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: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 12:09 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 24 2013, 10:12 am

>

>fireproof, you seem to have indicated in prior posts that once the South officially lost that the Civil War, or more accurately the Southern War for Independence, Reconstruction begun. But from the Southern Point of View, Reconstruction was a continuation of the war fought entirely on Southern Soil. This is one of the reasons why Southerners weren't cooperative. Union officers demanded Southerners make a pledge of allegience to Lincoln just to use the Post Office. Union Officers would also kill Southerners for refusing to make a pledge of allegience to Lincoln. Similarly, Republicans coerced their way into the Legislatures of Southern States and denied representation to Democrats, despite Lincoln's pardon.

>
An interesting sidenote is that Andrew Johnson (who succeeded Lincoln) was a democrat.  The republicans pushed through the Freedmen's Bureau which Johnson vetoed.


 



 


Many think that this was the real reason behind Johnson's impeachment.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 12:23 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 23 2013, 3:59 pm

>

>Article 1 section 8 does give congress the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.  It doesn't say that the Army must be disbanded after two years and if i recall my history the two years was for the period of enlistment for enlisted soliders.  Also later on in section 8 congress has the power to provide and maintain a Navy meaning reguardless of how you interpret the army statement American can have a standing military meaning that you are wrong.

>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

style="text-align: justify;">I recommend reading Federalist Paper #41, provided in the link above, written by James Madison - the father of the Constitution. Madison distinguishes a Navy, a militia, and a standing army from one another. The Constitution also distinguishes an Army, a militia, and a Navy. One cannot make the argument, with any ligitimacy, that a Navy and a Standing Army are equatable, as the Constitution (and Madison) specifies maintaining a Navy, not an Army or a Militia. One should note the contrast between maintaining a Navy versus a two year limit on funding. While it is true that funding can be renewed, the Constitutional terminology of "term" implies a limited and finite period, as opposed to a Standing Army that would require unlimited funding over an indefinite time. If such were the case, the Constitution should've abandoned the terminology of "term" in favor of "maintaining" as was done with the Navy.

style="text-align: justify;">Madison argues at length against standing armies and points to the safe guards, such as a limited term for the Appropriation of Funds, within the Constitution against a standing army. Again, Madison, in no uncertain terms, says that a Navy and the Union (of States) itself negates the need for a standing army. 

>
 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.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 12:29 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 24 2013, 10:47 am

>

>That illustration is the reason why there is less social mobility now in the United States than there are in more socially democratic nations. 

>If less social mobility exists in the U.S., it is because the U.S. has propped up those socially democratic nations through the redistribution of wealth (fractional reserve banking, bailouts, foreign aid, etc...) at the expense of enslaving U.S. citizens.

>
Actually, there is a lot of mobility in the USA.  The IRS, which is the only entity that tracks people's incomes over time, has provided data showing that many people that were in the bottom 5% get to the top and many people that are at one time in the top drop out of it.


Most of us can name at least five "rags to riches" stories.... and there are many people that move up/down that we'll never know about.  Many "rich" people have become wealthy only to lose it and then do it again.


The biggest hinderence to economic mobility is the government control.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

This is to the Fleet Admiral:


As to why CPA endorsed Obama, you can probably still read exactly why if you go to their website. No doubt it had something to do with CPA being interested in women's equality. In fact, it was one of the early American communist parties, maybe even CPA, together with the abolitionist movement, that started the women's suffrage movement and eventually got American women the right to vote.


There might have been several other issues that led CPA to their endorsement. However, it should be noted that Obama didn't seek their endorsement, and it's a logical fallacy to think he is a communist simply because he got it. For example, white power groups tend to endorse far-right candidates. So, if I therefore concluded Ron Paul is a klansman, that would be about equal to your conclusion that Obama is a Socialist.


This may explain the phone calls you received. Or there are several other possibilities, such as it was a smear campaign. It doesn't matter. It all comes down to whether you want to believe verifiable history, or whether you want to believe the scrawlings on what is obviously a propaganda poster.


"Free market" doesn't mean liberty in the sense you think. It simply means unregulated or unchecked capitalism. So, for example, you could have unchecked or "free corruption" that leads to massive opression, and if you oppossed it, you would be oppossing someone's liberty to oppress and exploit, and therefore you would be moreso pro-liberty in general. In fact, that basically describes the situation when it happens that someone opposes "free market" capitalism, or the freedom to unchecked exploitation.


You missed the example I gave about private property. Moreover, I differntiated between private and personal properties. It would be one thing if time wasn't linear, if we were all born simultaneously and then had to compete for resources. However, if all the important resources are already owned, then subsequent generations don't have the same chance to compete for such, and they are just as equally entitled to natural resources as the generations which came before them.


It was decided somewhere very near the start of things, ratified by all the states in fact, that a federal court would would decide Constitutinal questions. What court do you suggest handles the question next time?


The US has declining social mobillity, less than what is in more socially democratic places, and it has to do their with allowing people more say over their day-to-day lives through more public ownership and public oversight.


 


If I missed anything, I'll get it later, sorry.


 

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 1:47 pm

The use doesn't have declining social mobility people have just forgotten the basic priniples that allow for social mobility.  

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:07 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>There might have been several other issues that led CPA to their endorsement. However, it should be noted that Obama didn't seek their endorsement,
I never suggested that Obama sought their endorsement, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had.  You would also do well to note that Obama never distanced himself from them.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:08 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>No doubt it had something to do with CPA being interested in women's equality.
Women have the same rights as men.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:27 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>and it's a logical fallacy to think he is a communist simply because he got it. For example, white power groups tend to endorse far-right candidates. So, if I therefore concluded Ron Paul is a klansman, that would be about equal to your conclusion that Obama is a Socialist.
Again, wrong.  It's because of Obama's policies that he's socialist/marxist/communist and supported by those groups.  Just because the MESSiah doesn't use the title doesn't mean he doesn't support it.  Remember, he was taught those principles all his life and he's never stood up against them.  Obama's own mentor was a member of the Communist Party.  Read Obama's own books - he sought out anti-American / anti-Liberty people to learn from.  He talked about America's "bourgeois" socienty, which he was "resisting."  Look at Obama's policies - they align with the CPUSA.


Ron Paul supported by the KKK??!?!?!  They are far left, and historically filled by members and leaders of the democrats - very much the antithesis of Ron Paul.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:33 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>"Free market" doesn't mean liberty in the sense you think. It simply means unregulated or unchecked capitalism.
I think Lone Palm explained this to you already...  I'll just add that capitalism is an outgrowth of liberty.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:07 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>

>There might have been several other issues that led CPA to their endorsement. However, it should be noted that Obama didn't seek their endorsement,
I never suggested that Obama sought their endorsement, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had.  You would also do well to note that Obama never distanced himself from them.


He did not seek or accept their endorsement. And your argument is still ad hoc ergo propter hoc.


As for your response that women have equal rights [already], the CPA would not only oppose outright attempts to strip women of equal rights directly, but they would also oppose all attempts to undermine or subvert those rights by indirect methods. It only follows.


Again, to the other responder: With each generation the capitalist system becomes increasingly constraining as resources become harder to come by. Moreover, it is a system that requires unlimited growth, meanwhile resources are limited. It is a system with problems.


I should also to reveal to you both, lest I'm expected to defend him, that I am not an Obama voter.


Enjoy a bit of your days; don't spend it all arging with me. We'll catch up here sooner or later.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:41 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>It was decided somewhere very near the start of things, ratified by all the states in fact, that a federal court would would decide Constitutinal questions. What court do you suggest handles the question next time?
But when it was ratified, they both understood and supported states rights.  They understood we didn't have a all-powerful national goverment like our current politicians say we have.


It would be nice if we had a court that actually believed in the US Constitution.  Watch some of the interviews with some of the members of the courts - they absolutely hate the Constitution and speak out against it.  (Similar to Obama.)  Plus, courts rely more on case law, not Constitutional law.  When you have people like that making rulings, there's a problem.


Most things are pretty easily understood based on the Constitution.... especially in terms of what the limited federal powers are - anything outside that is not federal.  This is expressed quite well, but the courts continue to ignore it.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:45 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>The US has declining social mobillity, less than what is in more socially democratic places, and it has to do their with allowing people more say over their day-to-day lives through more public ownership and public oversight.
The only decline in mobility has to do with government stopping people from the mobility - either by picking winners/losers via cronyism/regulation or by outright theft.


"socially democratic places" cannot, by definition, allow social mobility as everyone must be equal.  As soon as one person earns "too much", it must be taken away and redistributed to everyone else.  This means that people are slaves to the "public" - which is why so many people try to escape to the USA for freedom.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:48 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

>As for your response that women have equal rights [already], the CPA would not only oppose outright attempts to strip women of equal rights directly, but they would also oppose all attempts to undermine or subvert those rights by indirect methods.
Saying that the CPUSA supports equal rights doesn't give them any legitimacy.  They could use the same argument saying equal rights for all.... it's still bogus as they're against my rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness because they conflict with their goals.


And who's trying to take away women's rights?  I have yet to see anyone doing this.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

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

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>

>and it's a logical fallacy to think he is a communist simply because he got it. For example, white power groups tend to endorse far-right candidates. So, if I therefore concluded Ron Paul is a klansman, that would be about equal to your conclusion that Obama is a Socialist.
Again, wrong.  It's because of Obama's policies that he's socialist/marxist/communist and supported by those groups.  Just because the MESSiah doesn't use the title doesn't mean he doesn't support it.  Remember, he was taught those principles all his life and he's never stood up against them.  Obama's own mentor was a member of the Communist Party.  Read Obama's own books - he sought out anti-American / anti-Liberty people to learn from.  He talked about America's "bourgeois" socienty, which he was "resisting."  Look at Obama's policies - they align with the CPUSA.

Ron Paul supported by the KKK??!?!?!  They are far left, and historically filled by members and leaders of the democrats - very much the antithesis of Ron Paul.


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.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:52 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

>Again, to the other responder: With each generation the capitalist system becomes increasingly constraining as resources become harder to come by. Moreover, it is a system that requires unlimited growth, meanwhile resources are limited. It is a system with problems.
Ah yea... the fear teaching of "scarcity"....  The "experts" have been saying for years and years that we'd run out of X resource.... but are never right.   But let's say that some X resource does run out... that doesn't mean everything stops - something new takes its place.  That's capitalism - new creative ideas to meet the needs of others.


 


And as the universe appears to be unlimited, I'd say we have quite a long way to go before we run out of resources.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

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