A Complete Waste of Space

Ya know...R_D..I could give a "Slick" dissertation...using 900 words and bringing up 12 different subjects...but, I kept it simple fer folks like you....Every damn one of the people I mentioned all had something in common..and I told you what it was....bone up on yer history..not yer rhetoric....If'n ya got something meaningful..and can back it up...I'd like to see it....

Think of it this way...read what you wrote to me...and see if that would "stand up" as a topic of your own thread.....Ok, schools out.....

Old Pudfark sez: " Sum folks reads the book...an others eat the covers "

This right here...is fer the rest of the Progressive weanies...Obama holds himself out to be a progressive....He has said so in public several times..and has often made references about his progressive friends and how they have influenced him........

That right there just chokes a feller up...don't it......unless, yer sucking up to it....The Progressive Path to Socialism....

Old Pudfark sez: " Yup, thats as safe as a pedophile patting yer kid on the hind end...go ahead buddie..I trust ya "

the United States has been a socialist nation since the institution of a graduated income tax. Toss in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a huge number of other programs benefitting the very wealthy, and income is redistributed every day, in countless ways. I saw the whole issue crystallized very well the other day in this quote:" Our nation was fought for by patriots, our nation was established by patriots, the Constitution was written by patriots. Patriots seek to establish government, anarchists seek to tear it down." So, Pud, and others, ramble all you wish about evil socialists, Progressives, liberals, whatever....just don't even try to call yourownselves Patriots.

Funny you'd tell someone else not to call themselves "patriot" when you're the farthest thing from it. Everything you post on these boards is socialism and borderline marxist. You don't give a damn about the laws of this country and the hate you have for your countrymen is obvious.

Capitalism, free-market or otherwise(and, let me pause for emphasis) WAS NEVER, EVER, EVER, ESTABLISHED AS EITHER THE LAW OF THE LAND, OR SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ANYWHERE. Socialism and Capitalism are but two major economic models. Most civilized nations are a blend of the two, molded by a host of regulations. What this nation was established on were a few key principles:
1. Primacy of private property(hence absolute communism would be anti-American)
2. Primacy of the rights of the individual citizen(although, the founders limited some of those rights to those who were property owners only)
3. Freedom to alter the government(via a designed slow process) as the citizens see fit.

Nothing was mentioned about the economy. In fact, the concepts of economies in an Industrial or Post-Industrial society were unfathomable. The founders were bright enough not to box in the people over things that were unforseen, and thus left the Constitution malleable and vague on economics. All the Constitution dealt with was the commercial relationship between the states, and primacy of Federal authority over States in terms of commerce.

Where you, Rugg, or anyone else, would ever seek to define one form of economy as American or Un-American is beyond me. That would be complete bullshit, with no historical or logical basis.

Pudfark wrote:The progressive path, historically, has never led to more freedom or personal choice, quite the opposite...

define, if you can, "the progressive path", and cite your sources. If you want an intelligent discussion, let's be clear on what you are talking about. You see, most folks I know who call themselve progressives are damn near anarchists, and anarchy is the ultimate in freedom and personal choice.

callmeslick wrote:the United States has been a socialist nation since the institution of a graduated income tax. Toss in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a huge number of other programs benefitting the very wealthy, and income is redistributed every day, in countless ways. I saw the whole issue crystallized very well the other day in this quote:" Our nation was fought for by patriots, our nation was established by patriots, the Constitution was written by patriots. Patriots seek to establish government, anarchists seek to tear it down." So, Pud, and others, ramble all you wish about evil socialists, Progressives, liberals, whatever....just don't even try to call yourownselves Patriots.

See folks...the above quote from Slick is exactly what I mean by a large amount of words, subject changes and accusations thrown in at the very last.....Ruggie would probably say that this is a known tactic from the DNC playbook...I would say..Ruggie is right....What you have to understand about the quote above...is how subtly Slick managed to substitue the word "progressive" for his word "patriot"....and then accuse me of not being one....Laughable to me...and oughta be serious to you....

However, I agree with the first two sentences of the quote...with one exception "very wealthy"....What Slick didn't tell you, I will, the "progressives" (back then) were the very ones to promote Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a huge number of other programs....which we all know are a great financial strain on our country and dragging it down to financial ruin....

What I find interesting is this.....This country was founded by conservatives, pretty much run by conservatives and has been historically succesful....only with the advent of "progressives" have we begun to fail.....Further, "progressives" exist in both politcal parties...one seems to be about "change and transformation" and the other about "how to cash in".....

Old Pudfark sez: " Pull yer head out'n yer hind end, take a deep breath, pay attention "

CUDA wrote:is this even English??????????

There´s some albanian influence and a little bit subicelandic slang but apart from that it´s pretty much perfect

Pudfark wrote:What I find interesting is this.....This country was founded by conservatives

Are you insane, or just fecking stupid? Since when are a bunch of guys willing to COMPLETELY change the dynamics and structure of government, overthrow the status quo and establish the rights of all citizens to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', in the context of the 18th Century, anything REMOTELY defined as Conservative? At this point, it becomes clear: you don't know the definition of Conservatism....and,
likely, you haven't a clue about the definition of Liberal, or Progressive, either.

I won't even address the part about 'run by Conservatives', or some of your other dimwitted assertions and assumptions, as it really isn't worth the bother when you don't grasp the basics.

Definitions worth noting:

Conservative--a political position based upon the assumption that men are inherently evil(Hobbes, et al, stated this in several foundation texts). Thus, a conservative view of politics is one in which government maintains controls over the freedom of individuals to do harm to society.

Liberal--a political position based upon the assumption that man tends to, if given free rein, to be good. The founders of this could be seen as Rousseau and other romantic/enlightenment types in France. The ideal model would be a near-anarchy, but practically speaking, the liberal view is that the individual should have freedom to do most anything, with little government oversight.

Note, please, that these traditional, Political Science 101 definitons have, in modern times, been twisted completely. At this point, folks see Conservatives as wishing to maintain values and systems of the past, and smaller governance, with Liberals wishing to push for change and more comprehensive government. The problem is, those don't fit the traditional definitions, so at this point, 'liberal' or 'conservative' are pretty much meaningless words.

Now, on to "Progressive"--there, the definition is, and has remained, unchanged:
Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are

given the above definition, Pudfark....the Founding Fathers were, what, exactly??(oh, and the definition of Conservative or Liberal had not even been formed, by the late 1700's, but that's not really important)