ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 11:13 am

Anyone else see Bloomberg saying, “I do think there are certain times we [elitist government politicians] should infringe on your freedom.” ????  Talk about being anti-liberty!  Someone should remind him about the Declaration of Independence.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 7:50 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

>

>That is looney.

>Firstly, the Democrats are not leftists. The Democrats happen to occupy the rhetoric that is somewhat to the left of that of the far-right Republican Party. But that occurs in the very narrow spectrum of mainstream American politics; that doesn't make them true leftists. Throghout much of Europe, the Democrats would be seen as a part of the far right. And nieither are the KKK left; they are far right. 

>One last for a while: I will go with capitalism is an outgrowth on liberty, but not an outgrowth of liberty. It's more like a wart.

>


From an American point of view, the democrats have become far left. We are a nation conceived in liberty, as in small government. If you ask the average citizen if they support liberty, small government, and freedom, they will say yes, at least until you tell them that's what the tea party endorses. From that standpoint, democrats are left- bigger governments, more rules, more regulations.


Now from Europe, it may seem not so leftist, since you guys are controlled, but in America, we have always had the freedom to do what we want. It is our life, not the government's!


As for the KKK, they are not left or right. They are bigoted racists, who want to give rights to the elite whites, and enslave other races. I suppose it is sort of leftist, like big government, and most of the members were democrats, (one leader even became a senator!) but really anyone who supports them is just bad.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 8:06 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 25 2013, 7:50 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:27 pm

>

From an American point of view, the democrats have become far left. We are a nation conceived in liberty, as in small government. If you ask the average citizen if they support liberty, small government, and freedom, they will say yes, at least until you tell them that's what the tea party endorses. From that standpoint, democrats are left- bigger governments, more rules, more regulations.

Now from Europe, it may seem not so leftist, since you guys are controlled, but in America, we have always had the freedom to do what we want. It is our life, not the government's!

As for the KKK, they are not left or right. They are bigoted racists, who want to give rights to the elite whites, and enslave other races. I suppose it is sort of leftist, like big government, and most of the members were democrats, (one leader even became a senator!) but really anyone who supports them is just bad.

From an American point of view, the democrats have become far left. We are a nation conceived in liberty, as in small government. If you ask the average citizen if they support liberty, small government, and freedom, they will say yes, at least until you tell them that's what the tea party endorses. From that standpoint, democrats are left- bigger governments, more rules, more regulations.

 

Now from Europe, it may seem not so leftist, since you guys are controlled, but in America, we have always had the freedom to do what we want. It is our life, not the government's!

As for the KKK, they are not left or right. They are bigoted racists, who want to give rights to the elite whites, and enslave other races. I suppose it is sort of leftist, like big government, and most of the members were democrats, (one leader even became a senator!) but really anyone who supports them is just bad.


I don't know what you are referencing by "an American point of view," but being left doesn't necessarily mean "big government." To a leftist libertarian, for example, a right-wing libertarian is "big government," so, I think it sounds like your idea of left and right is being influenced too much by the rhetoric between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are not a leftist party.


I don't vote for Democrats, anyway... Nor am I in Europe, but you should actually compare some of the societies in Europe to the US. Many of them are freer by several measures.


Secondly, as I've said, this has all been in the courts, and the set up we have now has been deemed constittutional. It's the other view, the decentraized notion, which has been found wrong, like it or not.


The Klan is a right-wing hate group. That doesn't mean the left is perfect, but there's no question about it. Again, you just have to study the question critically.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 8:23 pm

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 25 2013, 7:50 pm

> (one leader even became a senator!) but really anyone who supports them is just bad.
Are you talking about Byrd?  There have actually been many.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 7:50 am

Considering how prominently slavery was supported in CSA's Constitution, I think Jefferson was lying and really had no intention of doing it (or just making a political promise he knew wouldn't happen.) - BamBam


When still a member of the Union, Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to reach a compromise, insisting on a dual majority, and bring SC back into the Union. He did reject the proposal, which was devised by Duncan F. Kenner, possibly the largest slaveholder in the South, at the beginning of the war and more than likely reconsidered out of desperation. Given that Kenner devised the plan suggests he was at least willing to give up his slaves on voluntary terms. As a producer, Kenner may have realized it would be better to end slavery on voluntary terms than by coercive measures from the North. 


Tom Wood's offers this interesting article: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/



Returning to Davis... it's difficult to imagine how he could've achieved it Constitutionally, an amendment aside, but then non-compliant States could've seceded from the CSA. Another factor to consider is the length of the war... how much longer could it have continued with France and England suppoting the CSA? The war might have surpassed the five-year compromise. Perhaps France and England would've pressed the CSA into fulfilling its obligations. I'm neutral on Davis' motivations, but find the information intriguing since revisionists ignore it entirely.


BTW, I don't know if you ever received my appreciation for the comments you left on my profile page. I tried to return the favor, but my comments didn't seem to show up on yours. I also appreciate the additional incites you offer on the varying posts.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 7:55 am

I'm not too sure I agree with you on this.  Remember, there were twelve original amendments, ten of which were immediately ratified and one more ratified as the 27th amendment.  My opinion is that Madison arranged them in a logical order as when we read the amendments in order, they flow nicely with it ending as when all of the above doesn't apply, then it's reserved to the states / people. - BamBam


I agree that Madison arranged them in a logical order. I think the order would still be logical if flipped. In fact, the 10th Amendment, if placed 1st, would act as a lead into the others with perhaps more of an impact. I think the lsit could even be random and still make sense (given their correspondence to the grievances against King George III) for those familiar with history and willing to adhere to Constitutional government.


I do laugh as those advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Even if were repealed, gun rights would revert to the States as a reserved right, secured under the 10th Amendment.


(On Woodrow Wilson) I'm starting to wonder about that with Obama here. - BamBam


Wilson's policies had devastating long-term consequences. Obama's policies obviously have the same potential. However, Obama could be so bad that people may come to their senses, demand Constitutional Government, and effectively nullify the Government as it currently stands.


When I last purchased ammo, everyone agreed that Obama is currently the best gun seller in American. He should get the Gun-Seller of theYear Award.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 7:58 am

What's sad is that some people around here have made fun of me because I have been warning that countries in the EU would begin confiscating money from the people because of socialistic problems caused by the government.  - BamBam


You're in good company with Peter Schiff. I'd rather have a firm foundation in economics and be laughted at than those who'll be blindsided in the collapse to come.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 8:05 am

Yes however the fact that we can have a standing navy means your argument about not having gays in the military is null and void because it depends on the false premise that a standing military is unconstitutional.  Also since the War of 1812 the Founding Fathers still alive realized that in order to stay free thye needed to maintain an army especially since DC was burned by invading British soilders due to the milita running from battle. - chr33355


My argument does not depend on a standing army being unconstitutional. As it applies to a standing army, I'm saying that permitting homosexuals to serve in the standing army is a distraction from the more important problem of having a standing army, which is unconstitutional. If we abided by the Constitution and didn't have a standing army, the conflict surrounding homosexual admittance would be a non-issue and disappear in so far as the Army is concerned.


The issue might remain for the Navy or it might be null and void. Consider, for example, that the Army/Navy tempts individuals into service by offering them favoritism, such as college services. This tempts heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, as the government is unconstitutionally promising favoritism. The Navy may have fewer recruits if the favoritism were to end. With fewer recruits, the Navy may not be so quick to decline homosexuals, opting instead to accept those able-bodied devotees, who are interested in genuinely serving their country, as opposed to receiving government benefits.


If the Founding Fathers realized that a standing army was necessary, then why didn't they amend the Constitution to properly provide the country with the so-called "necessity"? One would think the Founding Fathers would be aware of their own creation and the protocols contained therein to amend it. But then again, I concede some of the Founding Fathers made for poor Presidents.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 8:09 am

T'Paul, I'm working on a response. But in the meantime, I suggest watching the following videos so that you may have a proper understanding of Capitalism. Or, I welcome you to watch the videos so that you may explain to me why I am wrong.


How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg (1hr, 17min); or read the book on line for free:http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt


Economics in One Lesson:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNd3cd0Bsr8


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 9:33 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 7:50 am

>When still a member of the Union, Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to reach a compromise, insisting on a dual majority, and bring SC back into the Union. He did reject the proposal, which was devised by Duncan F. Kenner, possibly the largest slaveholder in the South, at the beginning of the war and more than likely reconsidered out of desperation. Given that Kenner devised the plan suggests he was at least willing to give up his slaves on voluntary terms. As a producer, Kenner may have realized it would be better to end slavery on voluntary terms than by coercive measures from the North.
Almost sounds similar to the Constitutional Convention where promises were made to get rid of slavery over time.  (But we all know what happened to those promises.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 9:36 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 25 2013, 8:06 pm

>Secondly, as I've said, this has all been in the courts, and the set up we have now has been deemed constittutional. It's the other view, the decentraized notion, which has been found wrong, like it or not.
Yes.. we all know that the courts have deemed the US Constitution as unConstitutional... 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 9:56 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 7:50 am

>Tom Wood's offers this interesting article: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/

>
Interesting.... I'll have to read the mises.org articles Wood's references.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 9:59 am

Almost sounds similar to the Constitutional Convention where promises were made to get rid of slavery over time.  (But we all know what happened to those promises.)


Economic reality is different from political wishful thinking. As you know too well, the U.S. has fallen short on many issues too which the Federalists promised safeguards. Slavery is but one issue among many where both sides failed. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:03 am

Secondly, as I've said, this has all been in the courts, and the set up we have now has been deemed constittutional. It's the other view, the decentraized notion, which has been found wrong, like it or not.


It's unwritten Constitution (the decisions of the Supreme Court) vs. written Constitution, as ratified in Convention by the People... the latter being the only thing that matters. The Colonies rebelled against England in large part for its unwritten Constitution, which is a vehicle for tyranny. 


Like it or not, the States can, have, and will continue to nullify federal court decisions in favor of the written Constitution. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:12 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 7:55 am

>(On Woodrow Wilson) I'm starting to wonder about that with Obama here. - BamBam

>Wilson's policies had devastating long-term consequences. Obama's policies obviously have the same potential. However, Obama could be so bad that people may come to their senses, demand Constitutional Government, and effectively nullify the Government as it currently stands.
Possibly, but since the government also controls the school system... people don't understand what's going on.


I recently saw something out of Texas where the lesson blamed 9/11 on the USA and not on the terrorists.  Another lesson states that food and medicine are rights under the Bill of Rights (and the student was marked down for not agreeing to it.)


People even think that our entitlement system is a "right" and Obamacare is also a "right" because that's what the government has brainwashed them into believing.  Then add onto it that people have a "right" to take away someone else's property under the guise of "fairness"....


We can go on and on.... we see all that rhetoric everywhere.... even here on this site.


 


Hitler was quite correct when he stated, "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. The state will take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing. Your child belongs to us already."  The ProRegressives understand this and have been using schools to destroy critical thinking for decades.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: heronymous, darmokattanagra, Commander_Zelkar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum