And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....

[acptulsa]

You're clearly not familiar with the history of anarchism or its leftist, anti-state roots.

LOL at anarcho-comunists, and one world government 'anarchists'. I rank them right beside those who make their living in 'military intelligence'. If someone proudly self-identifies using a label which is an oxymoron, does that make them a moronic airhead?

Yes they do, bad as the alt-right/neo-NAZIs (who are really a brand of leftists) are they are better than the communists (who are farther to the left.)

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.

I never said the right as currently represented was perfect, but I dare you to find one Demoncrat with a Dr. Ron Paul type voting record...

I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.

You dare me to find one? How many would you like? Admittedly they're all old, and the last ten years have caused the survivors to change their registration so they could vote for one Dr. Paul or another in a primary or three. But these people you consider a myth, I drink a toast with every chance I get.

[Swordsmyth]

But my point is, the overwhelming majority of people, including the 'alt-right/neo-NAZI' people, consider that to be the right, not the left. These labels don't mean anything. They are used for division, not greater understanding. The less individuals are placed in labeled boxes, the less We, the People talk past each other and the more we talk to each other.

This all started when I said:

It can happen here, if the left gains unfettered control of the reigns of government for a long enough time they will indulge their wildest fantasies, we are all that stops them.

In response to what the LEFT was doing about Confederate monuments, what I said was true.
The left is worse than the right even with the common misunderstanding about the labels

I voted for Ron Paul for president three times--in the 2012 primary, in the 2008 primary, and in the 1988 general election. And I can assure you from personal experience that people confronted with a false choice like Dukakkis v. ex-CIA chief G.H.W. Bush, or McCarthy v. Tricky Dick Nixon, often pulled the 'D' lever no matter how much they hated growing government.

And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

[acptulsa]

And every time the left won things got worse faster than when the false right won.

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president. The president who sent the National Guard to Kent State was not a Democrat. The vice president who sat in the War Room and told the Air Force to continue their war games as though nothing were happening while 9/11 went down was not a Democrat.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.

[Antischism]

You clearly haven't studied the history of anarchism prior to 1800. Anarcho communists like to say it's a lefty movement, but that's just because they have a myopic view of history. (See Zeno of Citium and Xenophon of Athens, for example)

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

[Swordsmyth]

No, friend. The War on Drugs didn't start during a Democratic administration. Asset forfeiture didn't start during a Democratic administration. The PATRIOT Act was not signed into law by a Democrat president.

No, neither the 'Left' nor the 'Right' has ever had a monopoly on the Lesser Evil. Guess you had to be there to understand.

And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

[acptulsa]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.

And I could quote you just as many worse things that the Demoncrats did when they were in power or wanted to do and pushed for the times they lost, do you really think those things would not have been done if the Demoncrats had won the previous elections? if you do you are delusional.

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. And history does not support the conventional wisdom that the Republican agenda would have led to a federal government one whit smaller than the Democratic agenda would have done. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally voted for Democrats?

[heavenlyboy34]

Politically and economically, it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that anarchism became a concept, later expanded and applied to the individual by Proudhon and other anarchists of the time.

You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

[acptulsa]

You're just getting overly technical. It's like saying polyphony didn't exist until Bach started writing it down.

Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't seem to be selling the Democratic Party as the Lesser Evil half as much as you seem to be selling the G.O.P. as the Lesser Evil.

Neither is the lesser evil. They're just the two sides of the same coin. That's my point. As for the theory that, if left in power for four or five cycles, the Democrats would have pushed their agenda a lot further, I agree. And so would the Republicans. Your point that throwing one out in favor of the other slowed the slide into totalitarianism is valid, so far as I can tell. So why are you hating on people who used to occasionally vote for Democrats?

To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

I did not "hate on" anybody, least of all anyone who is an ex-democrat or even an ex-leftist, those who demonstrate a capacity to learn are to be commended.

[acptulsa]

To make myself clear since I wasn't, the Demoncrats would have done those things that you pointed to Republicans doing and the horrible things they wanted to do, they are the Greater evil.

It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. The two parties are a pair of pacifiers. One pushes one on front for a while, then the other pushes on the other front, but neither ever undoes the damage the other inflicted. Witness Obamacare repeal; have you noticed that no one with gray hair was the tiniest bit surprised it didn't happen?

Either party would have gotten around to all of the agenda, in the end.

[Antischism]

It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that Marx 'invented' socialism, which was and is nothing more than a way to sell totalitarianism to the masses. But totalitarianism and liberty are concepts which are as old as the very hills.

And just because ignoramuses call Proudhon, who considered himself a mutualist, served in the French government, and was once a good friend of Marx, the 'father of anarchism' does not mean he was against all forms of government.

Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.

Like any good leftist, he's using technicalities to obscure the pure, technically unadulterated facts. The mutualists may have long been called anarchists, but they never were anarchists. And using the fact that they were mistakenly called anarchists to elicit sympathy for the left is disingenuous.

Boy, if you don't regard the mutualists as "true" anarchists, I'd hate to hear your feelings on "anarcho-capitalists." I guess Lysander Spooner wasn't an anarchist, either.

[Swordsmyth]

It's a theory. But Reagan didn't any more eliminate Carter's Department of Education than Obama eliminated Dubya's DHS. In fact, both expanded those things. And I'm not sure Carter got the ED in place before he left; Reagan might have implemented it.

No, I don't believe you. They'd have both gotten around to all of it, in the end.

There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

[acptulsa]

A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways.

That doesn't mean leftists are correct to call a mutualist an anarchist.

There are things Republicans never could do because they are the "controlled OPPOSITION" and there are many other things they would do but only much more slowly, there are also many things they only can do because they "must" compromise with Demoncrats, they could not do those if people didn't elect Demoncrats.

In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Swordsmyth]

And the things the Republicans could do much more quickly than the Democrats were just as bad. No less evil at all.

And I wasn't trying to convince you the Party of Huey P. Long, LBJ and the Bloody Clintons was anything other than evil at all. I was just trying to help you see that no matter how another poor, powerless slob self-identifies, religiously wastes his or her vote, or blathers on the internet, they can have valid points, and you'll never help them find a more worthwhile path by stubbornly refusing to believe that. Both major parties have $#!+ that really, really stinks, and we all have much bigger problems than half of us disagree with the other half about which pile of $#!+ stinks worse.

So long as we obsess on that, they will be able to keep us divided and conquered. Arguing about which mountain of evil is taller than the other is a path to slavery. Nothing more and nothing less.

I never said leftists couldn't be right about anything and I always acknowledge it when they are, and I didn't start this as a "right is better than left" conversation, I stated that if we don't stop them the left could and would drag us into 1984, then somebody chimed in to tell me that the left is no worse than the right and since I disagree I then discussed that concept.

Like I said above: In any case I think that we have come to an end of useful debate, I don't think I am going to convince you and you will never convince me, fortunately we both believe in real freedom and liberty so this topic doesn't really matter.

[Swordsmyth]

Marx actually had very little to say on socialism. Regarding communism, his goal was to achieve a stateless, classless society. A lot of people conflate totalitarianism with Marx's theories because Lenin took them and broke away from key aspects in numerous ways. For example, while Marx argued that implementation would be effective on an advanced capitalist state, Lenin applied it to an economically stagnant Russia overrun by peasant farmers. Then there's the whole vanguard party thing.

And now the inner Marxist comes out in view for all to see.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am commenting on the Civil War discussion. I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge. It's easy to say "the Civil War was about slavery" because that is a binary issue. You are, legally, either a slave or not a slave. That is very easy to teach to a grade schooler. It's much harder to teach the other issues, even to college students and adults. How many adults even know the meaning of the word "tariff," let alone its application?

The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North. The South generally exported, while the North generally imported. The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South. The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.

The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer. It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present. Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."

The two regions were economically different. You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe. The South had more raw materials. The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay. They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton. The tariff was an ongoing issue. First in 1828. The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861. It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote.

The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods. The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff. The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.

England and Europe favored the South because they did not favor the tariff. England also played it's own shrewd angle, fitting for a country that thought it superior to many and practicing colonialism. Lincoln knew he could not sell the war internationally on the tariff/economics, so he played the slavery card. England (rightly) opposed slavery, so the US government played that angle. Most Americans probably did not really care about slavery, at least to the point of killing one another over it. Lincoln was a shrewd and insincere racist, but he was also practical by manipulating the slavery angle. The South was definitely not some innocent bystander either. Their insistence on slavery was the epitome of greed and pathetic human behavior. They lost all righteousness with their greed.

I know what I just wrote is simplistic and on some grade school level, but it's really tiresome to hear people completely vilifying the south today. The only thing they know to say is "because slavery." War and conflict almost always have an economic component. Most wars have enough blame to go around. It's not like North was totally good, and the South was totally bad. People view history through the these lenses without making a critical analysis effort.

[jllundqu]

Why is this even a debate?? You're arguing about which master is better? Jesus Christ we have a long way to go.

[FunkBuddha]

Sheriff pursuing felonies after Confederate statue torn down

[Swordsmyth]

Sheriff pursuing felonies after Confederate statue torn down

GOOD.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why is this even a debate?? You're arguing about which master is better? Jesus Christ we have a long way to go.

Srsly? Read the thread.

[Antischism]

Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thinking back on it, wasn't Robert E. Lee opposed to monuments? That would put a humorous spin on things.

"Thinking back on it." More lulz. You just saw that on one of your liberal media outlets broadcast today.

I barely heard of you til yesterday, but you really are a card, chief!

[Antischism]

"Thinking back on it." More lulz. You just saw that on one of your liberal media outlets broadcast today.

I barely heard of you til yesterday, but you really are a card, chief!

I guess you aren't familiar with rhetorical questions.

[acptulsa]

I guess you aren't familiar with rhetorical questions.

Wasn't Robert E Lee possessed of the moral turpitude to oppose slavery in the South in the 1850s and 1860s?

That was not a rhetorical question.

[Antischism]

Wasn't Robert E Lee possessed of the moral turpitude to oppose slavery in the South in the 1850s and 1860s?

That was not a rhetorical question.

It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the "guiding hand" of the white man. Or guiding whip. Whatever.

[acptulsa]

It's difficult to give him too much credit when he was also of the belief that black people needed guidance from whites to survive in the US.

And if you were magically transported to Africa in the 1860s, you wouldn't need guidance?

.

This implies that he believed they were inherently inferior and needed the guiding hand of the white man.

The man isn't here to defend himself from words being put in his mouth, so I'll do it. I don't infer that at all. It is entirely reasonable to assume he meant that they had been deliberately kept so ignorant that it was cruel to let them loose with no education at all. And that is a valid and kindhearted concern.

[angelatc]

...almost like it was planned. Move the narrative away from Southern and historic heritage and link it to neo-Nazi's and now there will be no stopping it.
Nashville, Lexington, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Gainseville.




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/u...-kentucky.html

Not just down - up. These fools have entirely lost their minds.


Vigilante protesters start DIGGING UP body of Confederate general Nathan Forrest from his grave

[KrokHead]

Good. The Confederacy was anti-capitalist and anti liberty.

[angelatc]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw

Take down 'racist' Theodore Roosevelt statue, activists tell New York museum
Protesters gather at the American Museum of Natural History to demand the removal of the statue and issue an urgent call to rename Columbus Day

[heavenlyboy34]

Good. The Confederacy was anti-capitalist and anti liberty.

Same can be said of the Union. Still not a good case for whitewashing history. Unless perhaps you want to tear down ALL the memorials for BOTH sides.