Political Party Affiliation Survey [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

mostpost

08-25-2017, 11:25 PM

Contrary to popular and seriously uninformed opinion, both communists and Nazis are extreme left wingers. Communists are a little to the left of Nazis, but not enough to matter.

Hint: Nazi is a made-up term that is short-hand for National Socialist.

There is little difference between the two as far as the role of the state. Both believe that the interests of the state supersede the freedom of the individual.

That is beyond ignorant. Communists are far left. Nazis are far right. Everyone knows that except the ignorant right.

Nazis can call themselves whatever they want. They are not socialists. In Nazi Germany the means of production were controlled by the capitalists not the workers.

deutsche Berkwerks.
Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe
Eisenwerke Oberdonau
Flugmotorenwerke Osstmark
Krupp
Bayer
Steer-Daimler-Puch
Topf and Sons
Frank Eher Nachfolger
Accumulatoren-Fabrik AFA
Volkswagen Group
IBM subsidiary Dehomag
IG Farben
DEST
Sulzberger

That is a list of companies that were in existence during WWII and that are documented as having profited from participation in the Holocaust.

By definition a socialist is someone who believes the means of production should be controlled by the workers. I have just provided a list of fifteen example of how workers did not control the means of production in Nazi Germany. Nazis are just a very extreme version of the right. It's time you guys vfaced up to to that.

mostpost

08-25-2017, 11:27 PM

:6:Twitter, Facebook, and almost any social media is so geared towards Dem, it is beyond ridiculous.

PA is bit right. Thankfully.
A bit right . :lol::lol::lol::lol:

STOP IT!!!! YOU'RE KILLING ME.

mostpost

08-25-2017, 11:38 PM

I should have phrased this differently:

Rhetorical survey question: The members of the party I do not belong to most closely identify with A.) Communists or B.) Nazis.
I don't believe that most of the right wing posters on here identify with Nazism. My problem with them is twofold. First, that they think everyone who disagrees with them is a Communist. Second, that they refuse to see that Nazism lies on their side of the political spectrum.

I have denied that communism occupies the very far left. Unlike the righties however I recognize that there is a big difference between Commies and Nazis and others on the respective sides of the political spectrum. Of course that takes critical thinking.

Lemon Drop Husker

08-25-2017, 11:47 PM

I don't believe that most of the right wing posters on here identify with Nazism. My problem with them is twofold. First, that they think everyone who disagrees with them is a Communist. Second, that they refuse to see that Nazism lies on their side of the political spectrum.

I have denied that communism occupies the very far left. Unlike the righties however I recognize that there is a big difference between Commies and Nazis and others on the respective sides of the political spectrum. Of course that takes critical thinking.

OK, fine. Put Nazism on our political sprectrum. NOBODY wants them dumbass.

Critical thinking? Bring your best Chuck.

Lemon Drop Husker

08-25-2017, 11:50 PM

I don't believe that most of the right wing posters on here identify with Nazism. My problem with them is twofold. First, that they think everyone who disagrees with them is a Communist. Second, that they refuse to see that Nazism lies on their side of the political spectrum.

I have denied that communism occupies the very far left. Unlike the righties however I recognize that there is a big difference between Commies and Nazis and others on the respective sides of the political spectrum. Of course that takes critical thinking.

So question yourself, can YOU critically think?

Nope. Talks big, and come game time, bends over like Hillary.

Open door and he shows up shorter than turd in a toilet.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 01:07 AM

That is beyond ignorant. Communists are far left. Nazis are far right. Everyone knows that except the ignorant right.

The right end of the political spectrum believes in small government, free markets, and individual freedom. Please explain how National Socialism reflects those principles.

highnote

08-26-2017, 01:27 AM

:lol:The right end of the political spectrum believes in small government, free markets, and individual freedom.

I hear what you're saying and in principle that is supposed to be what the right end of the spectrum believes in, but in practice it rarely happens.

But the same is true at the left end of the spectrum.

All talk from both sides, and a lot of hypocrisy.

Small gov sounds great, but how come it always grows under either admin?

Free markets should be a mainstay of the right, but how come there is soooooo much regulation?

Free markets and individual freedom. :lol:

Why can't anyone open a gambling establishment -- free markets and individual freedom? :lol:

Why can't anyone open a bar?

Why can't anyone offer stocks for sale in their company?

Hell, you have to have a permit to grow hemp even in states where marijuana is legal!

If a dairy farmer wants to sell unpasteurized milk and a customer wants to buy it, why should there be a bureaucrat denying this free trade? Where are all those on the right fighting for this free market principle?

Free markets -- why can't a U.S. company do business with any company anywhere in the world? Why can't a U.S. company import or export any product it wants to?

All these right leaning principles sound good in theory until you try to exercise them. Then the authorities shut you down.

I don't mean to pick on the right. The left is just as bad, if not worse.

Basically, it's all a load of crap from both sides and the biggest losers are those who are forced to play by the rules that are fixed against them.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 01:33 AM

By definition a socialist is someone who believes the means of production should be controlled by the workers. I have just provided a list of fifteen example of how workers did not control the means of production in Nazi Germany. Nazis are just a very extreme version of the right.

No, a socialist is one who believes that the means of production should be controlled by society. It is the belief that the needs of society trump the rights of the individual. Communism is an extreme example of socialism, saying that not only should the workers control the means of production, they should, through the government, own them.

Nazism didn't care who controlled the means of production, as long as that production met the needs of the state.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 01:39 AM

:lol:

I hear what you're saying and in principle that is supposed to be what the right end of the spectrum believes in, but in practice it rarely happens.

But the same is true at the left end of the spectrum.

All talk from both sides, and a lot of hypocrisy.

Small gov sounds great, but how come it always grows under either admin?

Because the vast majority of politicians in our government are not motivated by principles, but by raising money, keeping a nice soft job, and getting reelected.

highnote

08-26-2017, 01:59 AM

Because the vast majority of politicians in our government are not motivated by principles, but by raising money, keeping a nice soft job, and getting reelected.

This is not the fault of the politicians. This is the fault of the voters.

reckless

08-26-2017, 06:29 AM

That is beyond ignorant. Communists are far left. Nazis are far right. Everyone knows that except the ignorant right.

Nazis can call themselves whatever they want. They are not socialists. In Nazi Germany the means of production were controlled by the capitalists not the workers.

deutsche Berkwerks.
Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe
Eisenwerke Oberdonau
Flugmotorenwerke Osstmark
Krupp
Bayer
Steer-Daimler-Puch
Topf and Sons
Frank Eher Nachfolger
Accumulatoren-Fabrik AFA
Volkswagen Group
IBM subsidiary Dehomag
IG Farben
DEST
Sulzberger

That is a list of companies that were in existence during WWII and that are documented as having profited from participation in the Holocaust.

By definition a socialist is someone who believes the means of production should be controlled by the workers. I have just provided a list of fifteen example of how workers did not control the means of production in Nazi Germany. Nazis are just a very extreme version of the right. It's time you guys vfaced up to to that.

Wow, I cannot believe this, even coming from him.

This comment forever answers our most simplest question: why does mostpost really and truly support Obama Care?

We now have the answer: "... if you like your psychiartrist, you can keep your psychiatrist ..."

kevb

08-26-2017, 06:38 AM

Because the vast majority of politicians in our government are not motivated by principles, but by raising money, keeping a nice soft job, and getting reelected.

Amen brother.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 09:39 AM

This is not the fault of the politicians. This is the fault of the voters.

People in a democracy get the government that they deserve.

Tom

08-26-2017, 10:36 AM

The left today is trying to erase our history, destroy the symbols of it.
who else did that?

Hitler
Stallin
Taliban

DNC is in good company.
Fact of the matter is, politically, the DNC is the closest thing to the REAL Nazi Party we have seen in this country.....EVER.

Those skin-head morons you see on the news are no real threat to anyone.
The REAL threat to everyone is the Clintons, the Pelosi's, the Soros's, The Maxine Waters's. And of the course the snowflakes, who make the case for abortion convincing.

highnote

08-26-2017, 10:46 AM

People in a democracy get the government that they deserve.

Yep. People wanted change and they didn't want Hillary. The only remaining viable choice was Trump -- the ultimate lessor of evil vote. :D

highnote

08-26-2017, 11:05 AM

The left today is trying to erase our history, destroy the symbols of it.
who else did that?

Hitler
Stallin
Taliban

Saddam Hussein's statues were torn down and most people in the U.S. didn't complain. Personally, I thought they should have been preserved and stored in a museum. Saddam Hussein was a part of history whether people like it or not. The history of his rule was erased from the public's eye.

The victors usually get to write the history.

My opinion is that there should be no statues of politicians or leaders anywhere in public. Learn about leaders in museums, textbooks, internet. Problem solved.

Personally, if I was an American who was the descendant of African slaves I would not like having to walk by a statue of Jefferson Davis. Just read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession. Davis wanted to protect the rights of white people to own black people.

Davis was a man who supported a system that abducted people in Africa -- tearing mothers from their children, children from their parents, fathers from their family, put them in chains, sold them, put them on a ship, chained them in the bottom of a ship for a 4 month journey overseas, stripped them naked, beat them, whipped them, raped them, and then sold them to the highest bidder on an auction block. Then they were forced to work on plantations, or in mines, or any number of other jobs that required forced labor and no pay. Oftentimes when they were no longer able to work in a mine they were killed. If a slave woman became pregnant the baby was often taken from here and sold. Even teenaged kids were sold from one plantation owner to another. Parents were sold away from their families.

I don't have any problem with these statues being removed from public places.

Someone brought up FDR putting Japanese Americans in internment camps. Take down his statue, too. Put it in a museum. That's where it belongs. And stop naming buildings, bridges, roads, towns, counties, and states after dead presidents.

Leaders do not need to be glorified. They're just people.

Inner Dirt

08-26-2017, 11:09 AM

People in a democracy get the government that they deserve.

What happens if your only two real choices are between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche? I voted for Will Seemore, and I actually held up my polling place to do that as they were not set up for write in candidates.

Tom

08-26-2017, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
People in a democracy get the government that they deserve.

Not anymore.
The game is too rigged.
We voted for Trump and we got McConnell, nothing more than a trans-gender Hillary. Sans balls.

The only way a government can ever work is if it is limited in term. 100% turnover in a relatively short period of time is essential.

No one in congress represents the people anymore, on either side.
it is like a clogged toilet - you need to flush the turds out every so often, otherwise, like McCain and McConnell, they clog it up and make it smell bad.
Especially two really big ones like these two.

rastajenk

08-26-2017, 11:21 AM

Clocker

08-26-2017, 11:26 AM

No one in congress represents the people anymore, on either side.

Then why do their voters keep sending them back to Washington?

highnote

08-26-2017, 11:37 AM

The only way a government can ever work is if it is limited in term. 100% turnover in a relatively short period of time is essential.

I can't remember which U.S. president said that the president's term should be limited to 4 years, but this is probably a good idea.

Given that the president has a lot of power it makes sense that the term should be limited to 4 years and a senator's limited to 6. This way senators get a chance to work with two presidents. It gives them a little extra power to counter the power the president has.

A representative should be limited to 2 years because they're not smart enough to get elected as a president or a senator. :D

Chris Shays of Connecticut served as a rep 21 years. That's way too long.

He lost a bid for senate to Linda McMahon. After 21 years in the house and you can't win a senate seat against a person with no political experience?

Like I said, reps are not smart enough to be a president or senator. I rest my case. :lol:

Tom

08-26-2017, 11:42 AM

Then why do their voters keep sending them back to Washington?

Most are far too stupid.

I would guess 60% of all voters have know idea what they are voting for.
47% at the very least.

Most have no real clue where their choice stands on issues.

clocker, people who buy Hillary's story about her emails are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Sad our #1 national resource is blithering idiocy.
#2 s laziness.

highnote

08-26-2017, 11:43 AM

Then why do their voters keep sending them back to Washington?

How many truly good people want to run for office?

The power brokers get behind a candidate. If the candidate gets elected then he/she owes a lot of favors to the power broker who got them elected.

Before the McCain/Feingold campaign reform bill, candidates had a less slanted playing field and a candidate of modest means had a shot of getting elected with just the campaign funds that were made available from the state of fed. After McCain/Feingold the floodgates of money opened and corporate interests got their candidate elected and in return got preferential treatment.

Fager Fan

08-26-2017, 12:17 PM

What is the difference between encountering a piece of public art, and seeing the same thing in a museum? What makes the museum a safe place for observing objectionable art?

What about other examples of public art that may be offensive to some members of the public, examples that have nothing to do with the mythical rise in Neo-Nazi-ism or the urge to purge Confederate reminders? Are the only choices a museum or the junk pile? Seems more than a little heavy-handed to me.

Exactly. We can find the sin in almost every public person, so we'd have to take them all down. I'm offended by the racist, hater of America Obama, so there better not be any statues of him in public. But it'd remain, because it's just not in most conservatives to vandalize and riot and make huge stinks. The left is leaving us with no choice but to fight back though as they've been the squeaky wheel and as a repsult rolling right over us. That's why Trump was elected - fighting back. But it's not enough, have to fight harder.

highnote

08-26-2017, 12:36 PM

What is the difference between encountering a piece of public art, and seeing the same thing in a museum? What makes the museum a safe place for observing objectionable art?

What about other examples of public art that may be offensive to some members of the public, examples that have nothing to do with the mythical rise in Neo-Nazi-ism or the urge to purge Confederate reminders? Are the only choices a museum or the junk pile? Seems more than a little heavy-handed to me.

You bring up valid points. Why don't filmmakers show pornographic films in public parks on large screens for everyone to see?

So what if it is offensive? No one makes you look at the screen. No one makes you go into the park.

Some people could argue persuasively that people having sex is art, not pornographic. Hell, for that matter everyone should just walk around naked and engage in sex anytime and anyplace. They can call it art or freedom of expression.

Why draw artificial boundaries and put limits on freedom of expression?

Clocker

08-26-2017, 12:54 PM

You bring up valid points. Why don't filmmakers show pornographic films in public parks on large screens for everyone to see?

You can do anything you want on your own property, and no one can do anything on your property without your permission.

A public park is owned by the public. Decisions about what can or can't be done there are delegated to a management body who supposedly act in the broad interests of the owners.

highnote

08-26-2017, 01:09 PM

You can do anything you want on your own property, and no one can do anything on your property without your permission.

A public park is owned by the public. Decisions about what can or can't be done there are delegated to a management body who supposedly act in the broad interests of the owners.

By your logic, apparently, a majority of people do not want monuments to leaders who believed it was their right to abduct people from Africa against their will to be held in slavery and to perpetuate slavery by forcing people into slavery who were born to parents of slaves.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 01:36 PM

By your logic, apparently, a majority of people do not want monuments to leaders who believed it was their right to abduct people from Africa against their will to be held in slavery and to perpetuate slavery by forcing people into slavery who were born to parents of slaves.
What has my "logic" got to do with anything here?

The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Monuments in public places are not the property of a few angry morons and are not subject to the whims of same.

As far as I can tell, those monuments were put in place reflecting the will of the majority of the people at the time. There is no immediate evidence that "a majority of people" want those monuments removed, and when and if they do, there are lawful methods to achieve that.

highnote

08-26-2017, 01:46 PM

What has my "logic" got to do with anything here?

The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Monuments in public places are not the property of a few angry morons and are not subject to the whims of same.

As far as I can tell, those monuments were put in place reflecting the will of the majority of the people at the time. There is no immediate evidence that "a majority of people" want those monuments removed, and when and if they do, there are lawful methods to achieve that.

I agree there are lawful means. Many mayors and governors are asking for them to be removed. They wouldn't ask if there if their constituents didn't want it. You know as well as I do that the one things politicians fear more than anything else is not getting re-elected. So the pols will do as their voters ask.

According to your logic the "management body" is removing the statues because they believe that is what the majority wants.

So what's the big deal?

Clocker

08-26-2017, 02:19 PM

[QUOTE=highnote;2212279 Many mayors and governors are asking for them to be removed. They wouldn't ask if there if their constituents didn't want it. [/QUOTE]

:pound:

Inner Dirt

08-26-2017, 02:52 PM

What I find most comical is it seems the white liberals have decided what every minority should be offended by. Not saying I have been exposed to more minorities than most but I grew up in Southern California, played college football on a team that was half white (me) and half black, and now live in a county that is 1/3 black. I ask the taboo questions, and I have never found one black person that had a problem with me being called white and them called black. How strange is that? I had a black friend in California that was not bothered by symbols of racism. He said he wished every racist would have a white power tattoo and advertise their beliefs as he said the closeted ones who hide it are the ones to fear.

wisconsin

08-26-2017, 03:32 PM

What I find most comical is it seems the white liberals have decided what every minority should be offended by.

Nail, meet hammer head. Looney, when you think of it.

Tom

08-26-2017, 03:32 PM

:pound:

+ :pound::pound::pound:

The Doofus Pelosi is demanding Trump ad Ryan get those awful statues our of DC. What was stopping HER when she was the SOHOIR. Democrats are just stinking hypocrites -all of them. Whores, nothing more.

I would put up MORE statues just to piss them off.

I would put up a statue of Sheriff Joe.
In a mooning position. :headbanger:

Clocker

08-26-2017, 04:02 PM

Democrats are just stinking hypocrites -all of them. Whores, nothing more.

I would put up MORE statues just to piss them off.

I would put up a statue of Sheriff Joe.
In a mooning position. :headbanger:

And now the idiot mayor of NYC is talking about getting rid of the statue of Christopher Columbus there.

That would be the statue of Columbus in the middle of Columbus Circle. Which is not all that far from Columbia University, where De Blasio attended school.

I guess the statue is offensive to Vikings, who really discovered this continent.

highnote

08-26-2017, 04:18 PM

And now the idiot mayor of NYC is talking about getting rid of the statue of Christopher Columbus there.

That would be the statue of Columbus in the middle of Columbus Circle. Which is not all that far from Columbia University, where De Blasio attended school.

I guess the statue is offensive to Vikings, who really discovered this continent.

That's right. Either they all must go, or anything goes.

Tom

08-26-2017, 04:21 PM

Which is not all that far from Columbia University, where De Blasio attended school.

Well at least Del Blasio had the decency to get rid of that education Columbia gave him.......moron.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 04:45 PM

That's right. Either they all must go, or anything goes.
The Vikings don't deserve any respect. They started colonies in the New World in the 10th century, and 11 centuries later they still haven't won a Super Bowl.

highnote

08-26-2017, 04:48 PM

The Vikings don't deserve any respect. They started colonies in the New World in the 10th century, and 11 centuries later they still haven't won a Super Bowl.

:pound:

mostpost

08-26-2017, 07:26 PM

The right end of the political spectrum believes in small government, free markets, and individual freedom. Please explain how National Socialism reflects those principles.
The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

Clocker

08-26-2017, 08:22 PM

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do.

Not everyone on the right is totally opposed to abortion. I think it would be correct to say that everyone on the right is opposed to the attitude that abortion is just another form of birth control, no different than the pill or a rubber. Some forms of "late term" abortion are clearly killing a living, viable human being. Issues such as that are properly decided by government.

The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. OMG! What could possibly be more intrusive than a society determining who its own citizens are, and only allowing such citizens to vote for that society's government. :faint:

The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. Conservatives believe that a role of government is to enforce contracts, and that it has no business intervening in the terms of contracts voluntarily agreed to by the parties involved. If you don't get paid fairly according to the terms and conditions of the job that you agreed to, the government will help you.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.
Free markets are good for anyone and everyone, because no rational person will agree to a free market exchange if he feels that he is not better off as a result.

Fager Fan

08-26-2017, 08:22 PM

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

Ok, this one made me lol. All are sooooo untrue except one, and gosh, that might be akin to being good with our government saying thou shall not murder.

davew

08-26-2017, 10:55 PM

The right believes in small government; unless you want to have an abortion. Then it believes the government should tell you what to do. The right believes in small government; unless you want to vote. Then it believes the government should decide whether you can vote. The right believes in small government; unless you are a worker. Then it does everything it can to make sure you don't get paid fairly. The right does believe in small government when it comes to controlling those who need controlling most.

The right does indeed believe in free markets. The question is are completely free markets good for anyone.

Individual freedom for themselves. For others, not so much.

It seems to me the right does not want to help subsidize the things the left wants for free because it is 'their right'. Socialism seems more left to me. Communism seem more left to me. Democrats seem to cover Socialism, Communism, and Neo-Nazism ..... the anti-fascist fascists...

Tom

08-26-2017, 11:39 PM

Even mostie can't possibly believe the utter nonsense he posts.
Must be trying to get a break in comedy.
Oh, wait, that is the same as the DNC.

Fools standing up and uttering nonsense.

Never mind.:blush:

zico20

08-27-2017, 07:07 PM

I can't remember which U.S. president said that the president's term should be limited to 4 years, but this is probably a good idea.

Given that the president has a lot of power it makes sense that the term should be limited to 4 years and a senator's limited to 6. This way senators get a chance to work with two presidents. It gives them a little extra power to counter the power the president has.

A representative should be limited to 2 years because they're not smart enough to get elected as a president or a senator. :D

Chris Shays of Connecticut served as a rep 21 years. That's way too long.

He lost a bid for senate to Linda McMahon. After 21 years in the house and you can't win a senate seat against a person with no political experience?

Like I said, reps are not smart enough to be a president or senator. I rest my case. :lol:

It was Rutherford Hayes.

zico20

08-27-2017, 07:21 PM

By your logic, apparently, a majority of people do not want monuments to leaders who believed it was their right to abduct people from Africa against their will to be held in slavery and to perpetuate slavery by forcing people into slavery who were born to parents of slaves.

The whole planet was involved in slavery. It was an acceptable practice. White people stopped abducting Africans and instead bought them from their African traders. Blame the Africans for selling their own people.

One more thing, if 150 years from now abortion is illegal should we then get rid of all statues of people who supported this despicable practice?

http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-slave-trade

highnote

08-28-2017, 03:19 AM

The whole planet was involved in slavery.

Because everyone else was doing it that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

It was an acceptable practice.

And that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

White people stopped abducting Africans and instead bought them from their African traders. Blame the Africans for selling their own people.

And that makes it OK?

One more thing, if 150 years from now abortion is illegal should we then get rid of all statues of people who supported this despicable practice?

Who can say?

It is quite shocking how blatant S. Carolina was in wanting to perpetuate slavery. SC was angered by the fact that Northern States would not return their runaway slaves. SC believed slaves were property and that by the Fourth Article of the U.S. Constitution it was agreed that runaway slaves would be returned.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

The problem with SC's argument is that they did not follow a basic tenet of the Constitution to which they agreed to be bound -- All Men are Created Equal.

Their leaders could try to argue that slaves were not equal, but that argument is morally wrong in every way, shape, and form. Their belief was downright disgusting. People who could afford slaves wanted cheap labor so they could lead easy lives. Or they would rape the slaves and sell their offspring for revenue. They were wrong on every level. There was nothing righteous, virtuous, or ethical about owning slaves and everybody knows it. Anyone who doesn't admit it is either lying, greedy, or a racist.

Ironically, I believe S. Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, but that is a different topic. The North still would have declared war on SC because of slavery. Today, if any state wanted to leave the United States and become a sovereign nation I believe it is their right to do so. However, if that new sovereign nation engages in human rights violations they can expect the United States to put an end to the violations.

The South should have ended slavery voluntarily and then seceded.

From the link above:

"...the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

rastajenk

08-28-2017, 07:24 AM

You bring up valid points. Why don't filmmakers show pornographic films in public parks on large screens for everyone to see?...
I can tell you didn't think much of my comment, but the point I was trying to make is that the pressure from the Urge-to-Purgers will just shift to the receiving museums to get rid of them. Charitable foundations that support museums, individuals that provide financial support, local businesses, anything and everyone associated with the museum will be outed and targeted by the shaming mobs. There's no appeasing these types. Trump's comments following Charlottesville may have been not very articulate, but he was not wrong.

I'd rather have inanimate objects standing here and there that may be tributes to an inglorious past than to start down the road to a Soviet-style totalitarian erasure of history.

classhandicapper

08-28-2017, 08:51 AM

The Nazis were left wing. They were socialists. It's right in their name. They may not have been the same flavor of left wing ideology as the communists, but they were still left wing. It wasn't until later that they were redefined as right wing (most likely by the left for political purposes lmao). Then subsequently everyone began referring to their flavor of left wing politics as right wing.

The true right would never be in favor of a large strong government exercising control over the means of production like the Nazis did. To the extent that the business community supported the Nazis it was because they thought the Communists were even worse and would confiscate everything.

I've always wondered what it was like for people suffering from various bouts of hyper inflation, depression, unemployment etc... to feel like they only had a choice between Nazis and Communists.

Fager Fan

08-28-2017, 09:18 AM

Because everyone else was doing it that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

And that makes slavery in the U.S. acceptable?

And that makes it OK?

Who can say?

It is quite shocking how blatant S. Carolina was in wanting to perpetuate slavery. SC was angered by the fact that Northern States would not return their runaway slaves. SC believed slaves were property and that by the Fourth Article of the U.S. Constitution it was agreed that runaway slaves would be returned.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

The problem with SC's argument is that they did not follow a basic tenet of the Constitution to which they agreed to be bound -- All Men are Created Equal.

Their leaders could try to argue that slaves were not equal, but that argument is morally wrong in every way, shape, and form. Their belief was downright disgusting. People who could afford slaves wanted cheap labor so they could lead easy lives. Or they would rape the slaves and sell their offspring for revenue. They were wrong on every level. There was nothing righteous, virtuous, or ethical about owning slaves and everybody knows it. Anyone who doesn't admit it is either lying, greedy, or a racist.

Ironically, I believe S. Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, but that is a different topic. The North still would have declared war on SC because of slavery. Today, if any state wanted to leave the United States and become a sovereign nation I believe it is their right to do so. However, if that new sovereign nation engages in human rights violations they can expect the United States to put an end to the violations.

The South should have ended slavery voluntarily and then seceded.

From the link above:

"...the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

You're not getting that you have to look at it through the eyes of the time. The world used to be far more violent and ruthless than it is now. We have grown tremendously in civility.

Slavery was abhorrent, but so were many other practices of the past. Going to the public square to watch a beheading or a burning at the stake, going to a coliseum and cheering on slaves to kill each other. Native Americans scalping a kill. Cock fighting, dog fighting, they still mercilessly kill bulls for entertainment.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow? Many of the English rulers were particularly brutal. Mary Queen of Scots had the guillotined heads of her enemies put on sticks for the public to see. All sorts of torture devices were used, while today we worry about water boarding of terrorist suspects.

We've come a really long way, and it's hard to imagine ourselves engaging in things we are so repulsed by today, but maybe we would've had we been born at those times. Or maybe not as strongly against. While no slavery was right or moral, it's probably important to remember that not all were treated brutally, that some slave owners were more kind than others.

When slaves were freed, all the men who get accolades for doing so still thought so little of women that they weren't allowed to vote.

maddog42

08-28-2017, 10:43 AM

Am I the lone commie in this group?!? I identify myself as a liberal capitalist which pisses off both sides. I seem to be the only person to hit the commie button, but it is still better than Nazi.

Clocker

08-28-2017, 10:51 AM

Slavery was and is a gross violation of basic human rights. So what if the whole world was doing it. The U.S. has a strong history of fighting for human rights.

Many at the time believed, or claimed to believe, that blacks were sub-human, so the human rights issue was not relevant.

highnote

08-28-2017, 12:05 PM

Many at the time believed, or claimed to believe, that blacks were sub-human, so the human rights issue was not relevant.

Again, so what if people claimed to hold certain beliefs that they used to justify owning slaves. 1.) Many slaveholders were lying. They knew slaves were not sub-human, but used it as an excuse to own them. 2.) Most people knew the practice of slavery was wrong -- especially Northern Christians.

It's amazes me that so many people to this day try to justify the actions of slaveholders. It was wrong. Almost everyone knew it. A civil war was waged because of it.

rastajenk

08-28-2017, 12:23 PM

No one is justifying owning slaves. They are just a-"woke" enough to realize that different times require different lenses.

highnote

08-28-2017, 12:47 PM

No one is justifying owning slaves. They are just a-"woke" enough to realize that different times require different lenses.

And in this awakened time the leaders who fought to protect the inhuman practice of owning slaves should not be glorified.

They should also not be forgotten as they are part of the sordid past and dark history of the United States.

Monuments that appear in public places and that glorify those leaders is inappropriate and harms the fabric society.

Every time you see one of those statues think about all the abuses that slaves had to endure -- beatings, rape, murder, whippings, placed in chains, abduction, children taken from their mothers and sold, and every other horrific abuse you can imagine. Then ask the descendants of those slaves how they feel about those leaders who fought to perpetuate slavery.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say a black leader in the United States approved of the practice of holding white people slaves. Black people stole your wife, raped her, beat her, impregnated her. Then they took your children and sold them to a slave trader and shipped them off to a foreign country to work as slaves. [edit: I forgot one... the slave runners tied you down, pried open your mouth and shit in it. That was a common practice.] Would you put this leader's statue in your public park? Would you want him to be worshipped and glorified as an example of a great leader and a great human being?

Inner Dirt

08-28-2017, 01:33 PM

I find it more than comical that white liberals are the ones who seem most adamant about all the things a minority should be offended by. I am rather outspoken and have no problem broaching taboo subjects with people. Admittedly I have few friends these days because I moved across the country and am pretty isolated. In the not so distant past I have had friends that were black and I live in a county that is 1/3 black, and I have NEVER met someone who was offended by being called black. What is even more crazy maybe liberals don't know this but there are indigenous black people that are outside of the continent of Africa.

highnote

08-28-2017, 01:40 PM

I started this thread as satire.

On social media the stereotype is that if you are a democrat you get accused of being a communist. And if you are a republican you get accused of being a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Somehow the thread drifted to the removal of statues from public spaces. :coffee: :D

Clocker

08-28-2017, 01:50 PM

No one is justifying owning slaves. They are just a-"woke" enough to realize that different times require different lenses.

And that given the norms of the time, owning slaves does not justify vilifying otherwise noble men like Washington and Jefferson.

Although I would not object to using the current social justice warrior idiocy about men like Washington and Columbus to justify leveling the city of Washington in the District of Columbia and turning it into something more useful, like a parking lot.

highnote

08-28-2017, 02:02 PM

And that given the norms of the time, owning slaves does not justify vilifying otherwise noble men like Washington and Jefferson.

Although I would not object to using the current social justice warrior idiocy about men like Washington and Columbus to justify leveling the city of Washington in the District of Columbia and turning it into something more useful, like a parking lot.

I agree. Washington and Jefferson were wrong for owning slaves and Jefferson knew better, but I think he also put the line in the Declaration of Independence that All Men are Created Equal because on some level he understood that men should not be held as slaves. Change takes time and he understood that.

People who defend keeping confederate statues in the parks are correct that you have to look at the time in which the people lived.

However, that does not mean it is correct to keep them in the park.

Personally, I think statues of Jefferson and Washington should be removed. It's fine to keep Monticello and other museums about them, but the museums should tell the truth and tell it loud and clear. These men owned slaves.

Now, one could argue that perhaps Jefferson treated his slaves better than if they were free men. I don't know if that is true. It might be the case that he actually protected them from bad elements in society? I don't know. But that would be an interesting insight.

In any case, the fact that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves is reason enough that statues that glorify them should be removed from public spaces. They were not saints.

Jefferson did some sneaky things -- like the Lewis and Clark expedition. He called it a scientific expedition (which it was), but it was actually a military expedition, which was a violation of the agreement the U.S. had with France and England.

highnote

08-28-2017, 02:18 PM

No one is justifying owning slaves. They are just a-"woke" enough to realize that different times require different lenses.

Richmond, VA newspaper argues for taking down statue of Jefferson Davis:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/348238-richmonds-largest-newspaper-city-must-take-down-jefferson-davis

The largest newspaper in Richmond, Va., made its case in an editorial Sunday that a statue of Jefferson Davis must come down, arguing that the former Confederate president lacks any virtues worth memorializing.

“Davis embodies everything that was awful about the Confederacy, and nothing about it that inspires some lifelong Southerners to grow misty-eyed,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote in an editorial titled “Take down the Jefferson Davis Monument.”

...

“Unlike other Confederate leaders, whose redeeming qualities make them worthy of high regard to some and complex figures to others, Davis has few virtues to balance against his sins,” the Times-Dispatch wrote. “What’s more, unlike others such as Robert E. Lee, who considered slavery evil, Davis had no qualms about the institution.”

...

“Had Davis been an inspiring leader, a military genius, a gallant soldier, a paragon of reconciliation, even a statesman of any note, his repulsive qualities might be somewhat leavened. But he lacked those qualities entirely,” it continued.

Clocker

08-28-2017, 02:28 PM

Personally, I think statues of Jefferson and Washington should be removed. It's fine to keep Monticello and other museums about them, but the museums should tell the truth and tell it loud and clear. These men owned slaves.

Should we dynamite the Washington Monument too, like the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha? Statues are part of our history, reflecting both those that are honored and those who put up the statues. To erase that is to rewrite history. Much better to use that time and energy to educate people, especially children, instead of filling their heads with a bunch of politically correct nonsense.

highnote

08-28-2017, 02:35 PM

Should we dynamite the Washington Monument too, like the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha? Statues are part of our history, reflecting both those that are honored and those who put up the statues. To erase that is to rewrite history. Much better to use that time and energy to educate people, especially children, instead of filling their heads with a bunch of politically correct nonsense.

Nah. No need to blow up the Wash Monument. Just rename it. :D

Read the editorial in the Richmond newspaper above. History is nuanced.

People glorified in statues and monuments possess different degrees of virtues and vices.

Robert E. Lee believed slavery was evil. Jefferson Davis did not.

highnote

08-28-2017, 03:20 PM

Here is an interesting account of Washington and his experiences with slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

His views on slavery changed over time and believed it was wrong, but he owned many slaves and they were whipped, including women, if he did not approve of their behavior.

It is hard to believe anyone could have tolerated that sort of punishment on another human being. But such were the beliefs of the day.

He came to realize how hypocritical it was for him to own slaves yet to fight for freedom from oppression.

classhandicapper

08-28-2017, 07:43 PM

Although I would not object to using the current social justice warrior idiocy about men like Washington and Columbus to justify leveling the city of Washington in the District of Columbia and turning it into something more useful, like a parking lot.

:lol:

zico20

08-28-2017, 08:41 PM

zico20

08-28-2017, 08:44 PM

Clocker

08-28-2017, 09:38 PM

For the love of God Clocker, don't give the radical left any ideas.

If any of those people ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness.

DSB

08-29-2017, 10:05 AM

Nah. No need to blow up the Wash Monument. Just rename it. :D

From the list of communist goals for America 1963. Yeah, I know, a "paranoia list of the John Birch Society." Amazing how that list has proved prophetic... you know, for simple paranoia. As I've said before: "It's only paranoia if it isn't true."

#30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

Guess we can put a check next to that one, too.

Now that the leftists mobs have gotten the ball rolling with purging our history of civil war participants, they can move on to include Washington, Jefferson, and any others they deem necessary of removal.

I guess #17 hasn't accomplished this in a timely manner. Oh well, it's good to have a backup plan...

highnote

08-29-2017, 11:27 AM

#30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

Guess we can put a check next to that one, too.

It is important to revisit history and take a fresh look at the founding fathers.

G. Washington sometimes did administer harsh punishment to his slaves. As the Wikipedia article about him states he had one of his female slaves, Charlotte, whipped.

In 1793, when one of his estate managers, Anthony Whitting, whipped a slave named Charlotte, Washington was in full approval. His wife, Martha had deemed her to be "indolent". Washington wrote, "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper," ... "and if she or any other of the servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." Another of his estate managers, Hiland Crow, was widely known for flogging slaves brutally.[7]

Though Washington considered himself benevolent as a slave master, he did not tolerate suspected shirkers, even among those who were pregnant, old, or crippled. When a slave in an arm sling pleaded that it kept him from working, Washington demonstrated how to use a rake with one arm and scolded him, saying, "If you use your hand to eat, why can't you use it to work?" He would ship stubbornly disobedient slaves, such as one man named Waggoner Jack, to the West Indies, where the tropical climate and relentless toil tended to shorten life. Washington urged one of his estate managers persistently to keep an 83-year-old slave named Gunner hard at work to "continue throwing up brick earth". When the Potomac River froze over for five weeks in 1788, and with nine inches of snow on the ground, Washington kept them at exhausting outdoor labor, such as sending the female slaves to dig up tree stumps from a frozen swamp. After his own heading out during this unusually frigid weather to inspect his farms, Washington wrote in his diary that, "finding the cold disagreeable I returned".[7]

In 1780 Pennsylvania abolished slavery, however, 1793 Washington signed the Fugitive Slave Act which required runaway slaves to be returned to their owners even if the slaves ran away to free states.

But Washington, the U.S. and slavery are nuanced. For example, in 1787 an act was passed to abolished slavery in the Northwest Territory. And then Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, "which was a reaffirmation of a 1787 act that had banned slavery in the Northwest Territory in 1789; slaves already in the territory, however, were not freed."

By 1797 it appears his views on slavery had continued to change and wrote that unless slavery ceased to exist it would destroy the Union. He wrote to Jefferson that if the Union split over the issue of slavery he "had made up his mind to move and be of the northern."

Since the discovery in 2001 of the foundations of the President's house and slave quarters on Independence Mall, exhibits about slavery and the republic were added to the nearby Liberty Bell Center, which opened in 2003. In addition, a public archeology project was undertaken on the site in 2007, and a commemorative exhibit has been constructed at the site. The President's House in Philadelphia: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation opened in 2010.[27]

Slavery is an important and tragic part of the U.S. history. It should be remembered, studied, and understood. Museums like the one just described are the right place to do this. A statue in a public park that glorifies Jefferson Davis is not the right way.

History is being created every day. Someday, the current period we live in will be studied by historians and sociologists. People's attitudes toward the removal of confederate statues will be written about and discussed. It would be interesting to see how future generations view the present society that is living 150 years after the Civil War.

DSB

08-29-2017, 12:25 PM

Check.

PaceAdvantage

08-29-2017, 12:27 PM

Can threads get any more ridiculous?

Poll deleted with a whopping 6 responses...and at least one or two of the votes could be regarded as FAKE NEWS...

highnote

08-29-2017, 01:05 PM

Can threads get any more ridiculous?

Poll deleted with a whopping 6 responses...and at least one or two of the votes could be regarded as FAKE NEWS...

Gotta love thread drift. :D

The poll is meant to be satirical. It is a reflection of the state of today's social media. Spirited debate devolves into name calling. If you are a republican and you make a statement you get called a Nazi by a democrat. Vice versa, if you are a democrat and you make a statement you get called a commie by a republican.

It's not much different than the antifa and alt-right. When the conversation devolves, nothing gets settled. Neither side can win and both sides lose. If things get bad enough then they get settled by physical violence or even war. In war, the winner is the one who makes the other side retreat.

As long as there is an antifa and an alt-right there will be violence because neither side is willing to talk to the other. Some people just like to fight.

Best thing to do is get out of the way and let them fight it out. If they fight voluntarily that is their choice. They should agree to meet someplace like a big open field in the middle of the country -- like Kansas or Missouri. Then fight it out. The last one standing is the winner.

Why not? This is what they want.