Where It All Ends....

[ScreamingEagle]

Gee, guy, I'm sorry, not seeing any "failure of Communism" in my life.

I'm still seeing a HUGE failure of Corporatism, though. For the last thirteen years.

Communists are totally against ownership, especially of their legacy if failure and poverty

So you were a Republican.

LOL

Funny stuff

No, guy, my underwater mortgage and busted 401K and having to work three jobs is not in the least bit funny.

Communists didn't do this to me. Capitalists and Republicans did.

Capitalists didn't do it to you.....Corporatists did.....like that guy in office right now....

Obamacare is another Corporatist failure that's gonna force you to take a 4th job...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The Liberal playbook begins and ends with dividing Americans."

Is that meant to imply that the Conservative playbook doesn't?

lol, indeed...

One again, like Mighty Mouse....I am here to save the day!

Clearly, you have not the slightest clue whereof you speak.


1. "The Democrats have a serious problem. It is a problem that stems from the party’s greatest strength: its long-term support for inclusion and equal rights for all, its support of racial integration and equal rights for women and homosexuals and its humane stand on immigration reform. Those heroic positions … caused an understandable, if misguided, overreaction within the party–a drift toward identity politics, toward special pleading. Inclusion became exclusive. The Democratic National Committee officially recognizes 14 caucuses or “communities,” most having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity."
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/the-democrats-identity-politics-problem/?_r=0



And now to explain why that is anti-American and wrong:

2. "If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants."
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 23.

Your answer has nothing to do with my question.

Are you claiming, implicitly, that the conservative playbook, to use your term,

is not about dividing Americans?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Liberal playbook begins and ends with dividing Americans."

Is that meant to imply that the Conservative playbook doesn't?

lol, indeed...

One again, like Mighty Mouse....I am here to save the day!

Clearly, you have not the slightest clue whereof you speak.


1. "The Democrats have a serious problem. It is a problem that stems from the party’s greatest strength: its long-term support for inclusion and equal rights for all, its support of racial integration and equal rights for women and homosexuals and its humane stand on immigration reform. Those heroic positions … caused an understandable, if misguided, overreaction within the party–a drift toward identity politics, toward special pleading. Inclusion became exclusive. The Democratic National Committee officially recognizes 14 caucuses or “communities,” most having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity."
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/the-democrats-identity-politics-problem/?_r=0



And now to explain why that is anti-American and wrong:

2. "If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice. Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants."
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 23.

Your answer has nothing to do with my question.

Are you claiming, implicitly, that the conservative playbook, to use your term,

is not about dividing Americans?

The conservative playbook?

What would that be.....treat everyone alike? Endorse the most successful economic plan in all of human experience: capitalism???

What the heck is the matter with you???

It is only the Left that divides and panders to each and every group.


1. As president, George Washington unsuccessfully proposed a national university for the express purpose of strengthening the national identity. In his will, he bequeathed money to schools in Alexandria, Va., and Rockbridge County, Va., the latter of which formed an early endowment for Washington College (now Washington and Lee University). 10 Things We Should Know About George Washington :: Washington and Lee University

2. Today, the curricula of major American universities require more courses in “multiculturalism” and “diversity” than in American history.
Liberalism is designed to break up the unity of America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP would get an A at a national socialist university for outstanding propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP would get an A at a national socialist university for outstanding propaganda.

So....you were unable to find anything in the OP that wasn't true and correct....

...and you are reduced to the mode of gutter snipe, casting fabricated aspersions?


Carry on.

 

[Freemason9]

[
Are you really denying the negative impact Obama's policies have had on the economy?

Dood. That's like denying that water is wet, or that Communism is a complete and utter failure.

Oh, sorry -- didn't mean to pour salt in the wound.

Gee, guy, I'm sorry, not seeing any "failure of Communism" in my life.

I'm still seeing a HUGE failure of Corporatism, though. For the last thirteen years.

Communism failed.

You're really fucking stupid.

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

 

[Redfish]

Gee, guy, I'm sorry, not seeing any "failure of Communism" in my life.

I'm still seeing a HUGE failure of Corporatism, though. For the last thirteen years.

Communism failed.

You're really fucking stupid.

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

 

[Freemason9]

Communism failed.

You're really fucking stupid.

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

 

[Redfish]

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

the feudal serfs lived under a dictatorial monarchy, nothing close to a free democratic society.

the funny thing is that seems to be what you libs want to return to-------give all of your money to the king (govt) and hope that he will give you back enough to live on.

 

[daveman]

Gee, guy, I'm sorry, not seeing any "failure of Communism" in my life.

I'm still seeing a HUGE failure of Corporatism, though. For the last thirteen years.

Communism failed.

You're really fucking stupid.

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

No, I don't mean that, and you're an idiot for thinking that way.

 

[daveman]

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

Oh, yes -- you.

 

[Freemason9]

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

the feudal serfs lived under a dictatorial monarchy, nothing close to a free democratic society.

the funny thing is that seems to be what you libs want to return to-------give all of your money to the king (govt) and hope that he will give you back enough to live on.

This is not a free democratic society, and the "forefathers" that composed the Constitution had no intention of creating a democracy; in fact, most "freedoms" that we enjoy today came later through amendments. The original framers were aristocratic slave owners that preferred "republican" style governance through a wealthy elite class.

 

[Freemason9]

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

Oh, yes -- you.

Let the Class War begin, I say. We've been duped long enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you mean that communist governments failed to adequately control the masses, whereas capitalist government seems to be successfully controlling the masses,

I suppose you are correct.

when the "masses" have freedom and opportunity they don't need to be controlled---thats the difference.

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

You need to study contemporary history.

“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

the feudal serfs lived under a dictatorial monarchy, nothing close to a free democratic society.

the funny thing is that seems to be what you libs want to return to-------give all of your money to the king (govt) and hope that he will give you back enough to live on.

This is not a free democratic society, and the "forefathers" that composed the Constitution had no intention of creating a democracy; in fact, most "freedoms" that we enjoy today came later through amendments. The original framers were aristocratic slave owners that preferred "republican" style governance through a wealthy elite class.

You're really stupid.....or Liberal.....or both.

Liberals love to slander the Founders.

Education to follow:


1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

a. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.

b. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/

c. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.



2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Breitbart News: Big Journalism

 

[Freemason9]

the feudal serfs lived under a dictatorial monarchy, nothing close to a free democratic society.

the funny thing is that seems to be what you libs want to return to-------give all of your money to the king (govt) and hope that he will give you back enough to live on.

This is not a free democratic society, and the "forefathers" that composed the Constitution had no intention of creating a democracy; in fact, most "freedoms" that we enjoy today came later through amendments. The original framers were aristocratic slave owners that preferred "republican" style governance through a wealthy elite class.

You're really stupid.....or Liberal.....or both.

Liberals love to slander the Founders.

Education to follow:


1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

a. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.

b. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/

c. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.



2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Breitbart News: Big Journalism

Nevertheless, the Constitution defined a republic that kept the wealthy elite in power, suppressed democratic governance, and supported the institution of slavery.

 

[Redfish]

This is not a free democratic society, and the "forefathers" that composed the Constitution had no intention of creating a democracy; in fact, most "freedoms" that we enjoy today came later through amendments. The original framers were aristocratic slave owners that preferred "republican" style governance through a wealthy elite class.

You're really stupid.....or Liberal.....or both.

Liberals love to slander the Founders.

Education to follow:


1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

a. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.

b. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/

c. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.



2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Breitbart News: Big Journalism

Nevertheless, the Constitution defined a republic that kept the wealthy elite in power, suppressed democratic governance, and supported the institution of slavery.

Totally wrong, your ideas about the constitution and the founders must have originated in north korea.

maybe you should move there, they have the kind of govt you want------everyone equal based on govt handouts------everyone equally miserable----except, of course, the ruling elite.

you libs are so fricken determined to punish successful people that you are willing to vote yourselves into virtual slavery to the govt-----------you are idiots.

 

[daveman]

That is complete and utter bullshit, of course, unless you believe that feudal serfs were "free" to serve the needs of their lords.

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

Oh, yes -- you.

Let the Class War begin, I say. We've been duped long enough.

Have you ever noticed the people fighting the class war have no class?

I have.

If you're so anxious for your war, bring it. Sitting around bitching impotently on the internet isn't going to get you your "fair share", Skippy. You know -- the "fair share" that you haven't earned.

 

[JoeB131]

"The Liberal playbook begins and ends with dividing Americans."

Is that meant to imply that the Conservative playbook doesn't?

lol, indeed...

No, the Conservative playbook is, "Get stupid people to vote against their own economic interests by playing to their racial, religous and sexual bigotries..."