Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
With Dems, we've had a nice long history of civil rights abuses, opposition to market liberalism, and a general contempt for progress. Not bad for populists and progressives.
how long can democracy last in the u s of a
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
With Dems, we've had a nice long history of civil rights abuses, opposition to market liberalism, and a general contempt for progress. Not bad for populists and progressives.
Crashk
Unite or Die
You are a fucking idiot. read some real history. You add nothing to any thread here.
Bye-Bye
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
So, you're saying that the populists were not anti-capitalist and against industrialization? You think the Dems were even stronger supporters of market liberalism with their agrarian roots back then than they are today? Awesome.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
The same logic would suggest that we would still have slavery without the republican party.
Crashk
Unite or Die
Here's an example of the world you would create. It's nothing new, your ideas have been around for hundreds of years.
"A coal miner in West Virginia generally lived in a company town. He woke up in a company bed situated in a company house. He washed himself with water drawn from a company well and ate breakfast prepared with food bought at the company store. Everything consumed or used by his family came from the company, purchased on credit. The credits used during the pay period only rarely failed to add up to less than the paycheck (paid not in United States currency, but company script.) In debt from his first day on the job, the entire system was geared towards keeping him and his family that way.
The miner had free speech, but what happened after he spoke could give him serious trouble. Many companies employed the firm Baldwin and Felts to provide mine guards. These guards dispensed retribution against “rabblerousers” and “outside agitators” who came in talking about unions. One town even featured a Gatling gun mounted upon the front porch of a company official’s home. Companies figured that they could increase their control by importing miners from a variety of areas such as Russia, southern Italy, and Austria-Hungary. They came from countries with oppressive systems; also living in a strange country with different customs and languages increased their isolation. In fairness, company towns ran the spectrum from benevolently paternalistic societies to absolutely dictatorial rule. Increasingly the system turned its aims towards preventing unions from organizing the region.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/coal-mine.htm
I'll apologize to those of you that have a brain for posting this again. But I'm dealing with 3D and I'm close to the ignore button with him.
"A coal miner in West Virginia generally lived in a company town. He woke up in a company bed situated in a company house. He washed himself with water drawn from a company well and ate breakfast prepared with food bought at the company store. Everything consumed or used by his family came from the company, purchased on credit. The credits used during the pay period only rarely failed to add up to less than the paycheck (paid not in United States currency, but company script.) In debt from his first day on the job, the entire system was geared towards keeping him and his family that way.
The miner had free speech, but what happened after he spoke could give him serious trouble. Many companies employed the firm Baldwin and Felts to provide mine guards. These guards dispensed retribution against “rabblerousers” and “outside agitators” who came in talking about unions. One town even featured a Gatling gun mounted upon the front porch of a company official’s home. Companies figured that they could increase their control by importing miners from a variety of areas such as Russia, southern Italy, and Austria-Hungary. They came from countries with oppressive systems; also living in a strange country with different customs and languages increased their isolation. In fairness, company towns ran the spectrum from benevolently paternalistic societies to absolutely dictatorial rule. Increasingly the system turned its aims towards preventing unions from organizing the region.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/coal-mine.htm
I'll apologize to those of you that have a brain for posting this again. But I'm dealing with 3D and I'm close to the ignore button with him.
Crashk
Unite or Die
Remember if you read any of this that your kind has been against any progress in labor relations and prosperity for American workers. The same prosperity that probably allowed your family to climb the social ladder out of poverty which was imposed on them by the same ideology that you support.
http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/curricul.htm#6
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
When it's all said and done, I'm just trying to feed myself, and my family. This gets harder everytime the dems, and reps make a law. And then I have people like you worshiping laws that make my life harder.
Yes, my forefathers got off a boat, and yes they were taken advantage of, but they didn't have gov't raping them of their income, and they didn't get ahead by voting themselves money.
Crashk
Unite or Die
Without the labor laws that conservatives have fought from the beginning your family and my family would still be dirt poor. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution people have worked all their lives for subsistence wages and then died in poverty, or actually starved. All populists, liberals or even socialists want is a fair wage and a chance at the American dream which is being able to climb the social ladder from poverty to the middle class and beyond and not die in poverty. Something conservatives are against.
You back conservatives.
we have polling businesses that tell politicians what the voters want to hear (the most recent being the conflicting poll results regarding addition of a community center in new york)
(conflicting poll results?) 70+% are against the mosque in NY, you think thats bogus? If it were 70% for the mosque, you'd be quoting it as gospel
the conflict is that when polled regarding the mosque's first amendment rights, they got almost the same numbers for pro
as to why this is a national issue, i think it is because a small group of right wingnuts put it out to stir controversy and the semi-legit media picked it up...what a mess
I'm surprised it isn't 100% for....no one I know says they don't have the right.
Two completely different questions
get two completely different answers
and you call that a conflict?
\
Thats about as stupid as it gets....
\
If I asked what 2+2 was and get the answer 4
then
I ask what 3+3 is and get the answer 6
You think thats a conflict?
You make no sense.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Can communist money not be channeled in through unions or PACs? Or are you just not opposed to it being done that way?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, what about unions and PACs? Why should we be allowing those entities the right to contribute to political campaigns, and restrict corporations? I don't mind us reforming campaign finance again, but I am right there with Dick Armey on it, let's just cut out ALL outside political contributions, except for individuals, which are limited to a specific amount. If we can't do that, or don't want to do that, then we have to honor our Constitution, and allow ALL entities the SAME right to free speech. It's as simple as that.
The reason you hear so much noise from the left on this, is because they had a pretty sweet deal there, with McCain-Feingold... They had all this money coming in from their union cronies and PAC's like MoveOn.org and Center for American Progress... while "corporate America" remained bound and gagged in the corner, unable to contribute to political campaigns. The "forces" opposed to capitalism and the interests of business, were able to pour as much money as they wanted into political campaigns, while those supportive of business and capitalism were forbidden from this. The SCOTUS ruling, allowed for corporations to enjoy the same freedom of speech as labor unions and PACs, that's all... but that's a real biggie for liberal asswipes who had an advantage.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
My reality is that the labor laws are making me poor.
You said, "From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution people have worked all their lives for subsistence wages and then died in poverty, or actually starved".
This seems to be the reality for many people including myself. Only this time we (I) have to bail out the unions who have representation and I don't.
There's no regard for me. Someone who is trying (many times) to earn half of what a union worker makes. No one is offering me anything. Just taking.
Not only that, Unions will take away my right to work, after letting me know that I can't be apart of a (the) union(s).
All the while taking my hard earned money to make up for the unions, (and gov'ts) short comings.
Yes, you really have a great reality. Only I seem to be the coal minor, and you, (the union), the slave owner.
Keep in mind that I'm climbing that social ladder from poverty to the middle class with a ball and chain. Which is really a monopoly. Which include people like you and the unions you support, and the politicians you vote for. Don't look for much sympathy from hardworking people like me.
too true
a representative democracy is not much better, but it is the best we have short of a constitutional monarchy with elected kings
so people who oppose building a community center with a mosque and support the first amendment are not in conflict...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, because those who oppose the mosque are not, and have not, denied they have the first amendment right to do this. That has never been in debate here, in spite of all the hullabaloo from liberals to make it out to be about that!
We all agree it is their constitutional and legal right to build the mosque. How much more clearly can I make that point? The people who are opposed, are arguing it's poor judgment, in poor taste, disrespectful, insensitive, offensive, and crude... but they have the right. It defeats entirely, the stated objective and purpose of 'outreach' or 'unity' because of the controversy that it invokes.... but they have the right. It's unwise, potentially dangerous, and a foreign relations disaster... but they have the right. It is a victory for alQaeda, and radicals around the globe, and will certainly be the symbol of recruiting for their movement.... but they have the right.
Now you Libtards stop right there... They have the right, therefore, you must stand up for their right and see to it that the mosque is built and no one denies them their right. You are disconnected from the issue of appropriateness, which has been raised, it is completely distorted and purposefully misunderstood, so that you can obtain your objectives and remain perched on your glorious high white stallion.
It's not about their right, it's about what is right.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Your question to me is irrelevant since I am a supporter of the Conservative movement, not the GOP. Why do you lie about conservatives? Or are you just ignorant?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Them too. I think that only voters should be able to contribute to campaigns.
