# Who Celebrates Bastille Day?



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

When a new member complained that some thought he was a liberal, one of our members proudly proclaimed: Welcome from a real liberal.

The beauty of USMB is how proudly most of the folks here speak right up for their beliefs!

1.	So, kudos to our liberals friends, and have a wonderful *July 14th, Bastille Day, the day that memorializes the French Revolution,* and, since liberals/ progressives are heir to the French Revolution, have a great celebration!

2.	Yes, just as an argument can be made that classical liberals, or what would be called conservatives today, are heir to the American Revolution, *liberals can trace their provenance to Rousseau, and St. Just!*

3. For *Rousseau, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaimed that the general will of the people had to be correct, *because it was the general will,  the true interest of what everyone wants whether they realize it or not, and he determined the general will, so,  anyone who deviated from same deserved no rights!

	a. Although he had written a constitution, it became malleable for Robespierre: How did Robespierre actually interpret these principles? He said: *[W]e must exterminate all our enemies with the law in our hands;* the Declaration of Rights offers no safeguard to conspirators; *the suspicions of enlightened patriotism might offer a better guide than formal rules of evidence. *http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, 

Notice the echo in the actions of *the early Progressives who suggested that the US Constitution may be shed, like a garment.* Their views surpassed those of the Founders. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf

Could there be a better description of the *collectivist totalitarian statist*?

4.	Of course, a minor difference that the astute might notice is that *Americas documents did win freedom and individual rights, and Frances Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery,* followed by Napoleons dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and finally something resembling an actual republic some 80 years later.

5.	And just one more difference between the two revolution, mirroring the difference between liberals and conservatives? *With the Jacobins in control, the de-Christianization campaign kicked into high gear. Inspired by Rousseaus idea of the 'religion civile',  the revolution sought to completely destroy Christianity and replace it with a religion of the state. To honor reason *and fulfill the promise of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen that no one may be questioned about his opinions, including his religious views, Catholic priests were forced to stand before the revolutionary clubs and take oaths to Frances new humanocentric religion, the Cult of Reason (which is French for People for the American Way).Revolutionaries smashed church art and statues.

a. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the *dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian*. 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh                       Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, an extremist Fundementalist hate group. 
(From Coulters best seller, Demonic .)

So, to those of the Liberal persuasion, party like its 1789!

But remember, the party will be over in November, 2012.


----------



## konradv (Jul 13, 2011)

Does anyone take PC seriously?  This calls for a new corollary to Godwin's Law!!!


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2011)

I bathe with castile on Bastille.


----------



## Douger (Jul 13, 2011)

Thanks for the excuse ! Party time, manana !!!


----------



## Si modo (Jul 13, 2011)

Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!

Congrats, France.  (A bit early)  Some excellent philosophical minds and thankfully the English colonists were wise enough to read the works they published before either revolution.  The French would have been well-advised to consider those works, too.  However, they seemed to be more driven toward mob rule.

Domage.




But, I have to say that guillotine is beyond harsh.  Just creepy, really.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!
> 
> Congrats, France.  (A bit early)  Some excellent philosophical minds and thankfully the English colonists were wise enough to read the works they published before either revolution.  The French would have been well-advised to consider those works, too.  However, they seemed to be more driven toward mob rule.
> 
> ...



Guillotine?  The pike!

Three days after the completion of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the mob stormed the Bastille, and *marched around with the head of the prisons commander, Marquis de Launay, on a pike. *Shortly, the greatest nation in continental Europe became a human abattoir.

	Frances revolution-by-mob has become an inspiration to be imitated in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for Lefties everywhere.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 13, 2011)

How did France turn out in the next two hundred years? The US had to save their quiche eating asses twice in the 20th century. Half the country wanted to be Nazis during WW2. Now they riot in the streets for three months paid (by the taxpayers) vacation every year.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm sure Conservatives would put Obama's head on a pike - or at least deport him to Saudi Arabia - if they could.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> I bathe with castile on Bastille.



Does it get the grape-stains off the bottom of your feet?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZCqV7c6u5Q&playnext=1&list=PL8D5FE25EC424D856]YouTube - &#x202a;Stomping Grapes&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]




You should do a commercial....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> I'm sure Conservatives would put Obama's head on a pike - or at least deport him to Saudi Arabia - if they could.



Totally false in both essence and in implication.

Neither do the conservative that I'm aware of even speak like that.

Only liberals have, for example, assassinated any of our Presidents, of any political figures.

It is the Left that is responsible for violence, and the French Revolution is a prime example.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

whitehall said:


> How did France turn out in the next two hundred years? The US had to save their quiche eating asses twice in the 20th century. Half the country wanted to be Nazis during WW2. Now they riot in the streets for three months paid (by the taxpayers) vacation every year.



Whitey, since the Anthony decision, I've been thinking of wring an essay about the denial of the existence of evil by the Left, and you bring up a great example....the French Socialists of Paul Faure, who rationalised evil and found reasons not to do anything about it...

Covered more thoroughly in Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism:"

1.	The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials, dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values.

2.	Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of the faction that opposed war- at any cost. While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes *desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war!*  Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people! This is not cowardly, or unprincipledno, it is simply anti-war. And, therefore, the real dangers were not from the Nazis or Hitler, but from the warmongers, those who would profit from war!

a.	While those were the arguments of the anti-war left, the unfocused or philosophical basis which gave credence to those arguments, was that, in our modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. * There must always be some rationality behind a movement, no matter how mad it seems. A faith in universal rationality. Can you say liberal naïveté of the nineteenth centurya simple minded optimism, the liberalism of a strictly rational world, the liberalism of denial.*

b.	Paul Faures French Socialists refused to believe that millions of respectable Germans subscribed to a political movement whose doctrines were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions, and the lure of mass murder. For the Socialists, there was always a why.

3.	So our Socialist friends listened to the Nazis speeches about Jews, and stroked their bearded chins, and queried, what is anti-Semitism, anyway?  Arent there some Jews who we dont like? And the war-hawkssome of them are Jewswhy, even Leon Blum, he is a Jew, and he takes a hard linesuspicious. Perhaps Hitler isnt entirely wrong.


And I don't believe that this type of psychology is restricted to the French alone....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> Does anyone take PC seriously?  This calls for a new corollary to Godwin's Law!!!



Poor, poor, sad Konny.

Youve been trained to be ignorant and to love it!

Trained to resist the incorporation of facts that reflect poorly on your left-wing monitors. And like the cute little lap dog that youve become, you wait for your treat.

Up, Konnyup!  Good Konny! Good boy!


Now, if you actually had a mind that you put to use in the manner it was intended, I would ask you to review these, from the OP:

1.	Is July 14th, Bastille Day, the day that memorializes the French Revolution?

2.	Is liberalism a belief in an *ever-expanding government *whose power is necessarily increasing to solve societal woes, as is the belief found in Jean-Jacques Rousseaus general will that must be obeyed?

3.	Is liberalism not founded on the view of Rousseau, that although he had written a constitution, it became malleable for Robespierre; today we call that* the Living Constitution.*

a.	How about his quote from Robespierre:the suspicions of enlightened patriotism might offer a better guide than formal rules of evidence.  Doesnt it sound just like the Liberal-Democrats at the Justice Thomas hearings: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's *the seriousness of the charge that matters. ...*

4.	How about this: the early Progressives who suggested that the US Constitution may be shed, like a garment.  Do you deny that this is exactly *what Progressive Woodrow Wilson said of the Constitution??*

5.	How about this: Americas documents did win freedom and individual rights, and Frances Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen led to bestial savagery,True???

a.	And, didnt all of the following* Leftist revolutions *follow the model of the French Revolution???  Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for liberals everywhere.

6.	And this quote, Konny:  With the Jacobins in control, the* de-Christianization *campaign kicked into high gear. Inspired by Rousseaus idea of the 'religion civile', the revolution sought to completely destroy Christianity and replace it with a religion of the state.

a.	And by similar token, hasnt the Left attempted to remove every sign of Christianity from the public arena.even though this campaign represents the opposite view of our founders??

OK, Konny.go ahead, find the errors, in the above.

Oops! Just for a moment I though I was dealing with an intelligent opponent....That's OK, Konny, you're dismissed.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 13, 2011)

While I think the French made some serious errors in government organization... (The really should have paid attention to the debates over here.   It would have saved them a lot of pain long term) I can't say I have much sympathy for the Burbons, Romanovs or Hohenzollerens.   (The last Haspburg, Otto who just died two weeks ago seems to have been an ok dude, but he was all of 8 when he succeeded to the title)

You read up on the way France was organized in 1788, or for that matter Germany  or Russia in 1917, you become just a bit more sympathetic to the concept of wholesale blood thirst.

But you look at what came after in Germany, France and Russia..... You appreciate the guys who met in Philly that long hot summer 220 odd years ago a whole lot more.    We got really seriously lucky.


----------



## waltky (Jul 13, 2011)

Uncle Ferd says the French...

... he says dey all gather round an' drink wine...

... an' eat a lot o' dat Bastille cheese...

... Uncle Ferd knows all `bout dem wine an' cheese parties.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> While I think the French made some serious errors in government organization... (The really should have paid attention to the debates over here.   It would have saved them a lot of pain long term) I can't say I have much sympathy for the Burbons, Romanovs or Hohenzollerens.   (The last Haspburg, Otto who just died two weeks ago seems to have been an ok dude, but he was all of 8 when he succeeded to the title)
> 
> You read up on the way France was organized in 1788, or for that matter Germany  or Russia in 1917, you become just a bit more sympathetic to the concept of wholesale blood thirst.
> 
> But you look at what came after in Germany, France and Russia..... You appreciate the guys who met in Philly that long hot summer 220 odd years ago a whole lot more.    We got really seriously lucky.




Well, Baruch, I've read treatise that gave a tip of the hat to a devine providence....but it's hard for one to study history and come away with the idea that we were simply lucky....

Instead, for your consideration, I'd like to amplify on the idea that our selection of the right path had more to do with the Anglo-Saxon background of our founders than 'luck'..


As discussed in Justinians Flea, by William Rosen, a major factor in distinguishing between the two outcomes may be *the basis of law. *

In 530 a commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the *Codex of Justinian still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition. *The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, *an outgrowth of the lex regia: The will of the prince has the force of law.(Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)  *Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. 

*In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word*. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition.  

So, Baruch, the huge gulf that separated the outcomes of the two revolutions, French and American, it seems to me, has less to do with 'luck' than with religion and with basis of the jurisprudence in effect.


And, if you like, consider the kind of people in the two nations...
Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, decried the French Revolution even before the guillotining began. He wrote in 1789 that the *old Parisian ferocity *has broken out in a shocking manner. It is true that this may be no more than a sudden explosionBut if it should be *character rather than accident, then that people are not fit for Liberty,* and must have a Strong hand like that of their former masters to coerce them. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 13.


----------



## Douger (Jul 14, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6tBCxC1QA]&#x202a;two gram bong hit, try 1&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 14, 2011)

Dude didn't even cough. I'm impressed.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!
> ...



  Well said.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

> a. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, an extremist Fundementalist hate group.
> (From Coulters best seller, Demonic .)



You have honestly shocked me. You blame the French Revolution on skin color and/or religion?

Unfuckingreal.


----------



## Barb (Jul 14, 2011)




----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> > a. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, an extremist Fundementalist hate group.
> > (From Coulters best seller, Demonic .)
> 
> 
> ...



I have to believe stupidity at this level has to be feigned.  You realize PC is asian, right?   She is not going to say what you said she said.   You couldn't be this stupid and still able to breathe unassisted.

Her point was the CULTURAL NORMS in Britain were different than they were on the continent, and this was due to post reformation changes in doctrinal views on the relation between the citizen and the state.

She quoted a papal encyclical on the matter.  There was discussion that differences in religious doctrine had an effect on state organization.   she didn't say brown people are built differently   and therefore are unable to comprehend basic logic.

You are a marvelous piece of work.


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!
> 
> Congrats, France.  (A bit early)  Some excellent philosophical minds and thankfully the English colonists were wise enough to read the works they published before either revolution.  The French would have been well-advised to consider those works, too.  However, they seemed to be more driven toward mob rule.
> 
> ...



actually, the guillotine was invented because a lack of skilled executioners was causing really horrendous situations in which it would take many hacks to behead someone. the guillotine eliminated that agony.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > a. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, an extremist Fundementalist hate group.
> ...



What does her being Asian have to do with anything?

I realize she only parrots wingnuts, but she did post this little jem:


The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian.

You are free to pretend all you want that it means something different.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!
> ...


  Yes, I do understand why it was invented.  It's still gruesome to me.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 14, 2011)

The previous form of execution was the wheel. 

I would not advise clicking the link if you have a tender stomach.


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt1vQ81jNWw]&#x202a;Scene from "Casablanca" movie&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> Does anyone take PC seriously?  This calls for a new corollary to Godwin's Law!!!



no


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2011)

The conditions under which the FRENCH people were dealing were so wildly different than anything that the Americana colonialists were facing that to try to compare them is just silly.

But here's something to think about....

The chuch didn't pay taxes and owned much of the nations land and wealth.

The artistos didn't pay any taxes and they owned the vast majority of wealth and they also owned the monopoloy on most means of production, too.

The KING (central government) therefore was BROKE. After all, he could NOT tax the people who HAD all the dough (the artistos and the clergy).

The King was broke in part because of all his foolish WARS OF EMPIRE (that he or his father had lost)

Then the CROPS FAILED and the people were STARVING... 

There's a lesson there, I think, for _some _of us.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



1. The larger font hardly makes up for your lack of comprehension.

2. An earlier post explained, seemingly not down to  your level, that the civil law, in France, differs from the common law practiced in English-speaking countries, ...also referred to as Anglo-Saxon by those with a college education. English is a Teutonic, (Saxon) tongue. And that post explaned how civil differed in impact from our common law.

3. A major desire of the French Revolution was to do away with religion, particularly Christianity, which places a fear of God as the way to knowledge and justice, with a civil religion in which the elites (liberals)  inform the population what the 'general will' is...and bring down the full weight of government on those who do not conform.

4. Only a fanatic liberal would see the above references as implying race, i.e., skin color.

5. While you are not stupid, you are clearly uneducated. Pick up a book now and then.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> When a new member complained that some thought he was a liberal, one of our members proudly proclaimed: Welcome from a real liberal.
> 
> The beauty of USMB is how proudly most of the folks here speak right up for their beliefs!
> 
> ...



This describes most who celebrate Bastille day. I have only seen it celebrated in New Orleans. 

ig·no·rant
&#8194; &#8194;[ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

editec said:


> The conditions under which the FRENCH people were dealing were so wildly different than anything that the Americana colonialists were facing that to try to compare them is just silly.
> 
> But here's something to think about....
> 
> ...





Yep, hunger makes people do things.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I bet this will surprise you, but I will concede that PC's description was a little off, but she is touching on an important point which Baruch highlights - it's a cultural difference more than anything else.  I think PC was close, but chose terms that were not exact.

The culture in England at the time we were developing was very different than that in continental Europe.  The constant warring is a good example of that deep cultural difference.

Although we were fighting the English, we still adopted a lot of good ideas from them for our new country - common law, for example.


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



people with a full belly who feel they are being taxed wrongfully by an entity thousands of miles away will react a little differently than people who are starving to death while the aristos party on and the *princes* of the church tell them they'll get their reward in heaven. this whole anglo saxon, christian meme that PC trots out via ann petty and the heartbreakers is horseshit.

unless someone wants to argue that france wasn't a christian country at the time and the english monarchy felt that its power wasn't a divine right?

i'm sure PC is a nice person, but she's no rocket surgeon


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 14, 2011)

Editic makes several good points.

One of the huge benefits to the reformation in England and Scotland was it put all that church wealth back into the hands of private citizens and back onto the tax rolls.

And something to learn from France for modern policy is that fully 50% of the arable land was not farmed because the taxes  on the produce of the land exceeded the revenue from the land.  People were starving and all that farmland was not used because no one could survive the taxes.

Getting all that land taxed at a low percentage was a lot more productive than getting none of it taxed at a high percentage.

And the Aristocracy of the day was unbelievably disgusting.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


This is all true, too.

I'm going with answer D - All of the above, except I think religion had not much to do with any difference because the religion was the same in both.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 14, 2011)

del said:


> people with a full belly who feel they are being taxed wrongfully by an entity thousands of miles away will react a little differently than people who are staving to death while the aristos party on and the *princes* of the church tell them they'll get their reward in heaven. this whole anglo saxon, christian meme that PC trots out via ann petty and the heartbreakers is horseshit.
> 
> unless someone wants to argue that france wasn't a christian country at the time and the english monarchy felt that its power wasn't a divine right?
> 
> i'm sure PC is a nice person, but she's no rocket surgeon





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to del again.



In lieu of rep:


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

Viva La France!


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Viva La France!


I congratulate them, too.

To me, it's good to remember how important it is to guard against mob rule, and today is a good day to do that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2011)

editec said:


> The conditions under which the FRENCH people were dealing were so wildly different than anything that the Americana colonialists were facing that to try to compare them is just silly.
> 
> But here's something to think about....
> 
> ...




It has become my perception that many, influenced by the Left, are unable to identify and condemn evil without seeking some 'rational explanation' for same.

One of the most advanced, sophisticated nations of the 18th century kills 600,000 citizens- many of its most valuable citizens, plus some 145,000 flee the country.  Schom, Napoleon Bonaparte, p. 253.

So...exactly which of the items in your post do you see as explaining, allowing, excusing those numbers?

All of them?

Brings to mind this, from Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism:"

1.	The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials, dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values.

2.	Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of the faction that opposed war- at any cost. While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war! * Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly *by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people! This is not cowardly, or unprincipledno, it is simply anti-war. And, therefore, the real dangers were not from the Nazis or Hitler, but from the warmongers, those who would profit from war!

a.	While those were the arguments of the anti-war left, the unfocused or philosophical basis which gave credence to those arguments, was that, in our modern world, *even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason.*  There must *always be some rationality behind a movement, no matter how mad it seems.* A faith in universal rationality. Can you say* liberal naïveté* of the nineteenth centurya simple minded optimism, the liberalism of a strictly rational world, the liberalism of denial.

b.	*Paul Faures French Socialists refused to believe that millions of respectable Germans subscribed to a political movement whose doctrines were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions, and the lure of mass murder. For the Socialists, there was always a why.*

3.	So our Socialist friends listened to the Nazis speeches about Jews, and stroked their bearded chins, and queried, what is anti-Semitism, anyway?  Arent there some Jews who we dont like? And the war-hawkssome of them are Jewswhy, even Leon Blum, he is a Jew, and he takes a hard linesuspicious. Perhaps Hitler isnt entirely wrong.


So, like you, the French Socialists also had a list of reasons why the horrors followed.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 14, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You might remember the English had gone through this whole issue 140 years earlier.   The English were the first nation to kill off the king.   And Honovarian dynasty was there by Parlemetary appointment.

In 1688 and again in 1701 the English had made the point that the monarch is there as an officer of the state.   Divine right went out the door in England on Jan 31, 1649.

PC's point that tossing out religion is what made the revolutions in France, German and Russia nothing more than exchange of tyrannies is a good one.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Like it is now ? Obama having dinner parties and serving $400.00 bottles of champagne, and Michelle Antoinette saying " let them eat carrots".


----------



## del (Jul 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The conditions under which the FRENCH people were dealing were so wildly different than anything that the Americana colonialists were facing that to try to compare them is just silly.
> ...



do you prefer barley or rye when you construct your straw men?


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Huh?

When the President entertains, especially when he entertains foreign leaders, he better not be serving Miller Lite.

And, what is so wrong with promoting awareness for healthy eating, especially when we have so many 150 lb. kindergartners?

There is plenty of other shit to criticize, IMO, and it's far more important.  I endorse both their activities in what you brought up, and I think most would, too.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Then serve  $100.00 bottles of champagne and reform the food stamp system so that you can only buy good healthy food. Then there is Michelle's 1,500 calorie lunch. Hypocrisy in action . Then there are the vacations on the tax payers dollar.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

This to.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 14, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Momanohedhunter said:
> ...


Meh.  I can stomach that.  What I can't stomach is Obamacare and the numerous other totalitarian individual right abuses this administration champions.

I'm not going to sweat about carrots and champagne.  I really can't get myself torqued up about that, even if I try hard to do so.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yeah, just spend less because times are hard. Just eat carrots and drink Natural Light, and walk more.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 14, 2011)

If Bastille Day were celebrated in the pubs in Denver, you know I'd find a reason to show my inner Francophile.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> If Bastille Day were celebrated in the pubs in Denver, you know I'd find a reason to show my inner Francophile.



Whats stopping you ? Cinco de Mayo , and St Patty's day are celebrated and 90% of those celebrating have no clue what they are about. That includes most Irish and Latino respectively.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 14, 2011)

> Impia tortorum longos hic turba furores
> Sanguinis innocui, non satiata, aluit.
> Sospite nunc patria, fracto nunc funeris antro,
> Mors ubi dira fuit vita salusque patent.
> ...



From Poe's _"The Pit and the Pendulum"_

Robespierre was a tyrant.  It is always amusing to watch people try to play politics with the actions of tyrants.  Would Hitler be considered a "liberal" or a "conservative"?  Why in the hell does it matter in relation to their actions?  Why should we feel compelled to try and make these figures (who exist in different times and different countries) fit into our own political landscape?  It's silly.  

Even if we try, whatever principles these people had were eventually abandoned for the love of power and they became corrupted.  

On that note, liberals in America don't celebrate Bastille Day because we aren't French.  That much should be self evident.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> > Impia tortorum longos hic turba furores
> > Sanguinis innocui, non satiata, aluit.
> > Sospite nunc patria, fracto nunc funeris antro,
> > Mors ubi dira fuit vita salusque patent.
> ...



I have only seen it celebrated in New Orleans. Mostly it is done to justify getting ripped before noon.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> > Impia tortorum longos hic turba furores
> > Sanguinis innocui, non satiata, aluit.
> > Sospite nunc patria, fracto nunc funeris antro,
> > Mors ubi dira fuit vita salusque patent.
> ...



I'm almost positive that PC will claim that Hitler was a liberal. FWIW


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Ravi said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > > Impia tortorum longos hic turba furores
> ...



Thought it was progressive ?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 14, 2011)

No. Hitler was a monster and a fascist that used aspects of any belief to sway the German people.

Including Christianity.


----------



## CitizenPained (Jul 14, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> CitizenPained said:
> 
> 
> > If Bastille Day were celebrated in the pubs in Denver, you know I'd find a reason to show my inner Francophile.
> ...



It's not celebrated here. No reason to dress myself in a French flag or don a beret and get wasted.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 14, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > CitizenPained said:
> ...



No, just hit the club say "happy Bastille day bitches" and have at it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 15, 2011)

Ravi said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > > Impia tortorum longos hic turba furores
> ...



"Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."

1. Fascism, communism, national socialism, progressivism, liberalism all are fruit of the same poison tree, one that grows based on ideas of the collective over the individual, and government power over the Constitution. They worship a charasmatic leader over the concept of checks and balances. They strive for utopia on earth.


Schivelbusch, &#8220;Three New Deals,&#8221; chapter 1:
2.	In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe&#8217;s largest industrialized nation.

a.	At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: &#8220;Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.&#8221; Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)

3.	The National Socialists hailed these &#8216;relief measures&#8217; in ways you will recognize: 

a.	May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People&#8217;s Observer): &#8220;Roosevelt&#8217;s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.&#8221;

b.	And on January 17, 1934, &#8220;We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America&#8230;&#8221; and &#8220;Roosevelt&#8217;s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies&#8221; comparable to Hitler&#8217;s own dictatorial &#8216;Fuhrerprinzip.&#8217;

c.	And &#8220;[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book &#8216;Looking Forward&#8217; could have been written by a National Socialist&#8230;.one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.&#8221;

So....I guess you hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Polk (Jul 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> When a new member complained that some thought he was a liberal, one of our members proudly proclaimed: Welcome from a real liberal.
> 
> The beauty of USMB is how proudly most of the folks here speak right up for their beliefs!
> 
> ...



Talk about a weird argument.

1. If anything, the French Revolution is part of the Jeffersonian tradition, which is the heart of the modern right in America.

2. The Robespeirre quotes could have come straight from the mouths of modern right-wing politicians.

3. You act as if some great liberal impulse inspired French anti-clericalism. The difference between the American and French revolutions as it pertains to religion is that the church in France was wedded to the state against the interest of the citizenry. One theme you'll notice in the West today is that the countries with the highest rates of religiosity are generally those where the religious establishment was not an active opponent of democratization. 

4. That stat about the number of "orthodox Trinitarian Christians" among the signers of the Constitution is utter rubbish.


----------



## Polk (Jul 15, 2011)

whitehall said:


> How did France turn out in the next two hundred years? The US had to save their quiche eating asses twice in the 20th century. Half the country wanted to be Nazis during WW2. Now they riot in the streets for three months paid (by the taxpayers) vacation every year.



And there wouldn't have been a United States without French aid during the Revolution, so where are we going with this?


----------



## ginscpy (Jul 15, 2011)

Gives The Surrender Monkeys something to celebrate.


----------



## Polk (Jul 15, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Only liberals have, for example, assassinated any of our Presidents, of any political figures.



That's funny, because the only people I hear touting the beliefs of John Wilkes Booth are conservatives.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When a new member complained that some thought he was a liberal, one of our members proudly proclaimed: Welcome from a real liberal.
> ...



1. It seems that I may have to annoint you as "Slow-Polk," as it has been some 200+ years and you haven't caught on to the major differences between the two revolutions...

such as the one based on some 'general will' and the collective, and the other the rights of individuals...
...sounds like liberals versus conservatives, no?

...and one based on Christianity, and the other anti-Christianity.
The French Revolution occurred almost simultaneously with the American Revolution. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.                             Religion and Government in America: Are they&#160;complementary? &#8212; The Mandate

"That stat about the number of "orthodox Trinitarian Christians" among the signers of the Constitution is utter rubbish."
And, based on the knowledge that you have evinced so far, ....I believe it's best to ignore this one, as well.


You had best stick to what you are most familiar with, ...ties....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Only liberals have, for example, assassinated any of our Presidents, of any political figures.
> ...



What's funny is that you are unable to identify anti-war protesters as the left, liberals.....

Didn't you know that Booth claimed that Lincoln's war was one of his main motivations??
Here, let me prompt you toward a more educated view:

John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincolns Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN. - Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correct

But, Slow-Polk, it seems there is a great deal that you don't know, eh?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 16, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh Lord.  Are you suggesting Booth assassinated Lincoln because he was an anti-war peacenik?  He opposed Lincoln's war because he opposed the North stripping the south of Slavery (or "states rights" if you believe that bullshit).

Trying to parrallel him with people who oppose war because of it's brutiality is stupid beyond belief.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 16, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> CitizenPained said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure Conservatives would put Obama's head on a pike - or at least deport him to Saudi Arabia - if they could.
> ...



An the Native Americans were wiped out by lefties only?The massacre in Utah by Mormons was lefties only? So short sighted.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > CitizenPained said:
> ...



PIck a better example.

1.	The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves  a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. 

2.	Guenter Lewy (born 1923, Germany) is an author and historian and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts. In September 2004, Lewy published an essay entitled Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide ?in which he says [Ward] Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".

3.	During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as American Indians or Alaska Natives in the 2000 census.  Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North  American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment)  up to 20 million by activists. 
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a  different description..
Medved, "The Ten Big Lies."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



1. I appreciate what inspired same, but it is not necessary to refer to me as your Lord.

2. "Are you suggesting...."
What I am doing, - and you should be able to identify this pattern by now,- is attempting to add to your exiguous store of knowledge.

a. "...because he was an anti-war..."
Did you read the letter? 
No?
What a surprise.

3. I have come to understand that you view juggling several thoughts at the same time as akin to juggling several running chain saws, but once you have incorporated the idea that education is a life-long endeavor, you will find that there are multiple motivations that explain Booth's abhorrent action.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 16, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



- Doesn't address content of my post.
- Redirects me to original thread and accuses me of not understanding it's banal content.
- Adds insults.
- Rinse, wash, repeat.
- On to next post.

Good to see that PC-bot is on the board today.

Just so were clear:  Your analogy was stupid.  

But if I didn't understand your point, feel free to actually point out where I erred as opposed to your usual lame-ness.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 16, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW72Gmqjse4]Bastille Day - Rush - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jul 16, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



get a job


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 16, 2011)

One could sum up everything PC writes in four words, liberals bad, conservatives good - after that all history takes on a simplicity only the simple can believe. Such well groomed history is odd especially when you read how messy history is. But conservatives excel at coding history into neat dichotomies, only they can create so simple a view, especially since they live in a society founded on liberalism, no nation was ever founded on conservatism, for the whining and finger pointing of conservatives would render them lost, they require liberals to exist and to allow them their imaginary world. It is only in this scapegoating of the other that they feel real.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> One could sum up everything PC writes in four words, liberals bad, conservatives good - after that all history takes on a simplicity only the simple can believe. Such well groomed history is odd especially when you read how messy history is. But conservatives excel at coding history into neat dichotomies, only they can create so simple a view, especially since they live in a society founded on liberalism, no nation was ever founded on conservatism, for the whining and finger pointing of conservatives would render them lost, they require liberals to exist and to allow them their imaginary world. It is only in this scapegoating of the other that they exist.



Wow, Middy....you are quick!

Yes, I firmly believe that what we call progressives, or liberals are harmful to the best intersts of a free people.

I understand that most of our liberal friends are unaware of the provenance of left-wing philosophies....
some concept of a central 'general will' that only the elites understand, doing what they know is best for the rest of the little folks, doing away with morality and religion in favor of a belief that mankind is omnipotent...and that human nature is malleable....

...and stop short of where liberal policies will take this great nation....even though the last century has documented the hundred million innocents slaughtered at the alter of some imagined utopia here on earth.

That is why I find the USMB so important....to allow each of us to propound our views,.....and I feel sure that liberty and freedom will will out.

Why, if you put down that "Sojourners," even you might catch on!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 16, 2011)

L.K.Eder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Hmmmm.....neat idea.....maybe plucking chickens.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2011)

So John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln because in Booth's view African slavery was the best thing that ever happened to America AND to black people???

Holy shit, I didn't realize Glen Beck was alive back then to brainwash people.


----------



## Blagger (Jul 16, 2011)

Ha Ha! Your Glenn Beck comment was actually quite funny, Ravi. 

Anyway, as an aside. Did any of you brash colonials know that Cherie Blair - Tony Blair's wife - is a direct descendent of John Wilkes-Booth?

That's not a true 'story', that's an undisputed historical fact.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 16, 2011)

Swagger said:


> Ha Ha! Your Glenn Beck comment was actually quite funny, Ravi.
> 
> Anyway, as an aside. Did any of you brash colonials know that Cherie Blair - Tony Blair's wife - is a direct descendent of John Wilkes-Booth?
> 
> That's not a true 'story', that's an undisputed historical fact.



"Colonials"

Piss off!


----------



## Ringel05 (Jul 16, 2011)

*Who Celebrates Bastille Day? *

Cloris Leachman..........


----------



## sparky (Jul 17, 2011)

> Who Celebrates Bastille Day?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCjGgrewYY&feature=player_detailpage]&#x202a;Revolution Beatles&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!
> 
> Congrats, France.  (A bit early)  Some excellent philosophical minds and thankfully the English colonists were wise enough to read the works they published before either revolution.  The French would have been well-advised to consider those works, too.  However, they seemed to be more driven toward mob rule.
> 
> ...



Honestly, the French Revolution would have been much less horrific if the guillotine had been the worst of their depradations.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> I'm sure Conservatives would put Obama's head on a pike - or at least deport him to Saudi Arabia - if they could.



Really?  And WHY are you sure of that?  Because anyone on the Right has actually said things to indicate it?  Or just because you assume everyone in the world is like you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > a. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. 52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, an extremist Fundementalist hate group.
> ...



You can't really blame Ravi entirely for the stupidity that the Left brainwashes into its puppets.  In the absence of intelligence, education, or independent thought, they register any mention of a specific culture as "race", which then automatically translates to "racism" in what passes for their minds.

Blame whatever childhood accident rendered her brain-damaged, and therefore supremely gullible.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

CitizenPained said:


> If Bastille Day were celebrated in the pubs in Denver, you know I'd find a reason to show my inner Francophile.



Because you feel a strong need to celebrate pointless acts of atrocity that kick off extended bloodbaths?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

Polk said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > How did France turn out in the next two hundred years? The US had to save their quiche eating asses twice in the 20th century. Half the country wanted to be Nazis during WW2. Now they riot in the streets for three months paid (by the taxpayers) vacation every year.
> ...



What do their actions before their Revolution have to do with what they became AFTER their Revolution?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 17, 2011)

Polk said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Only liberals have, for example, assassinated any of our Presidents, of any political figures.
> ...



This would be true . . . if the leftist belief that "Anything bad must be conservative" had any relation to reality.

Talk to us about "conservatives talk like John Wilkes Booth" when you can find a conservative actually assassinating our political leaders, dumbass.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 23, 2011)

The French?


----------

