &#8220;The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,&#8221; was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and *anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature *and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221;  So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It *is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the conservative solution is what?
> 
> Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> See how it works out in the end.
> 
> Because historically..that's been the downfall of plenty of nations. But conservatives love to do the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again. Expecting different results.
Click to expand...


So very glad to see us disagree again...whew!

See post #17 to be more informed.

I just love it when you expose the depth of your ignornce, as in "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."

1. Adam Smith, whose seminal work was, interestingly publishied the same year as the birth of this great nation, wrote:
"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." 

2. The idea was advanced in the naicent nation by a gentleman you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson.
"Entail" and "Primogeniture" was the age-old idea that one's land could only be passed to one's eldest son...
Jefferson wrote:
Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations.
Thomas Jefferson and Entail

You said:
"Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."

You sound more like an uneducated dunce, don't you?

3. From 1776 to 1779, Jefferson served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, where he successfully sought to abolish entail and primogeniture,...
http://millercenter.org/president/jefferson/essays/biography/2


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.
> 
> 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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
Click to expand...


Three Strikes! You are Out! You swing like a Sissy! Next Batter!


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sallow, grow up. Totalitarianism under any brand sucks and you know it. The concept of Unalienable Rights, including Private Property Rights, foe Each of us, both Rich and Poor, a cornerstone in the Defense against Tyranny. You abandon Property Rights, and it's end game.
Click to expand...


Grow up? I am quite on track here. Conservatism favors Totalitarism. Always. This whole "indivdual" liberty crap you guys spew falls apart when examined up close and personal. From torture, to suspending rights of those that are incarcerated, to women's reproductive rights, to the rights of regular citizens to advocate for their interests and a plethora of other issues.

I have no problem with "some" conservativism in a system of government. It empathizes careful consideration of implementing new things and it really does know how to profit from ideas..but like anything else..to much of it..really sucks.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the conservative solution is what?
> 
> Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> See how it works out in the end.
> 
> Because historically..that's been the downfall of plenty of nations. But conservatives love to do the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again. Expecting different results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So very glad to see us disagree again...whew!
> 
> See post #17 to be more informed.
> 
> I just love it when you expose the depth of your ignornce, as in "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> 1. Adam Smith, whose seminal work was, interestingly publishied the same year as the birth of this great nation, wrote:
> "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
> 
> 2. The idea was advanced in the naicent nation by a gentleman you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson.
> "Entail" and "Primogeniture" was the age-old idea that one's land could only be passed to one's eldest son...
> Jefferson wrote:
> Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations.
> Thomas Jefferson and Entail
> 
> You said:
> "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> *You sound more like an uneducated dunce, don't you?*
> 
> 3. From 1776 to 1779, Jefferson served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, where he successfully sought to abolish entail and primogeniture,...
> American President: Thomas Jefferson: Life Before the Presidency
Click to expand...


The problem with you sweet cheeks is that you really can't be taken all that seriously. Insults, cut and paste and the like..really show a weak and lazy mind.


----------



## Truthmatters

Intense said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that it echo the French revolution.
> 
> It is these very types of historical facts like the French revolution that Pareto studied to discover that there is a breaking  point of concentrated wealth in a society.
> 
> 
> We have now proved pareto correct yet agin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's Execute everyone that can spell better than us, or can count past our fingers and toes,  or uses soap when they bathe, so we can feel better about ourselves. Good plan.
> 
> If you are not serving Justice, you are as much a part of the problem./ Remember that when you are dictating to people what to do with their resources and personal property.
Click to expand...


The wealthy have us in a rigged game.

Your suggestion is to lie down and try to make yourself a better door mat for them.

you go ahead us people who have self respect and decent morals will take care of this mess for you.

Please just keep your doormat position and try to get better at it.

Do yourself a favor though, dont turn from a doormat into a suicide bomber for the wealthy though OK?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.
> 
> 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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
Click to expand...


I someone paying you to play the fool today?

1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. 

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died. 
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow, grow up. Totalitarianism under any brand sucks and you know it. The concept of Unalienable Rights, including Private Property Rights, foe Each of us, both Rich and Poor, a cornerstone in the Defense against Tyranny. You abandon Property Rights, and it's end game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grow up? I am quite on track here. Conservatism favors Totalitarism. Always. This whole "indivdual" liberty crap you guys spew falls apart when examined up close and personal. From torture, to suspending rights of those that are incarcerated, to women's reproductive rights, to the rights of regular citizens to advocate for their interests and a plethora of other issues.
> 
> I have no problem with "some" conservativism in a system of government. It empathizes careful consideration of implementing new things and it really does know how to profit from ideas..but like anything else..to much of it..really sucks.
Click to expand...


I feel sorry for you that you actually believe that Bullshit, Sallow. Bullshit to the Point that you Dictate what You think I believe, as if you even had a clue. Do you want to buy a Vowel?    

Think on what you are doing here in your march to a Totalitarian Utopia. You are trying to deny me my own Principles, my own Conscience, which you will never have any Right to, nor the Right to speak for, without my consent. Separate yourself from what has you ensnared. I am not your enemy, nor do I seek to control, manipulate, or do you harm.


----------



## Intense

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.
> 
> 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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I someone paying you to play the fool today?
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
Click to expand...


That has to be a twist on the Magna Carta too then, huh?


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> I someone paying you to play the fool today?



"I someone"?

What does that even mean?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the conservative solution is what?
> 
> Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> See how it works out in the end.
> 
> Because historically..that's been the downfall of plenty of nations. But conservatives love to do the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again. Expecting different results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So very glad to see us disagree again...whew!
> 
> See post #17 to be more informed.
> 
> I just love it when you expose the depth of your ignornce, as in "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> 1. Adam Smith, whose seminal work was, interestingly publishied the same year as the birth of this great nation, wrote:
> "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
> 
> 2. The idea was advanced in the naicent nation by a gentleman you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson.
> "Entail" and "Primogeniture" was the age-old idea that one's land could only be passed to one's eldest son...
> Jefferson wrote:
> Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations.
> Thomas Jefferson and Entail
> 
> You said:
> "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> *You sound more like an uneducated dunce, don't you?*
> 
> 3. From 1776 to 1779, Jefferson served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, where he successfully sought to abolish entail and primogeniture,...
> American President: Thomas Jefferson: Life Before the Presidency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you sweet cheeks is that you really can't be taken all that seriously. Insults, cut and paste and the like..really show a weak and lazy mind.
Click to expand...


So...you agree that the post puts you in your place?

That place, of course, being the dumb row.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I someone paying you to play the fool today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I someone"?
> 
> What does that even mean?
Click to expand...


I believe you know what it mean....

....and you seem not to have any answers today.

Coffee yet?


----------



## Intense

Truthmatters said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that it echo the French revolution.
> 
> It is these very types of historical facts like the French revolution that Pareto studied to discover that there is a breaking  point of concentrated wealth in a society.
> 
> 
> We have now proved pareto correct yet agin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's Execute everyone that can spell better than us, or can count past our fingers and toes,  or uses soap when they bathe, so we can feel better about ourselves. Good plan.
> 
> If you are not serving Justice, you are as much a part of the problem./ Remember that when you are dictating to people what to do with their resources and personal property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wealthy have us in a rigged game.
> 
> Your suggestion is to lie down and try to make yourself a better door mat for them.
> 
> you go ahead us people who have self respect and decent morals will take care of this mess for you.
> 
> Please just keep your doormat position and try to get better at it.
> 
> Do yourself a favor though, dont turn from a doormat into a suicide bomber for the wealthy though OK?
Click to expand...


The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So very glad to see us disagree again...whew!
> 
> See post #17 to be more informed.
> 
> I just love it when you expose the depth of your ignornce, as in "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> 1. Adam Smith, whose seminal work was, interestingly publishied the same year as the birth of this great nation, wrote:
> "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
> 
> 2. The idea was advanced in the naicent nation by a gentleman you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson.
> "Entail" and "Primogeniture" was the age-old idea that one's land could only be passed to one's eldest son...
> Jefferson wrote:
> Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations.
> Thomas Jefferson and Entail
> 
> You said:
> "Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands."
> 
> *You sound more like an uneducated dunce, don't you?*
> 
> 3. From 1776 to 1779, Jefferson served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, where he successfully sought to abolish entail and primogeniture,...
> American President: Thomas Jefferson: Life Before the Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you sweet cheeks is that you really can't be taken all that seriously. Insults, cut and paste and the like..really show a weak and lazy mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you agree that the post puts you in your place?
> 
> That place, of course, being the dumb row.
Click to expand...


If you say so sweet cheeks.

I've been saying something like this was going to happen for months on this board. And compared the situation we had..to the situation in France before the French Revolution.

Here it is. Happening now.

What's your solution?

The solution they are using in Syria? Iran?

Go for it.


----------



## Intense

Hey is this about the vendetta between Brooklyn North and South Brooklyn? 
Forget about it!


----------



## Intense

Yeah, let's take the example of going from a Totalitarian Dictatorship to a more Brutal Totalitarian Dictatorship, and use that model for turning our Constitutional Federalist Republic into a Brutal Totalitarian Dictatorship where we can all share in no property rights, and equal misery. Good plan.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

The "wealthy" have us in a rigged game?

Still waiting on that definition of "wealthy"...

The distancing of America from a diety does have an end game.  Our founding documents maintain that a "creator" has endowed each person with inalienable rights, among those to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Naturally, if you are progressive, then you can only have so much "pursuit of happiness."  When you reach a certain point then that's too much and you have to "pay your fair share."  And if you are a progressive, you can only be guaranteed life AFTER birth.  Liberty, especially free speech if it is 'unapproved' (refer to conservatives and Evangelicals and the recent attack on Karl Rove by the OWS mob), is also negotiable to the progressive.

If our creator has given us those rights, then no government and no man can remove those rights from you.  Those rights outlined in our Constitution, which I believe was divinely inspired, will NOT be infringed upon.  IF the progressive can remove the creator from the founding documents, then they can alter those rights, because of course, man gave them to you, then man can take them away.  Unfortunately for the progressives in our midst, most of us still believe that the rights outlined in the Constitution are not up for discussion.  The right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion are not up for negotiation. 

Look at the OWS crowd.  Mobs without a goal, without a concious, without a real purpose.  A wise man once said that you will see them by their works... crime, filth, and destruction.  So far, I haven't seen any good things come from them...


----------



## SAT

Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread. 

The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. _It's an object lesson._

You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that _people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started._

The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.



No, we want justice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
Click to expand...


This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.

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


"*referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power*"
That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
In fact the opposite.


But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
> I almost sympathize with your plight.
> 
> Almost, loser.



Conservatism is about maintaining established power.


----------



## Truthmatters

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> "*referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power*"
> That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
> In fact the opposite.
> 
> 
> But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
> I almost sympathize with your plight.
> 
> Almost, loser.
Click to expand...


Sheldon Richman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the guy who wrote that crap is a partisan hack


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow, grow up. Totalitarianism under any brand sucks and you know it. The concept of Unalienable Rights, including Private Property Rights, foe Each of us, both Rich and Poor, a cornerstone in the Defense against Tyranny. You abandon Property Rights, and it's end game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up? I am quite on track here. Conservatism favors Totalitarism. Always. This whole "indivdual" liberty crap you guys spew falls apart when examined up close and personal. From torture, to suspending rights of those that are incarcerated, to women's reproductive rights, to the rights of regular citizens to advocate for their interests and a plethora of other issues.
> 
> I have no problem with "some" conservativism in a system of government. It empathizes careful consideration of implementing new things and it really does know how to profit from ideas..but like anything else..to much of it..really sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for you that you actually believe that Bullshit, Sallow. Bullshit to the Point that you Dictate what You think I believe, as if you even had a clue. Do you want to buy a Vowel?
> 
> Think on what you are doing here in your march to a Totalitarian Utopia. You are trying to deny me my own Principles, my own Conscience, which you will never have any Right to, nor the Right to speak for, without my consent. Separate yourself from what has you ensnared. I am not your enemy, nor do I seek to control, manipulate, or do you harm.
Click to expand...


I don't want to deny you of anything..quite the opposite.

It's not me standing in the way of people building houses of worship where they wish. It's not me denying women, that I don't know, options, on what medical procedures they can have. It's not me advocating for denying people a competent attorney and the right to a speedy trial with a fair and impartial jury. It's not me shoveling a crapload of tax payer money to make private businesses successful, yet demanding nothing in return.

That would be the people you support.


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> "*referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power*"
> That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
> In fact the opposite.
> 
> 
> But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
> I almost sympathize with your plight.
> 
> Almost, loser.
Click to expand...


The "indivduals" you guys are looking to protect in terms of "private property" and "limits on power" are corporations.

And no..sorry..I don't consider them people.

Hence the schism.


----------



## martybegan

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
Click to expand...


Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.


----------



## SAT

martybegan said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
Click to expand...


It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author, 
_
"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan


----------



## martybegan

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
Click to expand...


Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"


----------



## SAT

martybegan said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.
> 
> Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"
Click to expand...


It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that. 

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.


----------



## Truthmatters

They forget we are supposed to be in this one together


----------



## martybegan

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.
> 
> Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.
> 
> I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.
Click to expand...


War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not. 

if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.


----------



## martybegan

Truthmatters said:


> They forget we are supposed to be in this one together



And of course, our governmental overlords get to tell us what we have to pay to be in this all together, how we have to live our lives to be in this all together, and sooner or later how we are supposed to think to be in this all together.

How about this? Do your own crap, spend your own money, and use your own time to make this world a better place, and dont force other people to do it and fund it for you.


----------



## SAT

martybegan said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.
> 
> Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.
> 
> I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.
> 
> if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.
Click to expand...


Taxing you is an enumerated power, period. 

And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread.
> 
> The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. _It's an object lesson._
> 
> You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that _people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started._
> 
> The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.



"The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."

You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.

And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.

Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.

But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me,  like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you sweet cheeks is that you really can't be taken all that seriously. Insults, cut and paste and the like..really show a weak and lazy mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you agree that the post puts you in your place?
> 
> That place, of course, being the dumb row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so sweet cheeks.
> 
> I've been saying something like this was going to happen for months on this board. And compared the situation we had..to the situation in France before the French Revolution.
> 
> Here it is. Happening now.
> 
> What's your solution?
> 
> The solution they are using in Syria? Iran?
> 
> Go for it.
Click to expand...


Once again I find myself lecturing way over your head....
...I find it so difficult to get down to 'goo-goo, gah-gah'...

So here is the best analogy for the OWS 'movement'...

...the one on the Left, fittingly enough:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXnSe7MYPGM]I WANT MY MAYPO COMMERCIAL - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> "The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."
> 
> You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.
> 
> And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me,  like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.



Yes, nuance. When I think of nuance, I think of someone so stupid that they blah, blah, blah about the French Revolution without understanding in the least why the poor revolted in the first place.


----------



## martybegan

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.
> 
> I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.
> 
> if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxing you is an enumerated power, period.
> 
> And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.
Click to expand...


Trying to get to a "decent" society is the excuse statists have been using since Marx came up with the concept. All you end up with is a different ruling class (government burecrats) and and equal level of misery for anyone else. 

For statists its less about helping people, and more about power. Once they get a majority dependent on the government, they know they can never be voted out of office.


----------



## konradv

Luissa said:


> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.



I agree.  I don't have much patience for those who would accept injustice, like the old time preachers who would distract their flock with dreams of pie-in-the-sky.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
> I almost sympathize with your plight.
> 
> Almost, loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism is about maintaining established power.
Click to expand...


See, I say "loser" and you think I'm speaking to you....
...how appropriate.

But since you ask:

1)	Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of do what you can get away with. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2)	Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent.  Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke). 

3)	Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the evils that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman.  There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see progress as some mythical direction for society. 

4)	Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5)	Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of ones labor has been proven successful from the Puritans Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution! 

6)	Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in let the government do it..  Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7)	Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands. 

8)	Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed.  For Conservatives, data informs policy. (More Guns, Less Crime and Mass murderers apparently cant read, since they are constantly shooting up gun-free zones.- Coulter)   We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9)	Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10)	Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts,  nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas High Tech Lynching.


You're welcome, SAP.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
Click to expand...


"Social justice" is an entirely arbitrary concept that could only exist in the warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers. The correct response is "Whose social justice?" An NAACP activist's definition of "social justice" might well differ from that of a KKK member; an eco-campaigner's view of "social justice" will surely be different from that of someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It is entirely typical of the sublime arrogance and blinkered bigotry of liberals that they imagine their version of "social justice" is the correct one. This, in itself, is more than reason enough to show why liberals should never be allowed anywhere near state office.

Next time a liberal talks about "social justice," tell him you'll take your "justice" straight up, without any prefixes, as established in a rule of law based on Christian principles in a democratic state, and see how he gets out of that."
365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy - James Delingpole - Google Books


----------



## SAT

PC, your list is silly, particularly for someone who was recently speaking of nuance. It reads like a Hallmark greeting card for conservatives. 

The reason for the modifier of "social" is to distinguish social justice, or distributive justice, from retributive justice [punishment for crimes]. It's a nuance. I hope it's not lost on you. 

Distributive justice is Biblical. 

I am not advocating for a society where everyone has the same. I'm advocating for enough. For safety in neighborhoods, equal educational opportunity, safe water, access to healthy food, access to doctors and medicine.


----------



## SAT

konradv said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I don't have much patience for those who would accept injustice, like the old time preachers who would distract their flock with dreams of pie-in-the-sky.
Click to expand...


Exactly. That's what conservatives [advocates for established power] have been telling the poor for centuries. That their situation is God's will. That they will get their reward in the afterlife-if they accept their situation here and now.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."
> 
> You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.
> 
> And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me,  like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, nuance. When I think of nuance, I think of someone so stupid that they blah, blah, blah about the French Revolution without understanding in the least why the poor revolted in the first place.
Click to expand...


"...why the poor revolted in the first place...."

The poor?

The poor?

Knowing less than nothing doesn't produce any barrier to you posting, does it?
Public school, no doubt, where any utterance deserves a pat on the head.

"...of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution"...Reign of Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both were bourgeois.
It is the 'poor of intellect,' such as you, SAP, who followed the bourgeois.

bour·geois (br-zhwä, brzhwä)
n. pl. bourgeois 
1. A person belonging to the *middle class.*
2. A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
3. In Marxist theory, a member of the *property-owning class; a capitalist*.

"The Jacobins and Girondins originally belonged to the same party. But whereas the latter recoiled at *stirring up the "lower depths" of society*, the Jacobins saw that this was the only alternative if the revolution was to be secured."
Socialist Appeal - 1793, Rise and Fall of the Jacobins



Amazing, SAP....most folks would have some shame in being an idiot.
Not you.

Arguing with you is like playing tennis against the drapes.


----------



## SAT

Yes, the poor. Who couldn't afford bread, the staple of their diet. Your own post acknowledges the role of "the lower classes". 

You have approached the French Revolution in an incredibly clueless manner. No one is defending the guillotine. 

Also-

I wish you could get a grip on your ego.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Yes, the poor. Who couldn't afford bread, the staple of their diet. Your own post acknowledges the role of "the lower classes".
> 
> You have approached the French Revolution in an incredibly clueless manner. No one is defending the guillotine.
> 
> Also-
> 
> I wish you could get a grip on your ego.



So....you're retreating from:

"...why the poor revolted in the first place...."

And you agree that the French Revolution was middle-class inspired?

Wise move.


Who said you were uneducable?

This should lead you to an understanding of how important capitalism
was in the evolution of society.


" wish you could get a grip on your ego"
See...that's your fault!
Your acceptance of ignorance brings out the worst in me.


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the poor. Who couldn't afford bread, the staple of their diet. Your own post acknowledges the role of "the lower classes".
> 
> You have approached the French Revolution in an incredibly clueless manner. No one is defending the guillotine.
> 
> Also-
> 
> I wish you could get a grip on your ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....you're retreating from:
> 
> "...why the poor revolted in the first place...."
> 
> And you agree that the French Revolution was middle-class inspired?
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> 
> Who said you were uneducable?
> 
> This should lead you to an understanding of how important capitalism
> was in the evolution of society.
Click to expand...


Now, PC. You're the one in retreat. You posted a screed against the French Revolution and OWS without understanding the reasons behind the two. Your only comprehension was that people were rising up against their "betters". And you foolishly consider yourself in that group of "betters". As if they give a damn about you. 



> " wish you could get a grip on your ego"
> See...that's your fault!
> Your acceptance of ignorance brings out the worst in me.



Ah, conservatism. The advocates of personal responsibility. 

I've yet to meet one of you who lived up to that.


----------



## Luissa

One comment on this video does say the Cops are going to cause a revolution......hmmm
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=503BrDrrb68]&#39;Occupy Oakland&#39; protester shot by rubber bullet while filming cops - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

We can safely set aside the linkage offered between the French Revolution and later Communist revolutionary movements as nonsensical. The only similarity was a challenge of entrenched authority. The spirit informing the French Revolution, its ideological _raison d'être_, was democracy. That cannot be said about any Communist movement.

We can also dismiss the simplistic assertion that we can choose between the French and American revolutions. These were very different and not comparable phenomena. The French Revolution actually WAS a revolution. The American "revolution" was not; it was a war of independence that, when won, left the government it had been fighting against still in power, and also left the governing structures in each colony/state unchanged. It did erect a new layer of governance in the federal government, but that change, although important, was not revolutionary. America has never actually had a revolution; we have always chosen reform instead when confronted with the possibility.

So instead of bothering about all that garbage, let's consider objectively what happened as a result of the Revolution itself. Bear in mind that France had no democratic tradition, unlike America which grew from the democratic and human-rights traditions of England. France was starting fresh, building liberty from the pure and mucky swampland of monarchy and aristocracy.

The people overthrew the King. They attempted to erect a republic to replace it. They failed, partly because of opposition by the rest of Europe, partly because they simply didn't know how to go about it. The First Republic degenerated into chaos, and was taken over by a dictator.

Napoleon actually advanced the cause of democracy and the ideals of the Revolution more than the First Republic did. While he called himself Emperor and ruled as a dictator, he also created legal and political institutions that endured long after he was gone and became the foundation for a true republic that emerged later.

After Napoleon's defeat, the monarchy was briefly restored, but it was a constitutional monarchy very different from the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI. The monarchy was overthrown by the Second Republic in 1848, then that was overthrown by Napoleon III and the Second Empire, which after the Franco Prussian War in 1870 was itself overthrown by the Third Republic -- and the Third Republic endured all the way until World War II. Except for the brief years of Nazi occupation, France has been ruled by a genuine republic ever since.

None of that would have been possible without the French Revolution overthrowing the King in 1789. The French Revolution was a good thing, and if some bad times followed, those were necessary times in the difficult transition France had to make from absolute monarchy to the democratic republic she is today.

America today is of course very different from France at the end of the 18th century. It is also very different from Russia in the early 20th century or China in the mid-20th century. We have a long democratic tradition and, as a people, do not easily accept non-democratic rule -- which is of course the real reason for the Occupy movement; it is an attempt to restore democracy to a government that is controlled by rich donors rather than by the voters. We as a people made the transition the French made much earlier than they did. We do not need to make the same transition all over again now.

Because this is such a very different place than France of 1789, we need not fear a similar short-term outcome. There will be no Reign of Terror for us, and no Napoleon will be necessary to create the institutions of democracy -- we already have those institutions and need only make them work.


----------



## Katzndogz

The left IDOLIZES the French Revolution.  They run around humming Song of Angry Men.  They know nothing of history, the left only thinks that if they can kill off the rich and take what they have, they will build a great civilization, like the French.

The French Revolution was a FAILURE.  First they killed the royalty.  Then the aristocrats.  Then the Christians. Then the landed peasants.  Then they killed one another!  It ended with the dictatorship of Napoleon.   After that Europe as a whole was sick of the nonsense and threatened to destroy what was left of France unless the monarchy was restored by force, under threat of war.   Europe put a Bourbon king upon the throne of France.   Good going guys!  Poor stupid fools.  

Most of what the left knows about the French Revolution and its causes are lies.  They can spout off the lies but not an ounce of truth.  

Now if you want a comparison to the French Revolution and today, it has to be HIGH TAXES.  To support a nobilityl  We don't have a nobility.  We have UNIONS.  Specifically unions of public employees.  So if the middle class today are going to revolt due to the same reasons, high taxes, the middle class would be burning down the union halls.

I would hope that we have the left's idea of the glorious revolution.   They should be encouraged.  It will make it that much easier to wipe out the entirety of liberalism down to the last ideology.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> The French Revolution was a FAILURE.



No, it was a success. The success just took 70 years to finalize. But without bringing the monarchy to an end, the ultimate triumph of Republican France could never have happened.


----------



## SAT

Liberals don't "idolize" the French Revolution, Katzndogz. Where do you guys get this stuff?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7



I will bet you a cookie that at least 2/3 of the board won't even understand this post.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luissa said:


> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.



Our revolution bore no resemblance to the French Revolution, but I'm not surprised by how many of the board's DDs - Designated Dumbasses - showed up to demonstate how much nothing they know about either.


----------



## Cecilie1200

martybegan said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it didnt work out so great for the revolutionaries as well. The Reign of Terror was a cannabalistic feeding frenzy of revolutionaries, leading the way from Ancien Regime, to Revolutionary Republic, to the terror of the Directory, and then to Empire.
Click to expand...


Didn't work out for much of anybody.  Any revolution where the absolute best outcome anyone in the country achieves is to live through it is just not a success.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for classical liberals, the French Revolution was by and for what those now called liberals or progressives.
> 
> 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.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitlers Nazi Party, Maos Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the Cradle of Democracy, Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: The Obama Hitler sign. Lets look out for those people, and make sure people know theyre not us. A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there. Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harborbut changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
Click to expand...


The American Revolution was a movement peopled by Christians.  No matter how much you want to remake the Founding Generation into a bunch of atheists, it's not going to happen.

And if Christian religions are so intolerant of other religions, how come the most religiously tolerant nations are the ones with strong Christian backgrounds?  You want high death tolls, you gotta go look at the atheistic Communist nations.  You want daily barbarity, that'd be the Muslims.  As for the nations of Western Civilization, it's no accident that the farther they get from their Christian roots, the more you find laws restricting the free practice of religion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Intense said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I someone paying you to play the fool today?
> 
> 1.  The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has to be a twist on the Magna Carta too then, huh?
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Magna Carta was written by a bunch of medieval Catholics?  Fairly seriously religious folks, those medieval Catholics.


----------



## SAT

Cecilie1200 said:


> The American Revolution was a movement peopled by Christians.  No matter how much you want to remake the Founding Generation into a bunch of atheists, it's not going to happen.
> 
> And if Christian religions are so intolerant of other religions, how come the most religiously tolerant nations are the ones with strong Christian backgrounds?  You want high death tolls, you gotta go look at the atheistic Communist nations.  You want daily barbarity, that'd be the Muslims.  As for the nations of Western Civilization, it's no accident that the farther they get from their Christian roots, the more you find laws restricting the free practice of religion.



Some of the founders were Christians. Others were deists. They founded a secular government. 

Most Americans are tolerant of other religions. The far right American is typically far less tolerant of other religions than the average American. Based on their posts, I believe that they see Christianity as a part of their nationalism.


----------



## MikeK

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, &#8220;The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,&#8221; was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and *anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature *and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221;  So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It *is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7


Astute observation with which I fully agree.  And I look forward to construction of guillotines on K Street and on Pennsylvania Avenue.


----------



## American Horse

Cecilie1200 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, &#8220;The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,&#8221; was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and *anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature *and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221;  So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It *is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet you a cookie that at least 2/3 of the board won't even understand this post.
Click to expand...


Those will who focus on the words in bold.


----------



## The Infidel

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op91VPrkyn4]Chanting makes it important! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## chanel

The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month.  The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.  

JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy

Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.

VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy



> A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [&#658;ak&#596;b&#603;&#771;]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary  far-left political movement.[1]  The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.



Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OldUSAFSniper said:


> The "wealthy" have us in a rigged game?
> 
> Still waiting on that definition of "wealthy"...
> 
> The distancing of America from a diety does have an end game.  Our founding documents maintain that a "creator" has endowed each person with inalienable rights, among those to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Naturally, if you are progressive, then you can only have so much "pursuit of happiness."  When you reach a certain point then that's too much and you have to "pay your fair share."  And if you are a progressive, you can only be guaranteed life AFTER birth.  Liberty, especially free speech if it is 'unapproved' (refer to conservatives and Evangelicals and the recent attack on Karl Rove by the OWS mob), is also negotiable to the progressive.
> 
> If our creator has given us those rights, then no government and no man can remove those rights from you.  Those rights outlined in our Constitution, which I believe was divinely inspired, will NOT be infringed upon.  IF the progressive can remove the creator from the founding documents, then they can alter those rights, because of course, man gave them to you, then man can take them away.  Unfortunately for the progressives in our midst, most of us still believe that the rights outlined in the Constitution are not up for discussion.  The right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion are not up for negotiation.
> 
> Look at the OWS crowd.  Mobs without a goal, without a concious, without a real purpose.  A wise man once said that you will see them by their works... crime, filth, and destruction.  So far, I haven't seen any good things come from them...



Wealthy = People who have a lot of money right now, who probably didn't have it ten years ago, and may not have it next year.

However, the leftist twats don't seem to know that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
Click to expand...


No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.


----------



## Luissa

Cecilie is such a classy lady.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> "*referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power*"
> That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
> In fact the opposite.
> 
> 
> But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
> I almost sympathize with your plight.
> 
> Almost, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "indivduals" you guys are looking to protect in terms of "private property" and "limits on power" are corporations.
> 
> And no..sorry..I don't consider them people.
> 
> Hence the schism.
Click to expand...


Actually, the individuals we're looking to protect in terms of "private property" are the people who own the corporations, the ones you can't see because you're so busy hating some fantasy of monolithic corporate eee-vil.

And no, you DON'T consider them people . . . because they have money.

Hence the schism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
Click to expand...


The only hitch for you and your shithead author is that a nation isn't a family.  I take care of MY children because I love them, I created them, and that makes me responsible for them.  I take care of MY husband because I love him, I chose to join my life with his, and that makes me responsible for him.  I take care of MY home because I live there, it directly affects my well-being, and that makes me responsible for it.

You, on the other hand, are nobody to me.  I don't love you, I don't like you, I don't even frigging KNOW you.  And I don't want to.  I didn't marry you or give birth to you.  I don't live in your house; I've never even seen it.  All of this means that I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.
> 
> Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.
> 
> I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you and other like-minded dumbshits want to form your own society to let lazy assholes suck off of you and get you to take care of them, that's fine.  You can decide that.  You can decide to fund that.

The problem comes when you decide to force other people who want no part in your airy-fairy, "I know better than all of human history" bullshit to pay into it, anyway.  It gets worse when it becomes painfully obvious that your plans and schemes are every bit as ignorant and unworkable as people have been saying all along, and you still refuse to pull your head out of your ass and wise up.

And given that YOUR idea of a "democracy" is to get everything you want in any way OTHER than the legislative process - judicial fiats, regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats, etc. - it's pretty fucking laughable that you think you have the same legal authority as existed for the war in Iraq, which was duly voted on and green-lighted according to the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.
> 
> I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.
> 
> if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxing you is an enumerated power, period.
> 
> And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.
Click to expand...


Just because the government has the power to tax us doesn't mean they have the power to then spend that money on any bullshit utopian project goofballs like you decide they want.

And yes, the fact that communism ALWAYS attracts - and creates - lazy leeches like shit attracts flies IS a sufficient reason to abandon unworkable schemes to have a "decent society" as defined by dimwits who could inscribe everything they know about human nature onto the head of a pin, and have room left over.

In fact, just the fact that your idea of a "decent society" can't exist in any society that contains human beings is a sufficient reason to abandon such errant nonsense.  So is the fact that most people wouldn't want to live in it even if it could.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread.
> 
> The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. _It's an object lesson._
> 
> You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that _people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started._
> 
> The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."
> 
> You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.
> 
> And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.
> 
> But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me,  like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.
Click to expand...


I was going to go with the fungus that grows under toenails if you don't keep them clean.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,
> _
> "the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough? _ John Dominick Crossan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Social justice" is an entirely arbitrary concept that could only exist in the warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers. The correct response is "Whose social justice?" An NAACP activist's definition of "social justice" might well differ from that of a KKK member; an eco-campaigner's view of "social justice" will surely be different from that of someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It is entirely typical of the sublime arrogance and blinkered bigotry of liberals that they imagine the irversion of "social justice" is the correct one. This, in itself, is more than reason enough to show why liberals should never be allowed anywhere near state office.
> 
> Next time a liberal talks about "social justice," tell him you'll take your "justice" straight up, without any prefixes, as established in a rule of law based on Christian principles in a democratic state, and see how he gets out of that.
> 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy - James Delingpole - Google Books
Click to expand...


He'll stick his fingers in his ears and hum really loudly until you stop talking, because that's what they always do.  It is physically impossible to actually hear what other people have to say, and remain a liberal.

Liberals really believe that "social justice" is a term with an objective, concrete definition, same way they do "fair".  They're shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - if they ever learn that other people define these terms differently than they do.  And then they proceed to demonize those people and try to hound them into extinction so that no one else ever finds out.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Luissa said:


> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.


Yeah, and i'm sure those poor in France owned big screens, laptops, stereos, air conditioners, automobiles, Ipods, Ipads, cell phones, and made the happy walk to the mailbox once a month for the free government money, eh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control.  Got it, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
Click to expand...



Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:

A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.


----------



## SAT

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.



Of course it can't. We can only strive. I have no expectations of perfection. 



Luissa said:


> Cecilie is such a classy lady.



Yes, from tip to toe. Does she ever do anything except show her ass?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Revolution was a movement peopled by Christians.  No matter how much you want to remake the Founding Generation into a bunch of atheists, it's not going to happen.
> 
> And if Christian religions are so intolerant of other religions, how come the most religiously tolerant nations are the ones with strong Christian backgrounds?  You want high death tolls, you gotta go look at the atheistic Communist nations.  You want daily barbarity, that'd be the Muslims.  As for the nations of Western Civilization, it's no accident that the farther they get from their Christian roots, the more you find laws restricting the free practice of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the founders were Christians. Others were deists. They founded a secular government.
> 
> Most Americans are tolerant of other religions. The far right American is typically far less tolerant of other religions than the average American. Based on their posts, I believe that they see Christianity as a part of their nationalism.
Click to expand...


Spare me the repetitive bullshit.  Heard it, refuted it, heard it fifty more times, refuted it fifty more times, think anyone who's still saying it is an asshole.

The Founding Fathers had ONE Deist in their midst.  That's it.  And you'll notice that I said jack shit about "The Founding Fathers".  I referenced "The Founding Generation", dickwad.  Maybe if you took your knee off of auto-jerk mode and tried reading the ACTUAL post, rather than skimming and then responding to what you THOUGHT I said, we might get somewhere.

When I want to hear some vague tripe about "far-right Americans are less tolerant of religions" from you, I'll ask.  And you should DEFINITELY hold your breath waiting for me to ask you to waste my time with your unfounded opinions.  In fact, start holding it right now.

And don't waste my time with this sort of nothing again, moron.  You didn't say one goddamned thing about anything that was actually in my post, which would tell anyone with a brain - anyone who isn't you, in other words - that they shouldn't respond.


----------



## Cecilie1200

chanel said:


> The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month.  The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.
> 
> JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy
> 
> Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.
> 
> VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [&#658;ak&#596;b&#603;&#771;]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary  far-left political movement.[1]  The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark.
Click to expand...


She did, but I also think I won my bet and she owes me a cookie.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luissa said:


> Cecilie is such a classy lady.



You flatter yourself that you have any standing to comment on that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MikeK said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> Astute observation with which I fully agree.  And I look forward to construction of guillotines on K Street and on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Click to expand...


Mikey, the symbolic 'guillotines' will be set up in every precinct in November of 2012. 

Vote smaller government, and you'll be able to say "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done..."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cecilie1200 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month.  The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.
> 
> JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy
> 
> Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.
> 
> VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [&#658;ak&#596;b&#603;&#771;]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary  far-left political movement.[1]  The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She did, but I also think I won my bet and she owes me a cookie.
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWac5UT80no]Cookie Monster Metal - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Chaos anarchy riots murder, perfectly acceptable if the left needs votes.


----------



## Luissa

Wicked Jester said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.
> 
> I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and i'm sure those poor in France owned big screens, laptops, stereos, air conditioners, automobiles, Ipods, Ipads, cell phones, and made the happy walk to the mailbox once a month for the free government money, eh?
Click to expand...


Um, okay!


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. We can only strive. I have no expectations of perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie is such a classy lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, from tip to toe. Does she ever do anything except show her ass?
Click to expand...


Am I supposed to be impressed that you KNOW the goal you are destroying the world striving for can't be achieved?  Not only does that make you evil, it makes you an idiot, as well.

And if you and Luissa wish to be alone, we promise not to miss you, or even notice, while you're gone.


----------



## SAT

Cecille, the founders founded a SECULAR government. 




> The Founding Fathers had ONE Deist in their midst.  That's it.  And you'll notice that I said jack shit about "The Founding Fathers".  I referenced "The Founding Generation", dickwad.  Maybe if you took your knee off of auto-jerk mode and tried reading the ACTUAL post, rather than skimming and then responding to what you THOUGHT I said, we might get somewhere.



Who wouldn't skim your posts? Who would bother doing more? 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, if you and other like-minded dumbshits want to form your own society to let lazy assholes suck off of you and get you to take care of them, that's fine.  You can decide that.  You can decide to fund that.



I'm not asking anybody to take care of me. I want a society that recognizes reality, that anyone can get poor or sick. Right now, I'm neither. 



> Just because the government has the power to tax us doesn't mean they have the power to then spend that money on any bullshit utopian project goofballs like you decide they want.



Actually, that's exactly what it means. Congress has the power to spend money as they choose. 

When Bush lied us into war, he tried to create a utopia in the ME through violence...a truly crazy idea. 



> And yes, the fact that communism ALWAYS attracts - and creates - lazy leeches like shit attracts flies IS a sufficient reason to abandon unworkable schemes to have a "decent society" as defined by dimwits who could inscribe everything they know about human nature onto the head of a pin, and have room left over.
> 
> In fact, just the fact that your idea of a "decent society" can't exist in any society that contains human beings is a sufficient reason to abandon such errant nonsense.  So is the fact that most people wouldn't want to live in it even if it could.



Among all the communist nations you know and have studied. 

I'd ask you to stop setting up the straw men, but think that's beyond your ability.


----------



## Luissa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie is such a classy lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You flatter yourself that you have any standing to comment on that.
Click to expand...


My point went over your head, I see.


----------



## Luissa

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. We can only strive. I have no expectations of perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie is such a classy lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, from tip to toe. Does she ever do anything except show her ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to be impressed that you KNOW the goal you are destroying the world striving for can't be achieved?  Not only does that make you evil, it makes you an idiot, as well.
> 
> And if you and Luissa wish to be alone, we promise not to miss you, or even notice, while you're gone.
Click to expand...


I barely notice you most of the time, but you seem to know what I have posted over the last few years. You even notice me enough to comment on my personal life.....


----------



## SAT

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. We can only strive. I have no expectations of perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie is such a classy lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, from tip to toe. Does she ever do anything except show her ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to be impressed that you KNOW the goal you are destroying the world striving for can't be achieved?  Not only does that make you evil, it makes you an idiot, as well.
> 
> And if you and Luissa wish to be alone, we promise not to miss you, or even notice, while you're gone.
Click to expand...


Is anyone supposed to be impressed that you can be an asshole on the internet? 

You're being silly in addition to being an asshole. National health care, good schools, and a top marginal tax rate aren't going to destroy the world.


----------



## SAT

Luissa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie is such a classy lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You flatter yourself that you have any standing to comment on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point went over your head, I see.
Click to expand...


I believe we all have standing to comment on that, Cecille. KWIM?


----------



## Luissa

PoliticalChic said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> Astute observation with which I fully agree.  And I look forward to construction of guillotines on K Street and on Pennsylvania Avenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mikey, the symbolic 'guillotines' will be set up in every precinct in November of 2012.
> 
> Vote smaller government, and you'll be able to say "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done..."
Click to expand...


Would smaller government get rid of Credit default swaps? We need to have less regulations when it comes to certain things, but letting certain things like Credit default swaps continue will for sure help destroy our country. Letting Wall Street and K street do whatever they please has not worked well so far, why continue to do it?


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we want justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:
> 
> A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.
Click to expand...


That's not "the truth". It's not even an approximation of the truth. It's the opposite of the truth.


----------



## Luissa

SAT said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You flatter yourself that you have any standing to comment on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point went over your head, I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe we all have standing to comment on that, Cecille. KWIM?
Click to expand...


She assumes that because she feels she is better than most everyone she can comment on such things......To me class isn't being a judgmental bitch, but that is just me. Calling people twats, isn't class.

The difference is, I know what I am like, and don't pretend any differently. She has no clue how classless she is.


----------



## Truthmatters

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some remediation.
> 
> The choice was not "...poor, and just accepted that the lower classes..." versus slaughering and maiming thousands of their countrymen...
> 
> The choice was the French Revolution and coextensive attack on Christianity, or
> 
> The American Revolution, infused with morality and religion.
> 
> 1. While the American Revolution was created by and for &#8216;classical liberals,&#8217; the French Revolution was by and for what those now called &#8216;liberals&#8217; or progressives.
> 
> a.	&#8220;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.&#8221; War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b.	The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
> 
> 2.	Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler&#8217;s Nazi Party, Mao&#8217;s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot&#8217;s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks&#8217; windows whenever bankers come town. Those with the gift of irony see similar actions in the &#8216;Cradle of Democracy,&#8217; Greece.
> 
> 3. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
> 
> 4. The men behind the American Revolution- the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution- were the very opposite of a mob. For the most part, educated, aristocratic property holders, doctors, lawyers, ministers and other respectable tradesmen with everything to lose should the revolution fail. These were the classical liberals, or, as we would address them today, the conservatives.
> 
> a.	The modern Tea Party still abhors mob behavior. This from a rally in Boston: &#8220;The Obama Hitler sign. Let&#8217;s look out for those people, and make sure people know they&#8217;re not us.&#8221; A middle-aged, out-of-work Republican from Jamaica Plain agreed that it was crucial to police the line between the reasonable Tea Party people and party crashers: &#8220;We need to disabuse the public of some of the more exotic rumors out there.&#8221; Boston tea parties past and present : The New Yorker
> 
> b.	A 26-year-old Tea Partier from MIT thought about throwing a copy of the 2000-page health care bill into Boston Harbor&#8230;but changed his mind when he found out it would be against the law. Ibid.
> A far better exposition of the above can be found in "Demonic," by Coulter.
> 
> 
> Wake up.
> Wise up.
> Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit.
> 
> The American Revolution was NOT a Christian movement. There is no god in the Constitution. Christian religions are intolerant of other religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Revolution was a movement peopled by Christians.  No matter how much you want to remake the Founding Generation into a bunch of atheists, it's not going to happen.
> 
> And if Christian religions are so intolerant of other religions, how come the most religiously tolerant nations are the ones with strong Christian backgrounds?  You want high death tolls, you gotta go look at the atheistic Communist nations.  You want daily barbarity, that'd be the Muslims.  As for the nations of Western Civilization, it's no accident that the farther they get from their Christian roots, the more you find laws restricting the free practice of religion.
Click to expand...


James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman





June 3, 1811



I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases. It is but just, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the Natl. Legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the Land in question, but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves. Accept my friendly respects 

James Madison


----------



## SAT

Luissa said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point went over your head, I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we all have standing to comment on that, Cecille. KWIM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She assumes that because she feels she is better than most everyone she can comment on such things......To me class isn't being a judgmental bitch, but that is just me. Calling people twats, isn't class.
> 
> The difference is, I know what I am like, and don't pretend any differently. She has no clue how classless she is.
Click to expand...


I think she just likes being an asshole, but somehow wants to cling to the fiction that she's also "classy" and "a lady". It's a conservative thing.


----------



## Luissa

SAT said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:
> 
> A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "the truth". It's not even an approximation of the truth. It's the opposite of the truth.
Click to expand...


In PC's world the poor should be happy being poor.
No matter the fact the royals were spending their country into a large national debt in France while the rest of the country was facing a bread crisis...The poor should have just accepted it and kept their mouth shut. And it is all their fault anyways. 
But hey they killed people while fighting their revolution.


----------



## Luissa

SAT said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we all have standing to comment on that, Cecille. KWIM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She assumes that because she feels she is better than most everyone she can comment on such things......To me class isn't being a judgmental bitch, but that is just me. Calling people twats, isn't class.
> 
> The difference is, I know what I am like, and don't pretend any differently. She has no clue how classless she is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she just likes being an asshole, but somehow wants to cling to the fiction that she's also "classy" and "a lady". It's a conservative thing.
Click to expand...

It might be........but I know a lot of conservative women who do not act the way she does, and I know a few that do. PC for example, I never agree with her but she is never vile and never makes comments on people's personal life. She might make a pot shot about someone's education, but that is about as far as it goes.


----------



## Truthmatters

James Madison is concidered the father of our constitution.

He clearly believed the constitution includes the separtion of chruch and state


----------



## Truthmatters

Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself


These are the words of the father of our constitution


----------



## Truthmatters

Never EVER tell the lie again that we are a christian nation


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want _cosmic justice_, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:
> 
> A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "the truth". It's not even an approximation of the truth. It's the opposite of the truth.
Click to expand...


Wow the same argument Moe and Curly use!

What better validation could there be than SAP claiming the opposite.

I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. We can only strive. I have no expectations of perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, from tip to toe. Does she ever do anything except show her ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to be impressed that you KNOW the goal you are destroying the world striving for can't be achieved?  Not only does that make you evil, it makes you an idiot, as well.
> 
> And if you and Luissa wish to be alone, we promise not to miss you, or even notice, while you're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anyone supposed to be impressed that you can be an asshole on the internet?
> 
> You're being silly in addition to being an asshole. National health care, good schools, and a top marginal tax rate aren't going to destroy the world.
Click to expand...

National healthcare?......Your healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not mine or anybody elses.

Good schools?.......Do away with DOE, take the liberal idoctrination out of the equation, start holding teachers accountable for their abject failings, and put education fully back in the hands of the states, you'll see better education.

Top marginal tax rate?....Get back to us when you actually write a check to the IRS.

Just sayin'!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luissa said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:
> 
> A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not "the truth". It's not even an approximation of the truth. It's the opposite of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In PC's world the poor should be happy being poor.
> No matter the fact the royals were spending their country into a large national debt in France while the rest of the country was facing a bread crisis...The poor should have just accepted it and kept their mouth shut. And it is all their fault anyways.
> But hey they killed people while fighting their revolution.
Click to expand...


You haven't noticed that I am eminently capable of speaking for myself?

And, that you may not be the best able to express my meaning?

Since you appear incable of understanding the post in which I explained to you that the American Revolution was,in fact,  the paradigm in this venue, it hardly seems worthwhile explaining it to you again.

But, I would be willing to remind all that the French Revolution, characterized by the Great Fear, the storming of the Bastille, the food riots, the march on Versailles, the Day of the Daggers, the de-Christianization campaign, the September Massacres, the beheading of Louis XVI, the beheading of Marie Antoinette, the Reign of Terror, then the guillotining of one revolutionary after another, until Robespierre got the national razor. That is, not including various lynchings, assassinations, insurrections.this was the four-year period known as the French Revolution.

The excesses, and thousands upon thousands of deaths and mutilations take no back seat to the Russian revolution, or Maos mayhem, or Castro, or Pol Pot, etc., etc., all of which see as the same motivations: bowing of the individual to some central authority, on pain of death.

This, the French Revolution, was not a revolution that was likely to end, as the American Revolution did, with the motto Annuit Coepis (He [God] has favored our undertakings) on its national seal.

One salient point about your post: there does not exist in the United States of America, a permanent class known as the "poor."

This is due to the single concept of opportunity.

Here, this may prove helpful to you:

"Former President Bill Clintons advisor William Galston said, you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty. 1) Finish high school; 2) Marry before having a child; 3) Marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of those who follow these three rules will live ever in poverty at some point in their lives."
Justice Hines: Single-Parent Households Wreaking Havoc On Georgia Children, Contributing To Criminal Behavior | JJIE.org

God bless America.


----------



## SAT

Luissa said:


> It might be........but I know a lot of conservative women who do not act the way she does, and I know a few that do. PC for example, I never agree with her but she is never vile and never makes comments on people's personal life. She might make a pot shot about someone's education, but that is about as far as it goes.



I mean they are conflicted within themselves. Cecille is actually shocked you have the nerve to call her classless. In her mind, she's both a loud mouthed bitch, but also, a classy lady. 



PoliticalChic said:


> Wow the same argument Moe and Curly use!
> 
> What better validation could there be than SAP claiming the opposite.
> 
> I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.



Let me know when you figure out a way to start. 

Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. You're searching for excuses to be self-centered...which is the fundamental drive behind much of the conservative movement. 



Wicked Jester said:


> National healthcare?......Your healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not mine or anybody elses.
> 
> Good schools?.......Do away with DOE, take the liberal idoctrination out of the equation, start holding teachers accountable for their abject failings, and put education fully back in the hands of the states, you'll see better education.
> 
> Top marginal tax rate....Get back to us when you actually write a check to the IRS.
> 
> Just sayin'!



Lack of access to health care makes a society fundamentally unequal. You're literally denying life to a number of our citizens.


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> You haven't noticed that I am eminently capable of speaking for myself?
> 
> And, that you may not be the best able to express my meaning?
> 
> Since you appear incable of understanding the post in which I explained to you that the American Revolution was,in fact,  the paradigm in this venue, it hardly seems worthwhile explaining it to you again.
> 
> But, I would be willing to remind all that the French Revolution, characterized by the Great Fear, the storming of the Bastille, the food riots, the march on Versailles, the Day of the Daggers, the de-Christianization campaign, the September Massacres, the beheading of Louis XVI, the beheading of Marie Antoinette, the Reign of Terror, then the guillotining of one revolutionary after another, until Robespierre got the national razor. That is, not including various lynchings, assassinations, insurrections.this was the four-year period known as the French Revolution.
> 
> The excesses, and thousands upon thousands of deaths and mutilations take no back seat to the Russian revolution, or Maos mayhem, or Castro, or Pol Pot, etc., etc.,* all of which see as the same motivations: bowing of the individual to some central authority, on pain of death.*
> 
> This, the French Revolution, was not a revolution that was likely to end, as the American Revolution did, with the motto Annuit Coepis (He [God] has favored our undertakings) on its national seal.
> 
> One salient point about your post: there does not exist in the United States of America, a permanent class known as the "poor."
> 
> This is due to the single concept of opportunity.
> 
> Here, this may prove helpful to you:
> 
> "Former President Bill Clintons advisor William Galston said, you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty. 1) Finish high school; 2) Marry before having a child; 3) Marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of those who follow these three rules will live ever in poverty at some point in their lives."
> Justice Hines: Single-Parent Households Wreaking Havoc On Georgia Children, Contributing To Criminal Behavior | JJIE.org
> 
> God bless America.



Do you know what the word "conflating" means?


----------



## SAT

Truthmatters said:


> Never EVER tell the lie again that we are a christian nation





State religion is of no use to God, and of no use to people. A state religion serves only the state.


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAT said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be........but I know a lot of conservative women who do not act the way she does, and I know a few that do. PC for example, I never agree with her but she is never vile and never makes comments on people's personal life. She might make a pot shot about someone's education, but that is about as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean they are conflicted within themselves. Cecille is actually shocked you have the nerve to call her classless. In her mind, she's both a loud mouthed bitch, but also, a classy lady.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow the same argument Moe and Curly use!
> 
> What better validation could there be than SAP claiming the opposite.
> 
> I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you figure out a way to start.
> 
> Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. You're searching for excuses to be self-centered...which is the fundamental drive behind much of the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> National healthcare?......Your healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not mine or anybody elses.
> 
> Good schools?.......Do away with DOE, take the liberal idoctrination out of the equation, start holding teachers accountable for their abject failings, and put education fully back in the hands of the states, you'll see better education.
> 
> Top marginal tax rate....Get back to us when you actually write a check to the IRS.
> 
> Just sayin'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of access to health care makes a society fundamentally unequal. You're literally denying life to a number of our citizens.
Click to expand...

Enough with the dramatics.

There is no ''lack of access to healthcare"....As long as you practice personal responsibility, provide for yourself what is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, there is no lack of access to healthcare.


----------



## SAT

Wicked Jester said:


> Enough with the dramatics.
> 
> There is no ''lack of access to healthcare"....As long as you practice personal responsibility, provide for yourself what is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, there is no lack of access to healthcare.



Enough with the disinformation. Yes, there is a lack of access for many Americans. 

We access health care through health insurance, and insurance is out of reach for many. 

Yes, even with personal responsibility, you can find yourself without access to healthcare. 

This is something you can realize both through research, and by talking to others.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be........but I know a lot of conservative women who do not act the way she does, and I know a few that do. PC for example, I never agree with her but she is never vile and never makes comments on people's personal life. She might make a pot shot about someone's education, but that is about as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean they are conflicted within themselves. Cecille is actually shocked you have the nerve to call her classless. In her mind, she's both a loud mouthed bitch, but also, a classy lady.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow the same argument Moe and Curly use!
> 
> What better validation could there be than SAP claiming the opposite.
> 
> I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you figure out a way to start.
> 
> Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. You're searching for excuses to be self-centered...which is the fundamental drive behind much of the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> National healthcare?......Your healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not mine or anybody elses.
> 
> Good schools?.......Do away with DOE, take the liberal idoctrination out of the equation, start holding teachers accountable for their abject failings, and put education fully back in the hands of the states, you'll see better education.
> 
> Top marginal tax rate....Get back to us when you actually write a check to the IRS.
> 
> Just sayin'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of access to health care makes a society fundamentally unequal. You're literally denying life to a number of our citizens.
Click to expand...


"Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. "

1. Equality as defined by conservatives means before the law. And, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of *reward according to achievement*, and a reverence for private property (see John Locke).
That existed from the start of this great nation. The modern, or liberal version
is *equality of outcome*.

The aberration is memorialized in FDR's "Second Bill of Rights speech." A grave error from which we may never recover. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of *social justice.*

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life. Martin Malia, A Fatal Logic, The National Interest, Spring 1993,  pp. 80, 87

2.  The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks. Hard Truths About the Culture War
A brilliant satire of 'equality'- or as they might say in the French Revolution, egalitarianism.

3. Of course the progressive income tax is the most obvious attempt at equalzation....take what the successful have earned and reward those who haven't.
Professor Wildavsky, former president of the American Political Science Association, wrote this in 1991:
Rising egalitarianism will lower our standard of living, decrease our health, debase public discourse, lower the quality of public officials, weaken democracy, make people more suspicious of one another, and (if it be possible) worse. *Worse is the constant denigration of American life- our polity, economy, and society-* with no viable alternative to take its place. Aaron Wildavsky, The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism,  p. xxx  

4. It seems simple enough to understand...although I may be overestimating our SAP, that taxing something reduces how much of it is produced. Success, the same.
Possibly you have heard the tale of the 'Golden Goose.'

Society, thus, can have equality as defined by the Left, or it can have prosperity. But not both.

I hardly expect you to understand this, SAP...but others will.

Therefore, you are doomed to walk behind the elephant in the procession of life.


----------



## SAT

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Equality as defined by conservatives means before the law. And, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of *reward according to achievement*, and a reverence for private property (see John Locke).
> That existed from the start of this great nation. The modern, or liberal version
> is *equality of outcome*.



An odd comment, considering you just disparaged the notion of equality and prosperity coexisting. Which is it that you're planning on giving up? 



> The aberration is memorialized in FDR's "Second Bill of Rights speech." A grave error from which we may never recover. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of *social justice.*



Now, now. You know that FDR never said that we should all have the same income. No straw men. 



> a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life. Martin Malia, A Fatal Logic, The National Interest, Spring 1993,  pp. 80, 87



Are these your notes for class? 



> 2.  The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks. Hard Truths About the Culture War
> A brilliant satire of 'equality'- or as they might say in the French Revolution, egalitarianism.



That's a great story. Do you really think this is what liberals mean when they talk about equality? Be serious. 



> 3. Of course the progressive income tax is the most obvious attempt at equalzation....take what the successful have earned and reward those who haven't.
> Professor Wildavsky, former president of the American Political Science Association, wrote this in 1991:
> Rising egalitarianism will lower our standard of living, decrease our health, debase public discourse, lower the quality of public officials, weaken democracy, make people more suspicious of one another, and (if it be possible) worse. *Worse is the constant denigration of American life- our polity, economy, and society-* with no viable alternative to take its place. Aaron Wildavsky, The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism,  p. xxx



Surely you realize what a shallow analysis this is. For many, their success is choosing their parents well. 



> 4. It seems simple enough to understand...although I may be overestimating our SAP, that taxing something reduces how much of it is produced. Success, the same.
> Possibly you have heard the tale of the 'Golden Goose.'
> 
> Society, thus, can have equality as defined by the Left, or it can have prosperity. But not both.
> 
> I hardly expect you to understand this, SAP...but others will.



You are correct. I think this is a collection of thoughts, not a defense of your claim. 



> Therefore, you are doomed to walk behind the elephant in the procession of life.



Hey, we all hate the elephant. May he never rule again.


----------



## Intense

PoliticalChic said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be........but I know a lot of conservative women who do not act the way she does, and I know a few that do. PC for example, I never agree with her but she is never vile and never makes comments on people's personal life. She might make a pot shot about someone's education, but that is about as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean they are conflicted within themselves. Cecille is actually shocked you have the nerve to call her classless. In her mind, she's both a loud mouthed bitch, but also, a classy lady.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you figure out a way to start.
> 
> Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. You're searching for excuses to be self-centered...which is the fundamental drive behind much of the conservative movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> National healthcare?......Your healthcare is YOUR responsibility, not mine or anybody elses.
> 
> Good schools?.......Do away with DOE, take the liberal idoctrination out of the equation, start holding teachers accountable for their abject failings, and put education fully back in the hands of the states, you'll see better education.
> 
> Top marginal tax rate....Get back to us when you actually write a check to the IRS.
> 
> Just sayin'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of access to health care makes a society fundamentally unequal. You're literally denying life to a number of our citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your claim of truth is ridiculous. The idea that a society cannot be both prosperous and have equality defies the reality of a number of successful societies in the modern world. "
> 
> 1. Equality as defined by conservatives means before the law. And, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of *reward according to achievement*, and a reverence for private property (see John Locke).
> That existed from the start of this great nation. The modern, or liberal version
> is *equality of outcome*.
> 
> The aberration is memorialized in FDR's "Second Bill of Rights speech." A grave error from which we may never recover. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of *social justice.*
> 
> a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life. Martin Malia, A Fatal Logic, The National Interest, Spring 1993,  pp. 80, 87
> 
> 2.  The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks. Hard Truths About the Culture War
> A brilliant satire of 'equality'- or as they might say in the French Revolution, egalitarianism.
> 
> 3. Of course the progressive income tax is the most obvious attempt at equalzation....take what the successful have earned and reward those who haven't.
> Professor Wildavsky, former president of the American Political Science Association, wrote this in 1991:
> Rising egalitarianism will lower our standard of living, decrease our health, debase public discourse, lower the quality of public officials, weaken democracy, make people more suspicious of one another, and (if it be possible) worse. *Worse is the constant denigration of American life- our polity, economy, and society-* with no viable alternative to take its place. Aaron Wildavsky, The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism,  p. xxx
> 
> 4. It seems simple enough to understand...although I may be overestimating our SAP, that taxing something reduces how much of it is produced. Success, the same.
> Possibly you have heard the tale of the 'Golden Goose.'
> 
> Society, thus, can have equality as defined by the Left, or it can have prosperity. But not both.
> 
> I hardly expect you to understand this, SAP...but others will.
> 
> Therefore, you are doomed to walk behind the elephant in the procession of life.
Click to expand...


All SAT really want's is access to your Pin Numbers and Accounts. 

We are a competitive society. Equality is not based on outcome, the concept is absurd.


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAT said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the dramatics.
> 
> There is no ''lack of access to healthcare"....As long as you practice personal responsibility, provide for yourself what is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, there is no lack of access to healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the disinformation. Yes, there is a lack of access for many Americans.
> 
> We access health care through health insurance, and insurance is out of reach for many.
> 
> Yes, even with personal responsibility, you can find yourself without access to healthcare.
> 
> This is something you can realize both through research, and by talking to others.
Click to expand...

Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> All SAT really want's is access to your Pin Numbers and Accounts.



Yes, yes. Anyone who believes in national health care really just wants your money. 



> We are a competitive society. Equality is not based on outcome, the concept is absurd.



Which is why no one proposed equality of outcomes.


----------



## SAT

Wicked Jester said:


> Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.



The ER is not health care. Try again.


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> All SAT really want's is access to your Pin Numbers and Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes. Anyone who believes in national health care really just wants your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are a competitive society. Equality is not based on outcome, the concept is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why no one proposed equality of outcomes.
Click to expand...




> Which is why no one proposed equality of outcomes.



No, just Redistribution and Frivolous Spending. 



> Yes, yes. Anyone who believes in national health care really just wants your money.


Yep, remember whatever you do, Never question that $500 Band-aid, or that $1000 Ambulance ride. Just keep demanding Equal Access. Funny how the more Government gets involved, the more standard procedures are denied. Why not question why the cost of service is so high in the first place?


----------



## taichiliberal

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, &#8220;The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,&#8221; was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and *anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature *and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221;  So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It *is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7





Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue for the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..  

Nothing in what I've stated here is remotely similar to all the supposition and conjecture posted by Political Chic....and EVERYTHING I've stated can be documented, verified and validated.  Can Political Chic say the same?


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> No, just Redistribution and Frivolous Spending.



Health care is not frivolous. 



> Yep, remember whatever you do, Never question that $500 Band-aid, or that $1000 Ambulance ride. Just keep demanding Equal Access.



Huh? 



> Funny how the more Government gets involved, the more standard procedures are denied. Why not question why the cost of service is so high in the first place?



Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you? 

Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
Click to expand...


That depends now doesn't it. You want to argue that while you bleed out? I don't think so. You seem to think that actions have no consequences I guess. Nobody should have to pay anything at all for Health Care right? How about Cable? How about Electric? How about Gas? Hey, I want an Ocean View. When my home gets hit with flooding you should bail me out too. Hypodermics and condoms should be free, right. And I want a bright red Fire-Truck for Christmas, a real one.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends now doesn't it. You want to argue that while you bleed out? I don't think so. You seem to think that actions have no consequences I guess. Nobody should have to pay anything at all for Health Care right? How about Cable? How about Electric? How about Gas? Hey, I want an Ocean View. When my home gets hit with flooding you should bail me out too. Hypodermics and condoms should be free, right. And I want a bright red Fire-Truck for Christmas, a real one.
Click to expand...


Your comment is senseless. My point is that health care is more than the ER. Not that you don't need the ER. 

Health care isn't like cable. You know that.


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just Redistribution and Frivolous Spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care is not frivolous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, remember whatever you do, Never question that $500 Band-aid, or that $1000 Ambulance ride. Just keep demanding Equal Access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the more Government gets involved, the more standard procedures are denied. Why not question why the cost of service is so high in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?
Click to expand...




> Health care is not frivolous.


That is a matter of perspective, in truth. There are many Procedures that are either Cover Your Ass, and Unnecessary and there are outright Scams and Fraud. There are Procedures that are life saving yet unauthorized because of procedure and Bureaucracy. There are Life Saving Procedures that do not get approved. Don't worry though, your Viagra is covered. 



> Huh?


What... Are you lost in the Subway again? I told you to transfer at Times Square. Get with it, and clean up that drool. It's comely, Up Town.



> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?



I have no issue with you getting what you pay for.


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends now doesn't it. You want to argue that while you bleed out? I don't think so. You seem to think that actions have no consequences I guess. Nobody should have to pay anything at all for Health Care right? How about Cable? How about Electric? How about Gas? Hey, I want an Ocean View. When my home gets hit with flooding you should bail me out too. Hypodermics and condoms should be free, right. And I want a bright red Fire-Truck for Christmas, a real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is senseless. My point is that health care is more than the ER. Not that you don't need the ER.
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
Click to expand...


I know what Health Care is. Do you understand Value for Value?



> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.



So you agree the Government should not be bankrolling Cell Phones, Air-conditioners, Utilities, all services which artificially increase the cost to the rest of us and add undue burden. Glad you are starting to catch on.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just Redistribution and Frivolous Spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care is not frivolous.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a matter of perspective, in truth. There are many Procedures that are either Cover Your Ass, and Unnecessary and there are outright Scams and Fraud. There are Procedures that are life saving yet unauthorized because of procedure and Bureaucracy. There are Life Saving Procedures that do not get approved. Don't worry though, your Viagra is covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What... Are you lost in the Subway again? I told you to transfer at Times Square. Get with it, and clean up that drool. It's comely, Up Town.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no issue with you getting what you pay for.
Click to expand...


The "Huh" was my way of letting you know you were rambling. Since you don't like that, I'll tell you straight out. You're rambling.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends now doesn't it. You want to argue that while you bleed out? I don't think so. You seem to think that actions have no consequences I guess. Nobody should have to pay anything at all for Health Care right? How about Cable? How about Electric? How about Gas? Hey, I want an Ocean View. When my home gets hit with flooding you should bail me out too. Hypodermics and condoms should be free, right. And I want a bright red Fire-Truck for Christmas, a real one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is senseless. My point is that health care is more than the ER. Not that you don't need the ER.
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Health Care is. Do you understand Value for Value?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree the Government should not be bankrolling Cell Phones, Air-conditioners, Utilities, all services which artificially increase the cost to the rest of us and add undue burden. Glad you are starting to catch on.
Click to expand...


And now you're just lobbing talking points.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> Nothing in what I've stated here is remotely similar to all the supposition and conjecture posted by Political Chic....and EVERYTHING I've stated can be documented, verified and validated.  Can Political Chic say the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.
Click to expand...


I think the perpetrators should be prosecuted too, and the Government Bureaucrats that ran cover for them too. I bet if that happened there would be allot of sad Holiday tables around DC and the State Capitals as well. A full audit of the Federal, Reserve would send allot of them out of US jurisdiction as well I bet. We are in a losing battle with China if you haven't noticed. We cannot compete with Prison, Slave, Child Labor. We can neither protect our markets. I don't see that as greed. It's survival.


> In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you are attacking the core of DNC influence and fund raising. Do you really want to throw the Progressive Upper West Side under the bus? Not that I disapprove mind you, I hate them, I am just shocked that you would fire like that on your own troops. ... On second thought, go for it.
> 
> In truth, Wall Street has traditionally paid a good part of State and City Tax in the past. That is changing now, and it is hurting us big time.
Click to expand...


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health care is not frivolous.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a matter of perspective, in truth. There are many Procedures that are either Cover Your Ass, and Unnecessary and there are outright Scams and Fraud. There are Procedures that are life saving yet unauthorized because of procedure and Bureaucracy. There are Life Saving Procedures that do not get approved. Don't worry though, your Viagra is covered.
> 
> 
> What... Are you lost in the Subway again? I told you to transfer at Times Square. Get with it, and clean up that drool. It's comely, Up Town.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what you want, right? You don't like the idea of lazy 65 year olds getting the best of care, do you?
> 
> Tell us, Mr. Wizard. Why is it so high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no issue with you getting what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Huh" was my way of letting you know you were rambling. Since you don't like that, I'll tell you straight out. You're rambling.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x28jaeyX2s]The Allman Brothers- Ramblin Man - YouTube[/ame]
The Allman Brothers- Ramblin Man 

You can't have me, and you can't be me. 

Sorry man, all I have to do is pick up a local News Paper to see the absurdity in Government Logic and Government Spending. That's not talking points.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> Sorry man, all I have to do is pick up a local News Paper to see the absurdity in Government Logic and Government Spending. That's not talking points.



Yep. Government is not perfect. Neither are corporations. But this is about health care access, and the best way to make sure that people have it.


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, all I have to do is pick up a local News Paper to see the absurdity in Government Logic and Government Spending. That's not talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Government is not perfect. Neither are corporations. But this is about health care access, and the best way to make sure that people have it.
Click to expand...


Nope, not if it sinks the whole ship. You want to donate it? Nobody is stopping you. You want to set up a system where those that can't pay, give back, in time, by volunteering, go for it. You want a Sex Change, pay for it on your own dime.


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, all I have to do is pick up a local News Paper to see the absurdity in Government Logic and Government Spending. That's not talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Government is not perfect. Neither are corporations. But this is about health care access, and the best way to make sure that people have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not if it sinks the whole ship. You want to donate it? Nobody is stopping you. You want to set up a system where those that can't pay, give back, in time, by volunteering, go for it. You want a Sex Change, pay for it on your own dime.
Click to expand...


It isn't going to sink the ship. What we've got right now is going to, though.


----------



## taichiliberal

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Government is not perfect. Neither are corporations. But this is about health care access, and the best way to make sure that people have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not if it sinks the whole ship. You want to donate it? Nobody is stopping you. You want to set up a system where those that can't pay, give back, in time, by volunteering, go for it. You want a Sex Change, pay for it on your own dime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't going to sink the ship. What we've got right now is going to, though.
Click to expand...


And that's the lynch pin in the whole neocon/teabagger argument against the Health Care Reform law......the deregulated insurance companies had their shot, and they F'ed up royally.  Peelo and Potter told the tale from the inside, yet insanely stubborn jokers like "Intense" just cover their ears, close their eyes and yell "socialism!"  So long as it's not their butts in a sling, folk like Intense will parrot the party line to the grave.


----------



## taichiliberal

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, &#8220;The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,&#8221; was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and *anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature *and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221;  So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It *is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the perpetrators should be prosecuted too, and the Government Bureaucrats that ran cover for them too. I bet if that happened there would be allot of sad Holiday tables around DC and the State Capitals as well. A full audit of the Federal, Reserve would send allot of them out of US jurisdiction as well I bet. We are in a losing battle with China if you haven't noticed. We cannot compete with Prison, Slave, Child Labor. We can neither protect our markets. I don't see that as greed. It's survival.
> 
> _*Agreed, but to date the Republican Party du jour along with some Bluedog Democrats have steadfastly fought against precisely what you have advocated here.  THAT is the problem, because seriously partisan voters REFUSE to acknowledge these simple facts.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you are attacking the core of DNC influence and fund raising.    _*Come again? *_Do you really want to throw the Progressive Upper West Side under the bus?  Not that I disapprove mind you, I hate them, I am just shocked that you would fire like that on your own troops. ... On second thought, go for it.
> 
> _* What makes you think that the majority of the Upper West Side in NYC are progressives?  Newsflash for ya, THEY'RE NOT!  I use to work for one of the investment banking firms in Manhattan, and out of 30 people in that office about 6 could be considered "progressives", let alone liberal....and less than half actually lived in Manhattan.  Remember, "Independent" does not equate liberal, nor does geography.  Ralph Nader has repeatedly pointed out that the line between conservative and liberal in our 2 political parties has been blurry for decades. *_
> 
> In truth, Wall Street has traditionally paid a good part of State and City Tax in the past. That is changing now, and it is hurting us big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I stated as much when I pointed out the issue of the transaction tax.*
Click to expand...


----------



## SAT

taichiliberal said:


> And that's the lynch pin in the whole neocon/teabagger argument against the Health Care Reform law......the deregulated insurance companies had their shot, and they F'ed up royally.  Peelo and Potter told the tale from the inside, yet insanely stubborn jokers like "Intense" just cover their ears, close their eyes and yell "socialism!"  So long as it's not their butts in a sling, folk like Intense will parrot the party line to the grave.



But sooner or later, it _will be_ their asses in a sling. 

Being in my fifties, I know so many people with health problems that would prevent them from getting anything like affordable health insurance, or insurance that will cover what they need most.


----------



## Katzndogz

SAT said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the dramatics.
> 
> There is no ''lack of access to healthcare"....As long as you practice personal responsibility, provide for yourself what is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, there is no lack of access to healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the disinformation. Yes, there is a lack of access for many Americans.
> 
> We access health care through health insurance, and insurance is out of reach for many.
> 
> Yes, even with personal responsibility, you can find yourself without access to healthcare.
> 
> This is something you can realize both through research, and by talking to others.
Click to expand...


That is so untrue, it's hard to know where to start!  I have never had insurance and was never denied health care.  Millions of illegals come here, no insurance, they aren't even citizens and have never been denied health care.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not if it sinks the whole ship. You want to donate it? Nobody is stopping you. You want to set up a system where those that can't pay, give back, in time, by volunteering, go for it. You want a Sex Change, pay for it on your own dime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't going to sink the ship. What we've got right now is going to, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's the lynch pin in the whole neocon/teabagger argument against the Health Care Reform law......the deregulated insurance companies had their shot, and they F'ed up royally.  Peelo and Potter told the tale from the inside, yet insanely stubborn jokers like "Intense" just cover their ears, close their eyes and yell "socialism!"  So long as it's not their butts in a sling, folk like Intense will parrot the party line to the grave.
Click to expand...


Crony Capitalism fails, Big Government fails, why not try something different? 
Whatever we do, it should be rooted in Doctor/Patient Priorities, not Administrators, not Bureaucrats. Yes there is a deep concern for Oversight, for Transparency, for checks and balances, as there are in all things, so let's reason here. There are experts on all sides of the issue here. Let's hear them out, let's try new things, and advance the cause of what works. That is a Federalist Principle, no? We need affordable alternative, no? There is no telling where the breakthroughs come from sometimes. So within the rules of play, let's allow some leeway. I still think that certain medications and procedures should be on your own dime. This Entitlement Mentality is ripe for Fraud and Abuse. I seriously doubt Anyone of Us wants to be bankrolling that.


----------



## SAT

Katzndogz said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the dramatics.
> 
> There is no ''lack of access to healthcare"....As long as you practice personal responsibility, provide for yourself what is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, there is no lack of access to healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the disinformation. Yes, there is a lack of access for many Americans.
> 
> We access health care through health insurance, and insurance is out of reach for many.
> 
> Yes, even with personal responsibility, you can find yourself without access to healthcare.
> 
> This is something you can realize both through research, and by talking to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is so untrue, it's hard to know where to start!  I have never had insurance and was never denied health care.  Millions of illegals come here, no insurance, they aren't even citizens and have never been denied health care.
Click to expand...


Please tell us more. 

How do you get health care? 

Tell us the serious and/or chronic medical conditions you have. 

Tell us how you pay for chemotherapy, how you pay for the latest cholesterol medications, how you paid for your last colonoscopy, how you pay for your allergy shots, what you do when you dislocate a joint or break a bone, how you covered your surgery for your knee replacement and for the stint you needed after your last heart attack. 

Are you talking about the ER only when you talk about illegal immigrants getting "health care"?


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> Crony Capitalism fails, Big Government fails, why not try something different?
> Whatever we do, it should be rooted in Doctor/Patient Priorities, not Administrators, not Bureaucrats. Yes there is a deep concern for Oversight, for Transparency, for checks and balances, as there are in all things, so let's reason here. There are experts on all sides of the issue here. Let's hear them out, let's try new things, and advance the cause of what works. That is a Federalist Principle, no? We need affordable alternative, no? There is no telling where the breakthroughs come from sometimes. So within the rules of play, let's allow some leeway. I still think that certain medications and procedures should be on your own dime. This Entitlement Mentality is ripe for Fraud and Abuse. I seriously doubt Anyone of Us wants to be bankrolling that.



Certain procedures are on your own dime already. 

Let's hear the new things you think might work.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the conservative solution is what?
> 
> Concentrate more wealth into fewer hands.
> 
> Go for it.
> 
> See how it works out in the end.
> 
> Because historically..that's been the downfall of plenty of nations. But conservatives love to do the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again. Expecting different results.
Click to expand...


I'd say we should be more like Vietnam or the ChiComs than continue to follow the Failed UberLeftist Progressive Democrat Death by Government Spending and Regulation model.

Let the Free markets prices products and labor


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the perpetrators should be prosecuted too, and the Government Bureaucrats that ran cover for them too. I bet if that happened there would be allot of sad Holiday tables around DC and the State Capitals as well. A full audit of the Federal, Reserve would send allot of them out of US jurisdiction as well I bet. We are in a losing battle with China if you haven't noticed. We cannot compete with Prison, Slave, Child Labor. We can neither protect our markets. I don't see that as greed. It's survival.
> 
> _*Agreed, but to date the Republican Party du jour along with some Bluedog Democrats have steadfastly fought against precisely what you have advocated here.  THAT is the problem, because seriously partisan voters REFUSE to acknowledge these simple facts.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue fo
> 
> I can't believe you are attacking the core of DNC influence and fund raising.    _*Come again? *_Do you really want to throw the Progressive Upper West Side under the bus?  Not that I disapprove mind you, I hate them, I am just shocked that you would fire like that on your own troops. ... On second thought, go for it.
> 
> _* What makes you think that the majority of the Upper West Side in NYC are progressives?  Newsflash for ya, THEY'RE NOT!  I use to work for one of the investment banking firms in Manhattan, and out of 30 people in that office about 6 could be considered "progressives", let alone liberal....and less than half actually lived in Manhattan.  Remember, "Independent" does not equate liberal, nor does geography.  Ralph Nader has repeatedly pointed out that the line between conservative and liberal in our 2 political parties has been blurry for decades. *_
> 
> In truth, Wall Street has traditionally paid a good part of State and City Tax in the past. That is changing now, and it is hurting us big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I stated as much when I pointed out the issue of the transaction tax.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat makes you think that the majority of the Upper West Side in NYC are progressives?  Newsflash for ya, THEY'RE NOT!  I use to work for one of the investment banking firms in Manhattan, and out of 30 people in that office about 6 could be considered "progressives", let alone liberal....and less than half actually lived in Manhattan.  Remember, "Independent" does not equate liberal, nor does geography.  Ralph Nader has repeatedly pointed out that the line between conservative and liberal in our 2 political parties has been blurry for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upper West Side is La La Land. Big Money, Left Leaning, Alternate Reality.
> 
> When I speak Progressive, I refer to the Camp that is in control, the Camp that Views Individual Liberty as an obstruction, as an offense to the Will of the State. The camp that is Pro Unalienable Rights, I have zero quarrel with. I may be alone in this, but I view Hamilton as the 1st Statist Progressive. There is good in Progressivism, and there is Evil. Anything that steers us towards denial of Free Will, denial of Individual Conscience, I oppose. There is no Collective Conscience. Our Natures require, Each and Every one of Us to be Convinced for Ourselves, not blindly led. That is the rift.
Click to expand...


----------



## SAT

Intense said:


> Upper West Side is La La Land. Big Money, Left Leaning, Alternate Reality.
> 
> When I speak Progressive, I refer to the Camp that is in control, the Camp that Views Individual Liberty as an obstruction, as an offense to the Will of the State. The camp that is Pro Unalienable Rights, I have zero quarrel with. I may be alone in this, but I view Hamilton as the 1st Statist Progressive. There is good in Progressivism, and there is Evil. Anything that steers us towards denial of Free Will, denial of Individual Conscience, I oppose. There is no Collective Conscience. Our Natures require, Each and Every one of Us to be Convinced for Ourselves, not blindly led. That is the rift.



The camp that is in control of what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS would like to kill every rich person in the failed hopes that it will remove the sting of living the life of a loser


----------



## SAT

CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS would like to kill every rich person in the failed hopes that it will remove the sting of living the life of a loser


----------



## Intense

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upper West Side is La La Land. Big Money, Left Leaning, Alternate Reality.
> 
> When I speak Progressive, I refer to the Camp that is in control, the Camp that Views Individual Liberty as an obstruction, as an offense to the Will of the State. The camp that is Pro Unalienable Rights, I have zero quarrel with. I may be alone in this, but I view Hamilton as the 1st Statist Progressive. There is good in Progressivism, and there is Evil. Anything that steers us towards denial of Free Will, denial of Individual Conscience, I oppose. There is no Collective Conscience. Our Natures require, Each and Every one of Us to be Convinced for Ourselves, not blindly led. That is the rift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The camp that is in control of what?
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/187181-classic-liberalism-v-s-progressivism.html#post4204025


----------



## PoliticalChic

taichiliberal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue for the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> Nothing in what I've stated here is remotely similar to all the supposition and conjecture posted by Political Chic....and EVERYTHING I've stated can be documented, verified and validated.  Can Political Chic say the same?
Click to expand...


"...Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..."

What crimes?


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends now doesn't it. You want to argue that while you bleed out? I don't think so. You seem to think that actions have no consequences I guess. Nobody should have to pay anything at all for Health Care right? How about Cable? How about Electric? How about Gas? Hey, I want an Ocean View. When my home gets hit with flooding you should bail me out too. Hypodermics and condoms should be free, right. And I want a bright red Fire-Truck for Christmas, a real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is senseless. My point is that health care is more than the ER. Not that you don't need the ER.
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
Click to expand...


I look forward to the time when you know something about the subject on which you post.

....right after the next glacier.


While you and the other Liberals know what is better for others, be advised that the earlier attempt at ObamaCare, that would be RomneyCare, has resulted in increased use of ER's.

It seems that the folks don't agree with you about ER's....they think it's healthcare.

More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

Dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is senseless. My point is that health care is more than the ER. Not that you don't need the ER.
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Health Care is. Do you understand Value for Value?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care isn't like cable. You know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree the Government should not be bankrolling Cell Phones, Air-conditioners, Utilities, all services which artificially increase the cost to the rest of us and add undue burden. Glad you are starting to catch on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you're just lobbing talking points.
Click to expand...


He knows whereof he speaks. His post is no more than a logical extension of the following:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education."
Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never EVER tell the lie again that we are a christian nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State religion is of no use to God, and of no use to people. A state religion serves only the state.
Click to expand...


Do you know what "conflate" means?


----------



## SAT2

The camp that is in control of what, Intense? 




PoliticalChic said:


> I look forward to the time when you know something about the subject on which you post.
> 
> ....right after the next glacier.
> 
> 
> While you and the other Liberals know what is better for others, be advised that the earlier attempt at ObamaCare, that would be RomneyCare, has resulted in increased use of ER's.
> 
> It seems that the folks don't agree with you about ER's....they think it's healthcare.
> 
> More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data.
> 
> Dunce.



The ER is not "health care". It is a _part_ of health care. When I said that people lack access to health care, the response is that anyone can go to the ER. That response is ignorant and simple minded. 

For someone who pats herself on the back for being intelligent, you really don't read well at all. 



PoliticalChic said:


> State religion is of no use to God, and of no use to people. A state religion serves only the state.





> Do you know what "conflate" means?



Yes. Do you? You idiotically conflated every uprising and coup in history and pretended that they were all the same as OWS. Again, this is simple minded.


----------



## Dragon

Those who call others idiots, dunces, etc. usually merit these titles themselves.

Those who don't, when confronted with those who do, will generally stick to logical argument and evidence and let the other person's stupidity speak for itself.

You can almost always tell the stupid person in a conversation: he or she is the one calling someone else an idiot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dragon said:


> Those who call others idiots, dunces, etc. usually merit these titles themselves.
> 
> Those who don't, when confronted with those who do, will generally stick to logical argument and evidence and let the other person's stupidity speak for itself.
> 
> You can almost always tell the stupid person in a conversation: he or she is the one calling someone else an idiot.



You mean like you just did?


----------



## Dragon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who call others idiots, dunces, etc. usually merit these titles themselves.
> 
> Those who don't, when confronted with those who do, will generally stick to logical argument and evidence and let the other person's stupidity speak for itself.
> 
> You can almost always tell the stupid person in a conversation: he or she is the one calling someone else an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like you just did?
Click to expand...


I named no names. If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## taichiliberal

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the perpetrators should be prosecuted too, and the Government Bureaucrats that ran cover for them too. I bet if that happened there would be allot of sad Holiday tables around DC and the State Capitals as well. A full audit of the Federal, Reserve would send allot of them out of US jurisdiction as well I bet. We are in a losing battle with China if you haven't noticed. We cannot compete with Prison, Slave, Child Labor. We can neither protect our markets. I don't see that as greed. It's survival.
> 
> _*Agreed, but to date the Republican Party du jour along with some Bluedog Democrats have steadfastly fought against precisely what you have advocated here.  THAT is the problem, because seriously partisan voters REFUSE to acknowledge these simple facts.*_
> 
> 
> 
> *I stated as much when I pointed out the issue of the transaction tax.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hat makes you think that the majority of the Upper West Side in NYC are progressives?  Newsflash for ya, THEY'RE NOT!  I use to work for one of the investment banking firms in Manhattan, and out of 30 people in that office about 6 could be considered "progressives", let alone liberal....and less than half actually lived in Manhattan.  Remember, "Independent" does not equate liberal, nor does geography.  Ralph Nader has repeatedly pointed out that the line between conservative and liberal in our 2 political parties has been blurry for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upper West Side is La La Land. Big Money, Left Leaning, Alternate Reality.
> 
> Repeating yourself won't automatically make you correct.  Remember, I LIVE and WORK in the area, have so all my adult life... YOU DON'T...so I have a hell of a better perspective as to what goes on via real life experience as oppose to your supposition and conjecture.  And if you won't believe me, just do a  little research as to the voting trends for the various districts in New York City in the last 20 years.
> 
> When I speak Progressive, I refer to the Camp that is in control, the Camp that Views Individual Liberty as an obstruction, as an offense to the Will of the State. The camp that is Pro Unalienable Rights, I have zero quarrel with. I may be alone in this, but I view Hamilton as the 1st Statist Progressive. There is good in Progressivism, and there is Evil. Anything that steers us towards denial of Free Will, denial of Individual Conscience, I oppose. There is no Collective Conscience. Our Natures require, Each and Every one of Us to be Convinced for Ourselves, not blindly led. That is the rift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just when we were going to have a rational conversation, the wheels come off your bandwagon and you start bullhorning your usual convoluted BS "philosophy", trying to substitute your opinion, beliefs, supposition and conjecture for reality and fact and thus justify anything you say.
> 
> Bottom line: your initial assertions were WRONG, as I detailed.  NOTHING you've stated here changes that.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## taichiliberal

CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS would like to kill every rich person in the failed hopes that it will remove the sting of living the life of a loser



Are you REALLY this fucking stupid, Frank?  Or do you just pull this nonsense out of your ass after getting stoked on right wing radio for the express purpose of having someone to interact with?


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upper West Side is La La Land. Big Money, Left Leaning, Alternate Reality.
> 
> Repeating yourself won't automatically make you correct.  Remember, I LIVE and WORK in the area, have so all my adult life... YOU DON'T...so I have a hell of a better perspective as to what goes on via real life experience as oppose to your supposition and conjecture.  And if you won't believe me, just do a  little research as to the voting trends for the various districts in New York City in the last 20 years.
> 
> When I speak Progressive, I refer to the Camp that is in control, the Camp that Views Individual Liberty as an obstruction, as an offense to the Will of the State. The camp that is Pro Unalienable Rights, I have zero quarrel with. I may be alone in this, but I view Hamilton as the 1st Statist Progressive. There is good in Progressivism, and there is Evil. Anything that steers us towards denial of Free Will, denial of Individual Conscience, I oppose. There is no Collective Conscience. Our Natures require, Each and Every one of Us to be Convinced for Ourselves, not blindly led. That is the rift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just when we were going to have a rational conversation, the wheels come off your bandwagon and you start bullhorning your usual convoluted BS "philosophy", trying to substitute your opinion, beliefs, supposition and conjecture for reality and fact and thus justify anything you say.
> 
> Bottom line: your initial assertions were WRONG, as I detailed.  NOTHING you've stated here changes that.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just when we were going to have a rational conversation, the wheels come off your bandwagon and you start bullhorning your usual convoluted BS "philosophy", trying to substitute your opinion, beliefs, supposition and conjecture for reality and fact and thus justify anything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are having a conversation and I am telling what I in fact believe. Deal with it. It is neither convoluted or BS. You have your perspective, I have mine. Stop being a Dick Head about it. I am not trying to convert you, I am plainly showing you where I stand. You have a problem with something address it specifically.
> 
> As for you living and working in Manhattan, big deal. I live in Queens and work Queens and Western Nassau. You cannot Pay me any amount of money to service Manhattan. It is just not worth the aggravation. As for Convoluted Bullshit, who are you to tell me what I know an don't know? Again, grow up.
> 
> Progressivism long ago sacrificed any concerns about the defense of Individual Liberty, and Unalienable Rights, for the advancement of the State. That is a matter of History, dark secret or not, it plagues every advancement of Government Control and Censorship.
> 
> Bottom line: your initial assertions were WRONG, as I detailed.  NOTHING you've stated here changes that.  Deal with it.
> 
> Bottom Line, you have a Right to your Opinion, you have no Right to My Opinion. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## taichiliberal

PoliticalChic said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*."
> 
> a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.
> 
> 2. The OWS folks certainly count as *a mob*.
> 
> a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
> The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.
> 
> 3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.
> 
> 4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some *'general will,'* that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.
> 
> a.	In France, there was the development of an *apparatus of ideological enforcement *for reason. But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that enlightened despotism would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in tyranny of popular opinion or even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> b.	Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave *the model for totalitarianism *of reason: We must reason about all things, and *anyone who refuses to seek out the truth thereby renounces his human nature *and should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.  So, once truth is determined, anyone who doesnt accept it was either insane or wicked and morally evil. It *is not the individual who has the  right to decide *about the nature of right and wrong, but only the human race, expressed as the general will.  Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity, p. 167-68
> 
> c.	Robespierre used Rousseaus call for a reign of virtue, proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his *euphemism for The Terror. *In The Social Contract *Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community*: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism.  Robespierre: the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people. Himmefarb, Ibid.
> 
> d.	In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, *to do away with all inequalities *in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, p. 3-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue for the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> Nothing in what I've stated here is remotely similar to all the supposition and conjecture posted by Political Chic....and EVERYTHING I've stated can be documented, verified and validated.  Can Political Chic say the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..."
> 
> What crimes?
Click to expand...


Here's a primer for you:

» Matt Taibbi On The SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes Alex Jones&#039; Infowars: There&#039;s a war on for your mind!


----------



## SAT2

Dragon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who call others idiots, dunces, etc. usually merit these titles themselves.
> 
> Those who don't, when confronted with those who do, will generally stick to logical argument and evidence and let the other person's stupidity speak for itself.
> 
> You can almost always tell the stupid person in a conversation: he or she is the one calling someone else an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like you just did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I named no names. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Click to expand...


That shoe you're wearing? You just stepped in dog poop with it. 



taichiliberal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS would like to kill every rich person in the failed hopes that it will remove the sting of living the life of a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you REALLY this fucking stupid, Frank?  Or do you just pull this nonsense out of your ass after getting stoked on right wing radio for the express purpose of having someone to interact with?
Click to expand...


I think it's B.


----------



## PoliticalChic

taichiliberal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:  The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed that put our country into an economic dire straits while STILL profitting via the bail out with the tax dollars of the people who are NOT getting jobs because the corporations that are entwined to Wall St. will not hire domestically because it's MORE profitable to outsource jobs and hide profits in off shore banks.....then they bitch about paying 1 to 3% more in taxes despite logging record profits in the last ten years.  In New York City, there is no "transaction tax" on the mega profits made on Wall St.....there use to be, and it was serious revenue for the State...and all the millionaires and near-millionaires dancing through the upper West Side were none worst for wear.  Now there's no transaction tax, and New York is in serious economic dire straits regarding infrastructure, jobs, etc..
> 
> Nothing in what I've stated here is remotely similar to all the supposition and conjecture posted by Political Chic....and EVERYTHING I've stated can be documented, verified and validated.  Can Political Chic say the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..."
> 
> What crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a primer for you:
> 
> » Matt Taibbi On The SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Click to expand...


1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.

That would be you.
Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
Not here.

2.You claimed "*The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..*."
My request: *'What crimes*?'

3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term '*liberal'* in your avi.

4.*The vid you provided *was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has *nothing to do with the OWS rabble*...
...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks, 
...or you have, to put it kindly, *fibbed*.

5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.

6. While you have *no place posting with adults,* I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.


As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.


----------



## Katzndogz

What OWS knows about the French Revolution comes out of Les Miserables.  They have a hazy mythic understanding of being able to do whatever they want and no one could fight back because they didn't get that after the Song of Angry Men.    Plainly speaking, the current crop of revolutionaries can't take a punch.  They cry, they whine about how their rights are violated while they go around violating the rights of others.    So far, they have been tolerated, avoided and ignored.  That won't go on forever.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Katzndogz said:


> What OWS knows about the French Revolution comes out of Les Miserables.  They have a hazy mythic understanding of being able to do whatever they want and no one could fight back because they didn't get that after the Song of Angry Men.    Plainly speaking, the current crop of revolutionaries can't take a punch.  They cry, they whine about how their rights are violated while they go around violating the rights of others.    So far, they have been tolerated, avoided and ignored.  That won't go on forever.



Right you are, Katz....
There was another book that covered 'movements' like the OWS, and this was written about same:
mene mene tekel upharsin


And, this:
"Liberals, it seems, would rather view all revolutions as under the auspices of mobs. Their fav revolutions are  those impelled by hairy, foul-smelling revolutionaries like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Susan Sarandon."
From "Demonic," chapter eight, Coulter


----------



## SAT2

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.
> 
> That would be you.



And you as well. 



> Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
> Not here.



This comment is silly. 



> 2.You claimed "*The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..*."
> My request: *'What crimes*?'
> 
> 3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
> While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term '*liberal'* in your avi.



I have to admit, I was amazed by your question. I assumed it was bait, because you seem to feel that you are well informed. 



> 4.*The vid you provided *was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has *nothing to do with the OWS rabble*...
> ...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks,
> ...or you have, to put it kindly, *fibbed*.
> 
> 5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.
> 
> 6. While you have *no place posting with adults,* I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.



This is a spittle filled rant. 



Katzndogz said:


> What OWS knows about the French Revolution comes out of Les Miserables.  They have a hazy mythic understanding of being able to do whatever they want and no one could fight back because they didn't get that after the Song of Angry Men.    Plainly speaking, the current crop of revolutionaries can't take a punch.  They cry, they whine about how their rights are violated while they go around violating the rights of others.    So far, they have been tolerated, avoided and ignored.  That won't go on forever.



Has the OWS movement talked much about the French Revolution? Isn't this you, dreaming about their level of understanding and their motivations? 

As for their being tolerated, don't be absurd. They've been attacked by the police, in a way that would outrage any real defender of limited government. They've been rhetorically attacked by Fox News from morning till night. Stop with the ominous threats-the violence and verbal attacks are already going on and have been for some time.


----------



## SAT2

PoliticalChic said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What OWS knows about the French Revolution comes out of Les Miserables.  They have a hazy mythic understanding of being able to do whatever they want and no one could fight back because they didn't get that after the Song of Angry Men.    Plainly speaking, the current crop of revolutionaries can't take a punch.  They cry, they whine about how their rights are violated while they go around violating the rights of others.    So far, they have been tolerated, avoided and ignored.  That won't go on forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right you are, Katz....
> There was another book that covered 'movements' like the OWS, and this was written about same:
> mene mene tekel upharsin
Click to expand...


Please elaborate. 



> And, this:
> "Liberals, it seems, would rather view all revolutions as under the auspices of mobs. Their fav revolutions are  those impelled by hairy, foul-smelling revolutionaries like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Susan Sarandon."
> From "Demonic," chapter eight, Coulter



This is baseless, spittle soaked, ranting. It hits the pleasure centers of some very angry people, and that's not a net gain for society, or for them as individuals. 

Charles Pierce said it better:



> In case you missed it, disgrace-to-boozy-bar-room-skanks everywhere Annie Coulter has a new book out. Apparently, she was plugging it on some San Francisco radio embarrassment yesterday.
> 
> *I draw your attention to No. 6:
> 
> "Remember the lesson from my book: It just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good."*
> 
> If there is a just god in heaven, she will be stuck on an elevator one day with a relative of Sandy Schuerer or Allison Krause. If there is a just god in heaven, that person will be carrying a large bag of freshly cured manure.
> 
> *Note to cable television bookers. This is not humor. This is not commentary. This is eliminationist rhetoric from a career white-supremacist.* This is not a fit person to bring into the public discussion of anything. This is a vicious evil woman who would sell her grayhaired granny to the Somali pirates for 15 minutes worth of airtime. This is someone who should be shunned, permanently, by anybody with a sense of human decency.
> 
> What the hell. Even with that, she could still go on Fox.



Read more: Daily Politics Blog - Charles P. Pierce - Political Blogging - Esquire


----------



## Katzndogz

Ann Coulter's book, Demonic is brilliant.  Liberals won't read it though, they are too busy making up everyone's mind for them.  Like liberals do all the time.


----------



## Intense

Katzndogz said:


> Ann Coulter's book, Demonic is brilliant.  Liberals won't read it though, they are too busy making up everyone's mind for them.  Like liberals do all the time.



That stumbling block of Individual Liberty, always raining on their parade. b


----------



## SAT2

Ah, bullshit. Coulter isn't a fan of individual liberty, witness her comments, above-she repeatedly advocates killing those who disagree with her. 

Killing Muslims:

Ann Coulter on Barbara Olson on National Review Online

Killing college students:

Ann Coulter Believes The Kent State Shootings Were Justified Because 'That's What You Do With A Mob' - Business Insider

Killing the staff of the NYT. 

AntiCoulter: Quotes From Ann

Find another hero. This one doesn't like individual liberty one little bit.


----------



## Intense

SAT2 said:


> Ah, bullshit. Coulter isn't a fan of individual liberty, witness her comments, above-she repeatedly advocates killing those who disagree with her.
> 
> Killing Muslims:
> 
> Ann Coulter on Barbara Olson on National Review Online
> 
> Killing college students:
> 
> Ann Coulter Believes The Kent State Shootings Were Justified Because 'That's What You Do With A Mob' - Business Insider
> 
> Killing the staff of the NYT.
> 
> AntiCoulter: Quotes From Ann
> 
> Find another hero. This one doesn't like individual liberty one little bit.





> Ms. Coulter is also a syndicated columnist
> September 13, 2001 9:05 a.m.
> 
> We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.



9/13/11. I'll give her a pass on that one.


----------



## SAT2

Why? It's just another part of a pattern of nasty eliminationist rhetoric from Coulter. She likes to talk about killing people who don't agree with her ideology.


----------



## Intense

SAT2 said:


> Why? It's just another part of a pattern of nasty eliminationist rhetoric from Coulter. She likes to talk about killing people who don't agree with her ideology.



I think She was venting anger at an Ideology, that has in part declared a Jihad against Western Culture, 2 days after the worst Domestic Attack on record of our Natures History. 

One thing She cannot be accused of is refusing to acknowledge the Threat against Us, by Jihad, and even Sharia. 

Personally I have no issue with Anyone with the words they use when they Pray, that is between Each Individual and Their Maker, Hopefully involving Conscience. Killing People, Imprisoning them, Enslaving them, because they refuse to conform to your will, is another matter.


----------



## SAT2

Intense said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It's just another part of a pattern of nasty eliminationist rhetoric from Coulter. She likes to talk about killing people who don't agree with her ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think She was venting anger at an Ideology, that has in part declared a Jihad against Western Culture, 2 days after the worst Domestic Attack on record of our Natures History.
> 
> One thing She cannot be accused of is refusing to acknowledge the Threat against Us, by Jihad, and even Sharia.
> 
> Personally I have no issue with Anyone with the words they use when they Pray, that is between Each Individual and Their Maker, Hopefully involving Conscience. Killing People, Imprisoning them, Enslaving them, because they refuse to conform to your will, is another matter.
Click to expand...


Again, it's not a 9/11 thing. It's a continuing behavior. I cited three examples, over a span of a number of years. She runs her mouth about killing those who disagree with her. She isn't explaining a threat, she's advocating genocide against Muslims, and death to her ideological enemies. Put her words in the mouth of an imam and think about it.


----------



## Katzndogz

So do liberals!  That's why they love the French Revolution so much.  They just can't believe someone would fight back!

Coulter is right, once again.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> So do liberals!  That's why they love the French Revolution so much.  They just can't believe someone would fight back!
> 
> Coulter is right, once again.



Coulter is hardly ever right. In fact, she doesn't even try to be. Her purpose is to inflame, not to inform. And of course, to sell books.

Nor are you betraying any knowledge at all of how liberals think, which is hardly surprising.


----------



## SAT2

Can one of Coulter's fans tell us if she's a comedian, or a serious pundit? Is she trying to be Bill Maher or George Will? Or something else altogether?


----------



## Katzndogz

Since libs will make a futile attempt to debate her book, without actually ever reading her book, it is rather like jousting with the unarmed.  They sit on the sidelines and imagine they say funny things.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> Since libs will make a futile attempt to debate her book, without actually ever reading her book



That's not true, at least as far as I'm concerned. I fully intend to DISMISS her book as, considering the author, utterly unworthy of reading, and hence unworthy of debating, too. That's not because Coulter is conservative; it's because she's the literary equivalent of a troll. I really can't be bothered. I will debate only ideas and works that deserve to be taken seriously.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Katzndogz said:


> Since libs will make a futile attempt to debate her book, without actually ever reading her book, it is rather like jousting with the unarmed.  They sit on the sidelines and imagine they say funny things.



"...without actually ever reading her book,..."

I've read a number of scholarly texts, and quite a few polemics from both sides of the aisle...but "Demonic" is one of the best researched and documented books I've seen.

The impromtu and extemporaneous attacks should be amusing to those of us who have studied the material. They are reduced to generic complaints and thinly-supported diatribes
that we should expect from what-passes-for-thinking from the Left.

The Left has frequently chosen the easiest path, as in attacking the messenger rather than confronting the well-evidenced analysis of Ms. Coulter.

Imagine being trained to critique a work without having read it.

In fact, she addressed that very thing:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors!  They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press!  Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican"


----------



## Dragon

In every single work she has ever written from the beginning of her career, Ann Coulter has written so as to irritate, provoke, and annoy. She has no other purpose, except of course the underlying purpose of selling books. She is not a serious scholar; she is merely an agitator, the right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore with an opposite body type and a lot more venom and nastiness. She has never, with the possible-but-extremely-unlikely exception of her latest effort (and I say that only because I have not and almost certainly will not bother to read it, and therefore can't say from personal and specific knowledge) never written anything that was worthy of a moment's serious consideration, and all the time I have ever spent reading her was wasted time.

If you want to suggest that _Demonic_ is an exception to the consistent pattern of worthless inflammatory drivel from this author, I'm prepared to listen to your case. But it will have to be a good one. You are arguing that it does a 180 from all of her previous works.


----------



## SAT2

PoliticalChic said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since libs will make a futile attempt to debate her book, without actually ever reading her book, it is rather like jousting with the unarmed.  They sit on the sidelines and imagine they say funny things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...without actually ever reading her book,..."
> 
> I've read a number of scholarly texts, and quite a few polemics from both sides of the aisle...but "Demonic" is one of the best researched and documented books I've seen.
> 
> The impromtu and extemporaneous attacks should be amusing to those of us who have studied the material. They are reduced to generic complaints and thinly-supported diatribes
> that we should expect from what-passes-for-thinking from the Left.
> 
> The Left has frequently chosen the easiest path, as in attacking the messenger rather than confronting the well-evidenced analysis of Ms. Coulter.
> 
> Imagine being trained to critique a work without having read it.
> 
> In fact, she addressed that very thing:
> "Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors!  They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press!  Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican"
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm critiquing Ann.  Not her books. 

I've yet to find an angry bigot who was capable of good research, and Ann is one angry bigot.

You might want to research her research before you praise it. Simply providing sources doesn't mean good research. 

Welcome to Illiberal Conservative Media (ICM) - by eRiposte

http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/Plagiarism Trap.pdf


----------



## Intense

IF I WERE A LIBERAL ...
October 26, 2011


If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden's description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I'd say the Democrats looked "hot and horny" for dead cops -- as Chris Matthews said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden's audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama's jobs bill, police will be "outgunned and outmanned." (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama's jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

Which belief bears more relationship to reality?

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man's wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from "life in prison" and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough -- 12 years -- for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

Kemp wasn't caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey's dead body. Although Kemp was serving a "life sentence" for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.

His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.

Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it's a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.

What is liberals' evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama's jobs bill doesn't pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won't be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home -- which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That's why Americans like guns, liberals.)

Obama's jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion ... for public school teachers.

Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being "against" rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).

Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama's last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.

Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.

Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on "green" buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.

It's going to be a long wait: The "green" buses were never delivered because the company went out of business -- despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.

But if I were a liberal, I wouldn't acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded "green" projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon. 

Ann Coulter - October 26, 2011 - IF I WERE A LIBERAL ...


----------



## SAT2

Oh, you can't be serious.


----------



## Dragon

Perfect example of what I mean. Pointless, incendiary garbage designed to make people yell and stomp and stop thinking altogether.

If Coulter's new book is worth even cracking open, it will only be because it does a 180-degree turn away from that sort of crap. Does it?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dragon said:


> Perfect example of what I mean. Pointless, incendiary garbage designed to make people yell and stomp and stop thinking altogether.



makes we wonder about the investment in those two paid for but undeliverable green buses they "invested" taxdollars in

coulter aside got any thoughts on that ?


----------



## OODA_Loop

30 billion fund and only 5 million to law enforcement ?

the vice president gave testimpny murders and rapes will go up ?

got anything on that ?


----------



## Dragon

I've got a "pointless diversion" response for all that. To the extent it's true, it's trivial and means nothing.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dragon said:


> I've got a "pointless diversion" response for all that. To the extent it's true, it's trivial and means nothing.



why yes of course


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
Click to expand...


The emergency room isn't health care?  So what the hell is it, a pinochle tournament?  Sure looked medical to ME the last time I visited.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is turned away for lack of benefits.......Unless you went to the hospital where Michelle Obama was affiliated, after she helped devise her infamous patient dumping scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ER is not health care. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The emergency room isn't health care?  So what the hell is it, a pinochle tournament?  Sure looked medical to ME the last time I visited.
Click to expand...


You consider the Emergency Room to be a health care program? I bet they hate to see you coming. "Hi, I'm Cecilie, and I'd like my flu shot, my annual exam, tell me if I'm having allergies or if I've got a sinus infection, please refill these prescriptions, check this lump I found last Tuesday, I'm afraid it might be malignant, and don't you dare make me wait while you deal with those people with head trauma, heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and gaping, bleeding wounds before you see me."


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The ER is not health care*. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The emergency room isn't health care?  So what the hell is it, a pinochle tournament?  Sure looked medical to ME the last time I visited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider the Emergency Room to be a health care program? I bet they hate to see you coming. "Hi, I'm Cecilie, and I'd like my flu shot, my annual exam, tell me if I'm having allergies or if I've got a sinus infection, please refill these prescriptions, check this lump I found last Tuesday, I'm afraid it might be malignant, and don't you dare make me wait while you deal with those people with head trauma, heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and gaping, bleeding wounds before you see me."
Click to expand...


You didn't say "health care _program_", moron.  You said, "The ER is not health care" (See the bolded part of your own quote), and it sure the hell is.  I suggest that you pick the frigging topic you want to discuss and stick to it, because your little attempt to move the goalposts is as good as a surrender.

Thanks for playing.  Buh bye.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The emergency room isn't health care?  So what the hell is it, a pinochle tournament?  Sure looked medical to ME the last time I visited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the Emergency Room to be a health care program? I bet they hate to see you coming. "Hi, I'm Cecilie, and I'd like my flu shot, my annual exam, tell me if I'm having allergies or if I've got a sinus infection, please refill these prescriptions, check this lump I found last Tuesday, I'm afraid it might be malignant, and don't you dare make me wait while you deal with those people with head trauma, heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and gaping, bleeding wounds before you see me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't say "health care _program_", moron.  You said, "The ER is not health care" (See the bolded part of your own quote), and it sure the hell is.  I suggest that you pick the frigging topic you want to discuss and stick to it, because your little attempt to move the goalposts is as good as a surrender.
> 
> Thanks for playing.  Buh bye.
Click to expand...


I expected you to have enough sense to comprehend my meaning. Clearly you did have at least that much sense, as your response was a lame joke, already made by another poster. As usual, you're built too low for this discussion. Fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the Emergency Room to be a health care program? I bet they hate to see you coming. "Hi, I'm Cecilie, and I'd like my flu shot, my annual exam, tell me if I'm having allergies or if I've got a sinus infection, please refill these prescriptions, check this lump I found last Tuesday, I'm afraid it might be malignant, and don't you dare make me wait while you deal with those people with head trauma, heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and gaping, bleeding wounds before you see me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say "health care _program_", moron.  You said, "The ER is not health care" (See the bolded part of your own quote), and it sure the hell is.  I suggest that you pick the frigging topic you want to discuss and stick to it, because your little attempt to move the goalposts is as good as a surrender.
> 
> Thanks for playing.  Buh bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expected you to have enough sense to comprehend my meaning. Clearly you did have at least that much sense, as your response was a lame joke, already made by another poster. As usual, you're built too low for this discussion. Fail.
Click to expand...


You're done here, shitbrick.  Run along.


----------



## Political Junky

It's interesting to see the conservatives defend Marie Antoinette. Everyone on this board would have been somewhere among the "lower classes" during that reign.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> It's interesting to see the conservatives defend Marie Antoinette. Everyone on this board would have been somewhere among the "lower classes" during that reign.



Defending Marie Antoinette from what?  She didn't do anything that needed defending, moron (not that anyone's mentioned her so far except you, that I've noticed).  And what is it with you leftists and situational morality?  Why are you so incapable of recognizing right and wrong irregardless of which one you personally profit from?


----------



## editec

PoliticalChic said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
Click to expand...

 
You have been somewhat misinformed




> Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which *between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[2]* After the fall of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespierre, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.


----------



## SAT2

Political Junky said:


> It's interesting to see the conservatives defend Marie Antoinette. Everyone on this board would have been somewhere among the "lower classes" during that reign.



Conservatism means protecting established power and social order-defending Marie Antoinette is right up their alley. [CC is right to an extend, Marie's primary fault was being clueless, and as she'd been raised to be clueless, she certainly didn't deserve her fate.] To get the respect of the "higher classes", you typically have to be a good toady.


----------



## Katzndogz

How did the revolution work out for the revolutionaries?

They were killed, with the same guilliontines used on the people they killed last time.


----------



## SAT2

Katzndogz said:


> How did the revolution work out for the revolutionaries?
> 
> They were killed, with the same guilliontines used on the people they killed last time.



Yes, many of them did.


----------



## Katzndogz

It seems clear from the Occupy Black Friday fiasco that OWS does not have the stomach for a real revolution.  They are afraid to face Wal Mart shoppers.  The physical occupation has been abandoned into an unsuccessful simple boycott.

I can't say I blame them.  It is well known that those who join OWS have a special sensitivity to pepper spray and couldn't tolerate shoppers spraying one another to get that sale.  Especially since there aren't any cops around to emote for.  They aren't going to get into the cross fire of rival shoppers either.

With this kind of real fear, the revolution is an epic fail.  They can't control the people like they want to.  They can only do it UNDER police protection.


----------



## chanel

Hmmmm.

*Speech by George Katsiaficas prepared for OWS on November 17, 2011*


> Here in the church they call Wall Street, money is worshipped as bankers drink the earths blood and feast on her flesh
> 
> War machines of epic proportions are financedand sent out to kill, maim, and destroy millions of people from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq.
> 
> Every day the bankers gather, human lives are bought and sold in the name of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and futures.
> 
> They steal out children and grandchildrens futures as they profit from their clever machinations.
> 
> 22 years ago on Earth Day, hundreds of us tried to shut down Wall Street. We were met with overwhelming police force and compelled to withdraw. The next year, we tried again, but once more, our numbers were too small.
> 
> By acting today, we enrich and enlarge this growing global insurgency against the system. Each time we act we build for the next phase.
> 
> What we are doing today is not the end, but neither is it the beginning.
> 
> We will be free!



George Katsiaficas November 17th at Occupy Wall Street | Occupy Philly Media


----------



## Katzndogz

There can be no revolution if the revolutionaries have to depend on the police to protect them from the people.  They can SAY whatever they like, but are too afraid of angering the people to take much more action than shitting in the street.

Did you see OWS take over Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade?  Did you see them Occupy Black Friday?    Clearly those who claim to be the 99% are shit scared of the 99%.


----------



## PoliticalChic

editec said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been somewhat misinformed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which *between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[2]* After the fall of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespierre, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


1. Rather than my being misinformed, your are more than a bit restricted in your view of the timeline.
But in the spirit of the holiday, I will be happy to educate you...and the little camp follower who 'thanked' you.

a. If one were to announce the length of a staircase mounted with ones eyes shut, the answer would depend on the point at which one stopped climbing.

The same is true of the deaths associated with the French Revolution.

b. One can hardly count only the massacre at the Bastille...or only the 'Terror'...or omit the fact of the wars that resulted from the other European monarchies attempting to put the cork back in the bottle.
Napoleon's wars alone would add some 3.5- 6.5 million deaths.
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000."
 Read more: What is the death toll of the French revolution

You do understand that the provenance of Napoleon was the French Revolution, don't you?

2. "Although historians are agreed that the French Revolution started in 1789 they are *divided on the end date.* A few histories stop in 1795 with the creation of the Directory, some stop in 1799 with the creation of the Consulate, while many more stop in 1802 when Napoleon Bonaparte became Consul for Life or 1804 when he became Emperor.   
 "http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/p/ovfrenchrev.htm

3. If one were to calculate from the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the *Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794, the death toll would be between 16,000 and 40,000 people killed. *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Ces chiffres sont le fruit du travail de Donald Greer, The Incidence of the Terror during the French Revolution: A Statistical Interpretation, Cambridge (USA), Harvard University Press, 1935. 
and Ils sont repris dans J. Tulard, J.-F. Fayard, A. Fierro, Histoire et dictionnaire de la Révolution française, 1789&#8211;1799, 1987, p.1114 et dans A. Soboul, Dictionnaire historique &#8230;, 2005, p.1023 ; personnes ont été exécutées pour l&#8217;ouvrage collectif, Oublier nos crimes, 1994, p.94

The explosion, the start of the revolution, was followed by the punishment of enemies, followed by an attempt to impose a strong leader to stop the slaughter...which itself resulted in slaughter....and the reation to and with the surrounding nations.

4. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

5. "That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equalivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.


And so you can see, my history dilettante, rather than my "having been somewhat misinformed,"...you have benefited from a history lesson this fine Thanksgivng morn.


I suspect, though, that your little hanger-on is beyond educable.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Political Junky said:


> It's interesting to see the conservatives defend Marie Antoinette. Everyone on this board would have been somewhere among the "lower classes" during that reign.



There is the axiom 'One can only judge others by oneself.'

I see the truth of that axiom in your post.


----------



## SAT2

editec said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did that French revolution work out for the fat cats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been somewhat misinformed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which *between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[2]* After the fall of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespierre, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your post suggested that you meant the Reign of Terror. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that abattoir referred to that time period, and to the guillotine. 

The staircase _always_ ends at the landing...not at the [recently altered] point that PC demands.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the left is to achieve their glorious recreation of the French revolution they are going to have to get a group less pussy than OWS.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Katzndogz said:


> If the left is to achieve their glorious recreation of the French revolution they are going to have to get a group less pussy than OWS.


They might want to think about sobering up, also.

Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.


----------



## taichiliberal

PoliticalChic said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..."
> 
> What crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a primer for you:
> 
> » Matt Taibbi On The SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.
> 
> That would be you.
> Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
> Not here.
> 
> 2.You claimed "*The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..*."
> My request: *'What crimes*?'
> 
> 3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
> While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term '*liberal'* in your avi.
> 
> 4.*The vid you provided *was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has *nothing to do with the OWS rabble*...
> ...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks,
> ...or you have, to put it kindly, *fibbed*.
> 
> 5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.
> 
> 6. While you have *no place posting with adults,* I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> 
> As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.
Click to expand...



Like all willfully ignorant neocon toadies with delusions of intelligence, Politicalchic IGNORES the parts of the video I linked to focus in on one aspect...to which she falsely portrays as the ENTIRE  focus of the video, which it was not.

Politicalchic asked "what crimes" did Wall St. commit in leading the nation to our current fiscal fiasco....the video interview points to how banking and investment institutions DID NOT follow SEC rules, but knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the falsifying of various investments.  Bernie Madoff is but one example, as the interviewee points to Deutsche Bank and others as participants, and how the SEC hierarchy was criminally lax in it's duties despite warnings given by various individuals.  All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that I am telling the truth.

Indeed, for those wholly (or willfully) ignorant of the Wall St. shennanigans, this video is indeed just a primer for those truly interested in furthering their research on the matter.  Politicalchic, however, is intellectually dishonest and therefore incapable of such honest reseach.  Instead, she lies about the true content of the video, and then proceeds in a childish diatribe to lie about what I posted and my character.

In short, we're dealing with a Political-hack of the female persuasion....and a hack of the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Crowley, Beck, Drudge character judging by her tactic here.  It's not about the FACTS, but about replacing them with supposition and conjecture and thus trying to change the narrative.

I answered the Political Chic's question.....if she makes a further fool of herself, I may do a little more of her homework for her to set her on the right track...as this stupidity of comparing the Occupy Wall St. event to the French Revolution is indeed that...stupidity.


----------



## taichiliberal

Katzndogz said:


> What OWS knows about the French Revolution comes out of Les Miserables.  They have a hazy mythic understanding of being able to do whatever they want and no one could fight back because they didn't get that after the Song of Angry Men.    Plainly speaking, the current crop of revolutionaries can't take a punch.  They cry, they whine about how their rights are violated while they go around violating the rights of others.    So far, they have been tolerated, avoided and ignored.  That won't go on forever.



And since the US does NOT have an aristocracy the rules the country....much less a partial theocracy....this whole comparison to the French Revolution is just another neocon numbskull's attempt to lay claim of definition to actions that they don't like.  But since to date there has been NOTHING similar to the French Revolution in the statements from the protestors as to what they are actually pointing out is wrong in the country, to further push this "french revolution" silliness is just that...silly.

Mind you, the nano-second that these protest become cohesive behind an actual political agenda towards legislation...the faux demonization by the right wingnut media will go into overdrive!


----------



## taichiliberal

SAT2 said:


> Why? It's just another part of a pattern of nasty eliminationist rhetoric from Coulter. She likes to talk about killing people who don't agree with her ideology.



Neocons, teabaggers and libertarian hacks are essentially intellectually dishonest and cowardly...the nano-second their punditry leaders spew venom that reeks of facism and/or nazism, they bend over backwards to justify or "excuse" that piece of the rhetoric as if nothing else in diatribes like the ones Coulter gives are entwined.  It's only when they feel they have power on their side do they wholly embrace such vile swill.


----------



## taichiliberal

Katzndogz said:


> So do liberals!  That's why they love the French Revolution so much.  They just can't believe someone would fight back!
> 
> Coulter is right, once again.



Coulter is a bigoted harpy who found it more lucrative to spew hate and have dopes like you pay her bills via purchasing her trash and advocating support to her advertisers....than say, working in the field of law (by which she was canned by her former employers).

Again, since the OW has NOT stated or used the French Revolution as it's format, all this BS is just another neocon fabrication trying to pass itself off as reality....unless of course jokers like you are actually trying to advocate replacing our gov't with an aristocracy or theocracy?


----------



## The Gadfly

SAT said:


> Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread.
> 
> The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. _It's an object lesson._
> 
> You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that _people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started._
> 
> The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.



Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me; "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!" That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!


----------



## chanel

Tyranny?  OMG.  How many poor immigrants would give their right arm to suffer such tyranny here in the U.S.? Puhleez.


----------



## PoliticalChic

taichiliberal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a primer for you:
> 
> » Matt Taibbi On The SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.
> 
> That would be you.
> Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
> Not here.
> 
> 2.You claimed "*The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..*."
> My request: *'What crimes*?'
> 
> 3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
> While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term '*liberal'* in your avi.
> 
> 4.*The vid you provided *was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has *nothing to do with the OWS rabble*...
> ...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks,
> ...or you have, to put it kindly, *fibbed*.
> 
> 5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.
> 
> 6. While you have *no place posting with adults,* I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> 
> As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like all willfully ignorant neocon toadies with delusions of intelligence, Politicalchic IGNORES the parts of the video I linked to focus in on one aspect...to which she falsely portrays as the ENTIRE  focus of the video, which it was not.
> 
> Politicalchic asked "what crimes" did Wall St. commit in leading the nation to our current fiscal fiasco....the video interview points to how banking and investment institutions DID NOT follow SEC rules, but knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the falsifying of various investments.  Bernie Madoff is but one example, as the interviewee points to Deutsche Bank and others as participants, and how the SEC hierarchy was criminally lax in it's duties despite warnings given by various individuals.  All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that I am telling the truth.
> 
> Indeed, for those wholly (or willfully) ignorant of the Wall St. shennanigans, this video is indeed just a primer for those truly interested in furthering their research on the matter.  Politicalchic, however, is intellectually dishonest and therefore incapable of such honest reseach.  Instead, she lies about the true content of the video, and then proceeds in a childish diatribe to lie about what I posted and my character.
> 
> In short, we're dealing with a Political-hack of the female persuasion....and a hack of the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Crowley, Beck, Drudge character judging by her tactic here.  It's not about the FACTS, but about replacing them with supposition and conjecture and thus trying to change the narrative.
> 
> I answered the Political Chic's question.....if she makes a further fool of herself, I may do a little more of her homework for her to set her on the right track...as this stupidity of comparing the Occupy Wall St. event to the French Revolution is indeed that...stupidity.
Click to expand...


Im not a proctologist, but I recognize you


----------



## SAT2

The Gadfly said:


> Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me;* "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!"* That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!



Except no one with OWS has said anything like that. Or intended to say anything like that. Or described themselves as a revolutionary army. Or challenged you to a physical fight of any kind.


----------



## chanel

Really?  "No one?"  Who speaks for the group?  I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group.  Are they not "with them"?


----------



## SAT2

Wicked Jester said:


> Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.



That would be a completely different kind of revolution. 



chanel said:


> Really?  "No one?"  Who speaks for the group?  I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group.  Are they not "with them"?



Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?


----------



## chanel

Frances Fox Piven:



> An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees. [Emphasis added]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJZdWTiaJM&feature=player_embedded]Action video of Greece riots as fire bombs, stones fly in Athens - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOJn2LUPy4&feature=player_embedded]Raw Video: Students Attack Prince Charles' Car - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## chanel

He likes what is happening in Greece as well.

Speech by George Katsiaficas prepared for OWS on November 17, 2011



> Historical antecedents to our actions can be found not only in our attempts 22 years to shut down Wall Street on Earth Day. Inspiration for the current global upsurgefrom the Arab Spring to the Occupy movementcan be found in waves of movements in 1968, when a global series of uprisings resonated in relation to each other, a phenomenon I call the eros effect.
> 
> Instances of the spread of movements across borders, involving a process of mutual amplification and synergy, such as the present moment, are significant precursors for future mobilizations.  We may not win a final victory today but step y step we prepare for that day!
> 
> In the period after 1968, as the global movements capacity for decentralized international coordination developed, other episodes of the international eros effect can be discerned:
> 
> 1. The disarmament movement of the early 1980s
> 2. The wave of East Asian uprisings from Gwangju to Manila to Beijing
> 3. The revolts against Soviet regimes in East Europe
> 4. The alterglobalization wave leading up to Seattle in 1999 and anti-war mobilizations on February 15, 2003
> 5. The Arab Spring of 2011
> 
> By acting today, we enrich and enlarge this *growing global insurgency against the system*. Each time we act we build for the next phase.



George Katsiaficas November 17th at Occupy Wall Street | Occupy Philly Media


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see the conservatives defend Marie Antoinette. Everyone on this board would have been somewhere among the "lower classes" during that reign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism means protecting established power and social order-defending Marie Antoinette is right up their alley. [CC is right to an extend, Marie's primary fault was being clueless, and as she'd been raised to be clueless, she certainly didn't deserve her fate.] To get the respect of the "higher classes", you typically have to be a good toady.
Click to expand...


She wasn't "clueless", either.  Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment.  That's it, that's all.

And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much.  It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> If the left is to achieve their glorious recreation of the French revolution they are going to have to get a group less pussy than OWS.



Yeah, at least in France, the Great Unwashed had the balls to hack up a few bodies and dance around with the parts on pikes.  Here, they just stand around and stink.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me;* "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!"* That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one with OWS has said anything like that. Or intended to say anything like that. Or described themselves as a revolutionary army. Or challenged you to a physical fight of any kind.
Click to expand...


Cops this evening arrested an Occupy Wall Street protester for allegedly threatening to throw Molotov cocktails at Macys tomorrow during the groups city-wide demonstration.

On the 17th, we going to burn New York City to the f-cking ground, Nkrumah Tinsley, 29, shouted Tuesday amongst a crowd of his fellow demonstrators, cops said.

In a few days theyre going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macys, Tinsley also allegedly vowed, according to a video posted on YouTube.

They got guns! We got bottles!

Tinsley was arrested around 5 p.m. at Zuccotti Park.

Read more: OWS protester busted for allegedly threatening to hurl Molotov cocktails at Macy's - NYPOST.com


----------



## chanel

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-TQYG1m0Y4&feature=related]Occupy Wall Street - Bringing Anti-Semites Together - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

SAT2 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fat cats?
> 
> 600,000 were slaughtered in the abattoir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been somewhat misinformed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which *between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.[2]* After the fall of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespierre, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post suggested that you meant the Reign of Terror. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that abattoir referred to that time period, and to the guillotine.
> 
> The staircase _always_ ends at the landing...not at the [recently altered] point that PC demands.
Click to expand...


It wasn't necessary for you to prove that you weren't educable...but I appreciate it just he same.


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAT2 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a completely different kind of revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  "No one?"  Who speaks for the group?  I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group.  Are they not "with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?
Click to expand...

Yeah, over 90% of those slobs who were polled said they are planning on, or will, engage in civil disobedience.....That equals destruction and violence......And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.

Over 30% of those slobs said they are planning on, or will engage in abject violence.....And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.

Do you live permanently with your typically ignorant liberal head buried firmly up your boney ass?


----------



## Political Junky

Wicked Jester said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a completely different kind of revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  "No one?"  Who speaks for the group?  I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group.  Are they not "with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah,. *over 90% of those slobs who were polled said they are planning on, or will, engage in civil disobedience....That equals destruction and violence......And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.*
> 
> Over 30% of those slobs said they are planning on, or will engage in abject violence.....And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.
> 
> Do you live permanently with your typically ignorant liberal head buried firmly up your boney ass?
Click to expand...

civil disobedience&#8194;
noun
1.
the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such *nonviolent techniques* as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Compare noncooperation ( def. 2 ) ,* passive resistance.*
2.
( initial capital letters, italics ) an essay (1848) by Thoreau.
Origin: 
1865&#8211;70


----------



## Wicked Jester

Political Junky said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a completely different kind of revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,. *over 90% of those slobs who were polled said they are planning on, or will, engage in civil disobedience....That equals destruction and violence......And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.*
> 
> Over 30% of those slobs said they are planning on, or will engage in abject violence.....And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.
> 
> Do you live permanently with your typically ignorant liberal head buried firmly up your boney ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> civil disobedience&#8194;
> noun
> 1.
> the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such *nonviolent techniques* as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Compare noncooperation ( def. 2 ) ,* passive resistance.*
> 2.
> ( initial capital letters, italics ) an essay (1848) by Thoreau.
> Origin:
> 186570
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience as defined by the left, and the evidence is fully proven through the years, equates to destruction and violence, whether they start out peaceful or not....It always desolves into destruction and violence, as we've seen come from those slobs.

And funny how you completetly ignore the 1/3 of those slobs who are planning on, or will engage in violence, as we've seen come from those slobs.

I know, the truth hurts you supporters of those slobs.


----------



## The Gadfly

SAT2 said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me;* "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!"* That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one with OWS has said anything like that. Or intended to say anything like that. Or described themselves as a revolutionary army. Or challenged you to a physical fight of any kind.
Click to expand...

As the quote form Sallow shows, it has certainly been stated by their supporters here, usually by oblique reference (as in Sallow's case); sometimes directly, as by Prieus, (before he got banned). Dragon is another OWS supporter here who has made several references to both the French and Russian revolutions as being the "inevitable" result, when the "aristocracy" fails to give in to the demands of the likes of OWS. You can twist and turn and wriggle, and play semantic games all you want, but the ultimate aim of this movement and many of those who support it, is nothing less than revolution-by threat and intimidation if possible, by force if necessary. It's not going to work. When the threats and intimidation fail (and they will), there is ultimately NOTHING to back it up.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> She wasn't "clueless", either.  Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment.  That's it, that's all.
> 
> And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much.  It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.



She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cops this evening arrested an Occupy Wall Street protester for allegedly threatening to throw Molotov cocktails at Macys tomorrow during the groups city-wide demonstration.
> 
> On the 17th, we going to burn New York City to the f-cking ground, Nkrumah Tinsley, 29, shouted Tuesday amongst a crowd of his fellow demonstrators, cops said.
> 
> In a few days theyre going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macys, Tinsley also allegedly vowed, according to a video posted on YouTube.
> 
> They got guns! We got bottles!
> 
> Tinsley was arrested around 5 p.m. at Zuccotti Park.
> 
> Read more: OWS protester busted for allegedly threatening to hurl Molotov cocktails at Macy's - NYPOST.com



You're right-there have been some incidents, but they don't define the movement. Look at the number of protestors, and the number of such incidents. 



PoliticalChic said:


> It wasn't necessary for you to prove that you weren't educable...but I appreciate it just he same.



It is true, _you_ are incapable of educating _me_. 



The Gadfly said:


> As the quote form Sallow shows, it has certainly been stated by their supporters here, usually by oblique reference (as in Sallow's case); sometimes directly, as by Prieus, (before he got banned). Dragon is another OWS supporter here who has made several references to both the French and Russian revolutions as being the "inevitable" result, when the "aristocracy" fails to give in to the demands of the likes of OWS. You can twist and turn and wriggle, and play semantic games all you want, but the ultimate aim of this movement and many of those who support it, is nothing less than revolution-by threat and intimidation if possible, by force if necessary. It's not going to work. When the threats and intimidation fail (and they will), there is ultimately NOTHING to back it up.



Yes, an uprising is an inevitable eventual result of oppression. 

What is your beef with someone stating such an obvious truth?


----------



## Dragon

When the government does not represent the people (which is the core problem here), there is a sequence of steps that can be undertaken to remedy the problem. Revolution is only the last and most extreme step. It will not happen if any of the other steps along the way works.

First, the movement may try to bring about reform through the standard political process. That's what this movement did in 2006 and 2008: it worked successfully to elect Democrats instead of Republicans, on the theory that the Republican Party was the problem and that the Democratic Party was not also corrupt. Although this effort met with electoral success, it did not solve the problem of a government not representing the people because the theory was flawed; the Democrats are part of the problem -- they are not the solution.

Second, the movement may resort to direct action of various kinds short of revolution: protests, strikes, petitioning the government, etc. That's where we're at now. The idea is to provoke government action that just voting cannot bring about. In specific, the idea is to push the Democrats to a more populist stance and persuade them to break their big-business ties.

Third, in the United States at least the movement may attempt to make use of the Constitutional provision that allows amendment of the document through a constitutional convention called by the states. The beginning of that effort is already under way, but it will take several years to bear fruit.

Fourth, if all else fails and the government remains in thrall to corporations, revolution is an option.

This is not the first time in our nation's history that something like this has occurred. In the past, the government has always implemented reforms rather than be overthrown. Based on that precedent, we have reason to believe that the same will occur this time around and we will not have an actual revolution. The one major factor that is different this time is the presence of the Internet and social media. It's conceivable that this will accelerate things to the point where the government cannot get its act together and implement reform before the sequence of events reaches stage four. But that's not proven. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## Katzndogz

There won't be a revolution unless conservatives get tired of the government's drift left.  There might be  civil war since the people are more divided than the government!  The left likes to think it enjoys the support of the majority but it doesn't.  This is the fatal mistake of the left.  They will not be permitted to impose marxist ideals on the majority.

Then there is the underlying cowardice of the "revolutionaries".  They can make of themselves victims, manufactured to whine and complain about police brutality.  Mere children paddled by adults.  In reality they lacked the courage to face down soccer moms intent on a Wal Mart bargain.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> There won't be a revolution unless conservatives get tired of the government's drift left.



Going by issue polls, conservatives constitute no more than 30% of the electorate, and that's using a loose definition; Tea Party "conservatives" constitute no more than 20%.

Again going by issue polls, something like 80% of the people believe in getting the money out of politics and restoring democracy. That's a potential revolution if no reform comes along.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Dragon said:


> When the government does not represent the people (which is the core problem here), there is a sequence of steps that can be undertaken to remedy the problem. Revolution is only the last and most extreme step. It will not happen if any of the other steps along the way works.
> 
> First, the movement may try to bring about reform through the standard political process. That's what this movement did in 2006 and 2008: it worked successfully to elect Democrats instead of Republicans, on the theory that the Republican Party was the problem and that the Democratic Party was not also corrupt. Although this effort met with electoral success, it did not solve the problem of a government not representing the people because the theory was flawed; the Democrats are part of the problem -- they are not the solution.
> 
> Second, the movement may resort to direct action of various kinds short of revolution: protests, strikes, petitioning the government, etc. That's where we're at now. The idea is to provoke government action that just voting cannot bring about. In specific, the idea is to push the Democrats to a more populist stance and persuade them to break their big-business ties.
> 
> Third, in the United States at least the movement may attempt to make use of the Constitutional provision that allows amendment of the document through a constitutional convention called by the states. The beginning of that effort is already under way, but it will take several years to bear fruit.
> 
> Fourth, if all else fails and the government remains in thrall to corporations, revolution is an option.
> 
> This is not the first time in our nation's history that something like this has occurred. In the past, the government has always implemented reforms rather than be overthrown. Based on that precedent, we have reason to believe that the same will occur this time around and we will not have an actual revolution. The one major factor that is different this time is the presence of the Internet and social media. It's conceivable that this will accelerate things to the point where the government cannot get its act together and implement reform before the sequence of events reaches stage four. But that's not proven. We will have to wait and see.


Nothing is occuring......Nodbody cares about those slovenly, dirty lil' bastards, hence, once they started with their rudeness, destruction, stepping on the rights of their felow citizens, and abject violence, their support has dropped like a rock.

What those slobs are, is a collection of whiney lil' bastards who were dumb enough to get liberal arts type degrees that will never pay anything......It's their own stupidity that got them where they are in life.....Stupid lil' fucks should have thought twice before going through with getting those crap degrees. They should have known that they would have to pay back those student loans that those slobs WILLINGLY took out. Nobody twisted their weak lil' arms.

Funny how each and every one of those unbathed lil' sissies is cackling about paying ANYTHING that is their personal responsibility.....They want their healthcare paid for, They want their further education paid for. They think they automatically deserve a living wage. That employers should be forced to pay them what they are nowhere near worth.

Basically, they are a bunch of damn cowards who have no clue as to what personal responsibility is all about.....They come from the liberal mantra of, "every child gets a trophy, gimme gimme gimme". Where losers are coddled and the successful are demonized.

Fact of the matter is, those slovenly losers are responsible for your their own damn lives....Nobody owes them a god damn thing.....Not the government, not the taxpayers, not the successful, NOBODY!

If those whiney lil' slobs want to piss and moan about their own miserable lot in life, they need to go piss and moan to the shitbags who raised them to be such whiney, sniveling lil' slobs in the first plce.


----------



## SAT2

They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.

Why don't you?


----------



## Dragon

Wicked Jester said:


> Nothing is occuring....



LOL


----------



## Wicked Jester

SAT2 said:


> They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.
> 
> Why don't you?


Bullshit!

It's nothing but a front to give the facade of a legitimate "movement".....Well, they've already let the cat out of the bag as to what those slovenly lil' pigs are really after...Christ, the majority of those whiney slobs have no clue as to what Wall Street is all about, or how it works.

It is far and away one of the dumbest collection of liberal slobs ever assembled, ANYWHERE....All you have to do is listen when any of those slovenly losers are questioned.

Funniest thing coming from those lil' liberal pigs, is that they CLAIM to be for the 99%, all while their ridiculous "movement" is causing those who actually pay their taxes, to fork out big bucks to clean up after, and police the slovenly lil' morons....AP reports it's up to 20million dollars nationwide, and climbing....Many of those 99% actually pay taxes, so, the hypocrisy of those lil' slob losers is laughable.


----------



## Dragon

Someone, it would seem, thinks that a mouth-frothing rant fueled by personal invective and bile is a good substitute for logic. Fits right into this board, I must say.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She wasn't "clueless", either.  Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment.  That's it, that's all.
> 
> And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much.  It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.
Click to expand...


No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.

The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob.  Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not.  By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.


----------



## Political Junky

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She wasn't "clueless", either.  Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment.  That's it, that's all.
> 
> And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much.  It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.
> 
> The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob.  Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not.  By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.
Click to expand...

You express the views of many conservatives, thanks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.
> 
> The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob.  Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not.  By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You express the views of many conservatives, thanks.
Click to expand...


If you have nothing to say, you don't have to waste space letting us know.  We guessed that, anyway.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.


----------



## SAT2

Wicked Jester said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> It's nothing but a front to give the facade of a legitimate "movement".....Well, they've already let the cat out of the bag as to what those slovenly lil' pigs are really after...Christ, the majority of those whiney slobs have no clue as to what Wall Street is all about, or how it works.
> 
> It is far and away one of the dumbest collection of liberal slobs ever assembled, ANYWHERE....All you have to do is listen when any of those slovenly losers are questioned.
> 
> Funniest thing coming from those lil' liberal pigs, is that they CLAIM to be for the 99%, all while their ridiculous "movement" is causing those who actually pay their taxes, to fork out big bucks to clean up after, and police the slovenly lil' morons....AP reports it's up to 20million dollars nationwide, and climbing....Many of those 99% actually pay taxes, so, the hypocrisy of those lil' slob losers is laughable.
Click to expand...


No, it's the essence of the movement. This is why they occupied Wall Street, and not some other street. Like the Tea Party, you can find some folks who can and others who cannot articulate the goals of the movement well to someone with a microphone. 

Your comment about "many of those 99% pay taxes" is not clear....of course many of them pay taxes...what are you talking about? 

20 million is not jack shit compared to what Wall Street did. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, *especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part*.



Like you just did? 

I'm not going by urban legend. I'm going by history. 



> The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob.  Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not.  By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.



I'm not idolizing anyone. She and her husband were not well-equipped to be in leadership roles. Yes, while imprisoned, she comported herself with great dignity, and as I said before [and you ignored because if you acknowledged it, you'd have no reason to go on one of your crazy rants], she did not deserve what happened to her. But she was still clueless.


----------



## kowalskil

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
> Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
> "*Liberté, égalité, fraternité*." ...



It reminds me Russia in 1917. Leaders of revolution also promised a lot of "liberté, égalité, fraternité." But among themselves they were discussing "proletarian dictatorship." That is what they imposed on the country, after the revolution. Yes, I am thinking about Bolsheviks, such as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.
.


----------



## Dragon

R.C. Christian said:


> I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.



The head-cutting occurred AFTER the revolution. A revolution does not have to be violent. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that support is withdrawn, the government falls.

See: Philippines, 1986; Soviet Union, 1991; Egypt, 2011.


----------



## Katzndogz

That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.   Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.



LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.

I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .

Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.


----------



## Katzndogz

At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft.  It will not be successful.  I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.  

The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth.  It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for.   They could follow the many who have already left.  The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.  

The real assets of the nation isn't dollars, it's the craft and innovation of the people.  The rich are those with the ability.  OWS creates nothing except mountains of garbage.  When those with the ability leave, and take their ideas and abilities to more welcoming shores, this country is finished.  Really finished.  Leave it to the disease ridden until it becomes feasible to just crush them.  

I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely.  Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate.   We should welcome such a revolution as a necessary step to ending government thievery.   Ultimately what OWS says is "Vote on how much you will give us for nothing."   They fully believe the majority supports their indolence.  That's the mistake.


----------



## Dragon

Katzndogz said:


> At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft.  It will not be successful.



Here are some predecessors that you would also consider "movements of theft," in that they were sounding similar themes. All of them were, to one degree or another, successful.

*The abolitionist movement* wanted to take property from rich land-owners and give it to, well, to those currently enslaved.

*The labor movement* wanted to increase wages at the expense of corporate profits and the accumulated fortunes of the rich.

*The rural populist movement of the late 19th/early 20th century* wanted to redistribute wealth from bankers to mortgagees via the monetary system and other measures.

All of these movements were successful. There is no reason to expect Occupy will fail, merely because it is something you would call a "movement of theft." The fact is that at this time, most Americans would call redistributing wealth from the very rich to the rest of us _restitution_ for theft.



> I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely.  Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate.



Who said anything about "democracy"? Whether Obama wins or loses, that is NOT what will be on display. What we have is a situation in which the government is a puppet whose strings are held by Wall Street. Neither Obama winning a second term, nor his replacement with a Republican, will change that by itself. Democracy is EXACTLY what Occupy is after.

Also, I said nothing about VIOLENT revolution. If a revolution occurs, it will occur with minimal violence. That seems to be the norm these days.

However, if Obama does win, he will pursue less extreme measures and be more open to reform than his opponent will be, most likely. That will reduce the chance of revolution. But in the end, whether Obama wins or loses, the only thing that will prevent revolution is if reform is actually enacted, not merely promised in rhetoric.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragon said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The head-cutting occurred AFTER the revolution. A revolution does not have to be violent. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that support is withdrawn, the government falls.
> 
> See: Philippines, 1986; Soviet Union, 1991; Egypt, 2011.
Click to expand...


Don't even try that shit here, you historical pinhead.  The French Revolution ran for ten years, from 1789-1799, and the Reign of Terror ran from 1793-1794, during which 18,000 people were guillotined (and that's leaving aside all the OTHER brutality that happened during the Revolution).  Do not even TRY pretending that the Revolution was some brief, shining, pure moment, and then all the butchery happened as some unrelated after-point.  No one's buying.

French Revolution - New World Encyclopedia

A revolution doesn't have to be violent, but the type of bullshit, mob-riot revolution the French had always is.  And if that's your model now, then you're every bit the brutal savage that they were, and history will remember you just the way it remembers them, no matter how many ignoramuses try to rewrite it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.
> 
> I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .
> 
> Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is NOT the government.  It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).


----------



## SAT2

Katzndogz said:


> That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.   Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.



What are you talking about? 



Katzndogz said:


> At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft.  It will not be successful.  I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.
> 
> The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth.  It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for.   They could follow the many who have already left.  The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.



So we have to be really nice to them, so they don't leave us! The rich are a lot like Tinkerbell, aren't they?  



> The real assets of the nation isn't dollars, it's the craft and innovation of the people.  The rich are those with the ability.  OWS creates nothing except mountains of garbage.  When those with the ability leave, and take their ideas and abilities to more welcoming shores, this country is finished.  Really finished.  Leave it to the disease ridden until it becomes feasible to just crush them.



Actually, many of the rich, if not most, are those who chose their parents well. 



> I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely.  Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate.   We should welcome such a revolution as a necessary step to ending government thievery.   Ultimately what OWS says is "Vote on how much you will give us for nothing."   They fully believe the majority supports their indolence.  That's the mistake.



Democracy is what OWS is about. That's why the GOP is attacking them.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.
> 
> I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .
> 
> Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is NOT the government.  It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government.  Revolution by other means.   Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft.  It will not be successful.  I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.
> 
> The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth.  It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for.   They could follow the many who have already left.  The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have to be really nice to them, so they don't leave us! The rich are a lot like Tinkerbell, aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, many of the rich, if not most, are those who chose their parents well.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is what OWS is about. That's why the GOP is attacking them.
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.
> 
> I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .
> 
> Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is NOT the government.  It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's called a "dictionary", dumbass.  Buy one.


----------



## SAT2

You misunderstood my point. 

Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so". 

You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> You misunderstood my point.
> 
> Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
> 
> You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.



Considering that I said nothing about Obama whatsoever, I'd say YOU are the one with the delusion issues.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood my point.
> 
> Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
> 
> You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that I said nothing about Obama whatsoever, I'd say YOU are the one with the delusion issues.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you meant some other head of state.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood my point.
> 
> Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
> 
> You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that I said nothing about Obama whatsoever, I'd say YOU are the one with the delusion issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you meant some other head of state.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about heads of state, either, but thanks for demonstrating what a blinkered, partisan hack you really are.

Go read the actual post, pindick.


----------



## SAT2

Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.



No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?

Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
> 
> Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
Click to expand...


I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.


----------



## taichiliberal

PoliticalChic said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.
> 
> That would be you.
> Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
> Not here.
> 
> 2.You claimed "*The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..*."
> My request: *'What crimes*?'
> 
> 3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
> While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term '*liberal'* in your avi.
> 
> 4.*The vid you provided *was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has *nothing to do with the OWS rabble*...
> ...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks,
> ...or you have, to put it kindly, *fibbed*.
> 
> 5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.
> 
> 6. While you have *no place posting with adults,* I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> 
> As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all willfully ignorant neocon toadies with delusions of intelligence, Politicalchic IGNORES the parts of the video I linked to focus in on one aspect...to which she falsely portrays as the ENTIRE  focus of the video, which it was not.
> 
> Politicalchic asked "what crimes" did Wall St. commit in leading the nation to our current fiscal fiasco....the video interview points to how banking and investment institutions DID NOT follow SEC rules, but knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the falsifying of various investments.  Bernie Madoff is but one example, as the interviewee points to Deutsche Bank and others as participants, and how the SEC hierarchy was criminally lax in it's duties despite warnings given by various individuals.  All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that I am telling the truth.
> 
> Indeed, for those wholly (or willfully) ignorant of the Wall St. shennanigans, this video is indeed just a primer for those truly interested in furthering their research on the matter.  Politicalchic, however, is intellectually dishonest and therefore incapable of such honest reseach.  Instead, she lies about the true content of the video, and then proceeds in a childish diatribe to lie about what I posted and my character.
> 
> In short, we're dealing with a Political-hack of the female persuasion....and a hack of the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Crowley, Beck, Drudge character judging by her tactic here.  It's not about the FACTS, but about replacing them with supposition and conjecture and thus trying to change the narrative.
> 
> I answered the Political Chic's question.....if she makes a further fool of herself, I may do a little more of her homework for her to set her on the right track...as this stupidity of comparing the Occupy Wall St. event to the French Revolution is indeed that...stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a proctologist, but I recognize you
Click to expand...


And once again having her ass kicked, the Political Chic does what she does best....sticks out her tongue like a petulant child.

Say goodnight Gracie!


----------



## taichiliberal

chanel said:


> Frances Fox Piven:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees. [Emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJZdWTiaJM&feature=player_embedded]Action video of Greece riots as fire bombs, stones fly in Athens - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOJn2LUPy4&feature=player_embedded]Raw Video: Students Attack Prince Charles' Car - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


And since NONE OF THIS HAS HAPPENED OR HAS BEEN ADVOCATED AS A COURSE OF ACTION BY THE AMERICAN OW'S, your typical neocon tactic by trying to convict people of a crime they haven't committed via a faux association and then trying to promote supposition and conjecture as fact FAILS.

Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me;* "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!"* That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one with OWS has said anything like that. Or intended to say anything like that. Or described themselves as a revolutionary army. Or challenged you to a physical fight of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cops this evening arrested an Occupy Wall Street protester for allegedly threatening to throw Molotov cocktails at Macys tomorrow during the groups city-wide demonstration.
> 
> On the 17th, we going to burn New York City to the f-cking ground, Nkrumah Tinsley, 29, shouted Tuesday amongst a crowd of his fellow demonstrators, cops said.
> 
> In a few days theyre going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macys, Tinsley also allegedly vowed, according to a video posted on YouTube.
> 
> They got guns! We got bottles!
> 
> Tinsley was arrested around 5 p.m. at Zuccotti Park.
> 
> Read more: OWS protester busted for allegedly threatening to hurl Molotov cocktails at Macy's - NYPOST.com
Click to expand...



This joker is actually a chronic self proclaimed "revolutionary" who has a record with the police and is not too stable.  To pump him up as a general example of the OW's is essentially a Fox Noise tactic....nice to see the neocon parrots are up to squawk.  Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal

Wicked Jester said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a completely different kind of revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  "No one?"  Who speaks for the group?  I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group.  Are they not "with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, over 90% of those slobs who were polled said they are planning on, or will, engage in civil disobedience.....That equals destruction and violence......And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.
> 
> Over 30% of those slobs said they are planning on, or will engage in abject violence.....And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.
> 
> Do you live permanently with your typically ignorant liberal head buried firmly up your boney ass?
Click to expand...


And here we have yet another example of neocon/teabagger/libertarian lunkheads trying to pass off their personal opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact.

WJ states "statistics" without any documentation, so why should we believe him?  Then he states that "civil disobedience" automatically equates "destruction and violence".  Evidently, WJ missed those high school classes regarding Ghandi and Martin Luther King.  Had he been educated on these, he would have noted that civil disobedience usually encurs idiots like WJ to perpetrait violence against those PEACEFULLY protesting to change wrongs in society.

But then again, facts and logic were never the strong suit of the mindset of those railing against OW's.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
> 
> Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


That's about the lame response I expected.  You're done here, fool.  Thanks for playing.  Run along.


----------



## SAT2

Cecilie1200 said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
> 
> Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about the lame response I expected.  You're done here, fool.  Thanks for playing.  Run along.
Click to expand...


You cannot explain yourself, can you?


----------



## Dragon

SAT2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about the lame response I expected.  You're done here, fool.  Thanks for playing.  Run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot explain yourself, can you?
Click to expand...


I think she probably could, but as she is only here to be obnoxious and annoy people she has no reason to try.


----------



## SAT2

Dragon said:


> SAT2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's about the lame response I expected.  You're done here, fool.  Thanks for playing.  Run along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot explain yourself, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she probably could, but as she is only here to be obnoxious and annoy people she has no reason to try.
Click to expand...


She can't explain it without admitting it was an attack on Obama.


----------

