The level of civility is deteriorating rapidly

Glad you asked. :D

Let's think back to the "type" of person the settlers were. Having lived under a strict system in England (bad-mouth the King and off with your head) and their religious upbringing their idea of freedom was not to do their best to rip off their neighbor.

For example, consider the following. (Excerpt) In 1629 a Puritan group secures from the king a charter to trade with America, as the Massachusetts Bay Company. Led by John Winthrop, a fleet of eleven vessels sets sail for Massachusetts in 1630. The ships carry 700 settlers, 240 cows and 60 horses.

Winthrop also has on board the royal charter of the company. The enterprise is to be based in the new world rather than in London. This device is used to justify a claim later passionately maintained by the new colony - that it is an independent political entity, entirely responsible for its own affairs. In 1630 Winthrop selects Boston as the site of the first settlement, and two years later the town is formally declared to be the capital of the colony.

This concept chimes well with the settlers' religious attitudes. They are Congregationalists, committed to the notion that the members of each church are a self-governing body. The towns of Massachusetts become like tiny city-states - each with a church at its centre, and with the church members as the governors.

This is oligarchy rather than democracy, but it is an oligarchy based on perceived virtue rather than wealth or birth.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa80#ixzz1WkfaIiFL

As time passed and people spread out the same “philosophy” endured, such as wagon trains and setting up communities. While freedom and capitalism were present people were “judged” by their community members. Members helped each other and anyone caught cheating their neighbour was outed. Some small towns function in a similar way today. Once the local mechanic or storeowner gets a bad reputation his game is over.

Things sailed along quite nicely. People were free to pursue their interests but not at the expense of their community members and all were expected to help, when required. As the population grew and people started to move around more it was easy to start cheating others. The proverbial “snake oil salesman” emerged. The thief and the hustler moved on to another town. If caught, the chances were good they’d catch a bullet.

Then cities came into being. People realized they could cheat people, just a little, at least. There was, as one famous quote relays, a fool born every minute. Who better to attribute that quote to than a man who ran a circus and travelled from town to town never staying long enough to meet justice? (Whether Barnum actually said that is open to conjecture.) The point being the idea of community first, as a necessity of survival, faded to became “grab all you can”.

While ideas still flourished and, as you accurately stated, America become the most prosperous nation on Earth it was due to freedom, being left alone to think, for lack of a better definition. It wasn’t due to someone’s right to swindle his or her neighbour or otherwise endeavour to take advantage of others. If someone knowingly sold a sick horse they were liable to be shot. Today, (LLC) it’s close the horse shop, declare bankruptcy and start selling some other type of animal and the previous buyer loses their money. Or if ones reputation is in the toilet simply move elsewhere. Today’s society is geared to cheating people. Even Greenspan, after being warned about the bogus financial instruments, insisted once enough people lost money others wouldn’t invest and the invisible insidious hand of the market would correct things. How well did that work?

In a sense America and other parts of the western world have reached a tipping point. It has gone from freedom with a responsibility to ones community to freedom with responsibility to oneself and it’s the former that made America great.

As a side note it’s most amusing to read comments from Dixie and others who rant about the dangers of social programs and the democrats passing laws without Republican input as if the government was an oligarchy. Where did we see that word before? Ahhh, yes. The original settlers! Who would have thought?

I can tell you in one sentence. The U.S. became the world's eonomic power because we have the most liberalized economy and we have created an entrepreneurial environment where the best and the brightest in the world want to come.
 
CORRECTION: Bush WAS the worst, he lost the dubious distinction to Obama within 2 years.

Wishful thinking.


Which DEMOCRATS supported, and Obama reinforced and fortified after becoming president.

After being lied to by the Bush administration, an institution not easily "undone", as one would imagine.


Both of which were supported and funded by DEMOCRATS, which Obama deployed more troops to, and we're still in... PLUS another one of his own doing, that he isn't calling "a war" because it's not politically expedient to do so.


Lies and sissy chatter.

The fault of LIBERALS who wanted to have financial institutions make loans to people who couldn't repay them. Then LIBERALS who continue to think bailouts and spending money we don't have, is the solution, even though it hasn't worked.

Oh, give me a fucking break. Mortgage companies, Savings and Loans took advantage of disadvantaged potential home buyers and extended credit to impossible candidates, all in the hopes of making money at anyone's expense....during the Bush administration, and before 2004. Bush did the first bailout, in Nov 2008, because he had to. Hello? You can blame Democrats and liberals but like Rick Perry says, "That dog won't hunt".
I doubt you would "show" anybody anything, except how much of a coward you really are.

Coward. Come to Houston, and I'll meet you at Hobby Airport, and make you "wear coward". White trailer trash.


Was that supposed to make someone like you better?

Bitch, I am better, in every way imaginable....ask around.. You classless tasteless retarded piss poor excuse for a human being and an American.
 
The pilgrims left England because of social Religious conservatives.

WRONG! Pilgrims and others left England for a VARIETY of reasons, just like every group of people do and act on virtually everything, with individual reasons which may or may not reside with the collective. There is no way to apply your broad brush to EVERYONE... but pinheads often assume, in their bigotry, this has to be the case. We all think and act alike for the same reasons, because we have to fit a stereotype you've created.

"Social religious conservatives?" Wow... that sounds a lot like "religious social conservatives" to me! I think you are sadly mistaken on history here as well. It was religious persecution and the insistence people worship the Church of England, which prompted many to desire a place of religious freedom, which they found in the New World.

Did I miss something, was a senator caned on the senate floor by another senator? Because that is what the pre-civil war rhetoric was like!

Oh, I don't know what senators and congressmen did back then, I am sure it was barbaric by today's standards.. they probably had some duels as well. I was speaking of the tone and rhetoric of the general populace, not congress. Just before the Civil War, the vitriol and divisiveness in America was almost unbearable. Lik I said, go back and study up on what was being said back and forth... I'm not trying to excuse the South or blame the North... I'm not trying to argue that the war was the fault of the North or the South... I'm not making the argument for or against either side... just pointing out the similarity between then and now, where there were two sides hell-bent on NOT COMPROMISING ONE INCH with the other side... the result was a brutal, deadly, and costly Civil War. Because, whether you believe this in your Utopian Liberal Dream World or not, that's what happens when men can't be civil and can't find a way to reconcile their differences. We're clearly on that path again today... Have we LEARNED anything from our past history? Or are we destined to let our pride and stubbornness prevent a solution before it comes to that?

Dixie, still not a single example!

I guess you totally missed post #10 above.
 
Well, maybe like the compromise Lincoln was working on, to 'phase out' slavery over time, perhaps through the government compensating slave owners, like they did in Maryland and Delaware? It seemed to have worked there, but that wasn't proposed or tried elsewhere. I think reasonable minds could have found a reasonable solution, if both sides had been willing to compromise. The problem was, neither side felt compelled to compromise, and viewed ANY compromise as unacceptable. I guess a couple hundred thousand dead soldiers was more appealing?

And you seriously believe the slave owners would have compromised?

Getting back to my question, “And what suitable compromise is possible between looking after the ill and poor and not looking after the ill and poor?” We saw the results of trying to compromise for almost 50 years and I think it’s fair to say medical care is a lot less controversial than slavery. Obama had no choice but to push ObamaCare.

Wasn’t GOP philosophy that did that, moron. This is some 'meme' you wish to cling to, like a baby clings to a warm blanket. The mortgage collapse, which STARTED the economic malaise we are in, was created through actions directly taken by two DEMOCRATS! Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. And if you wish to believe some other load of propaganda or political garbage, that's up to you... but the "FAULT" lies with Democrats on this as much (if not more) than Republicans.

Your logic is similar to people in a car noticing the driver taking a wrong turn and going in the wrong direction and when late for an engagement blame the driver because it wasn’t their place to do anything about it.

I seriously fucking doubt that is actually what Alan Greenspan said. It sounds like a LIBERAL distortion of something he MAY have said.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
(About a dozen paragraphs from the top.)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html

The actual exchange takes place in one of these two videos. I’m not sure of the exact time as I’m not receiving YouTube videos very well tonight. Take a listen.

(Parts one and two)

Again... doesn't matter if my way IS faulty or wrong, it's MY way, and I have the same goddamn right to express my viewpoints politically, as anyone else, including a liberal! You have absolutely NO RIGHT to deny me that, or to squelch the rights of free speech politically. NONE! It doesn't matter if you don't like it.

How can you even suggest anyone is trying to do that when every member of JPP has put up with your wrongness for years?
 
1) I'm sure individuals had all kinds of reasons... But the stated reason the pilgrims came to the new world was to escape the State supported religion, much like the type of government religious conservatives want to allow to creep further and further into our government.

2) My experience is that the rhetoric is often up and down but over time it's not any worse than it's been over the years!

3) I saw post # 10... no specific there, Maxine Waters says a lot of dumb things but you gave no examples of harsh rhetoric.

Additionally, I know you have a hard on for the idea of a new civil war, sorry to burst your bubble.... No bullets have been put in my head yet!
 
And you seriously believe the slave owners would have compromised?

Getting back to my question, “And what suitable compromise is possible between looking after the ill and poor and not looking after the ill and poor?” We saw the results of trying to compromise for almost 50 years and I think it’s fair to say medical care is a lot less controversial than slavery. Obama had no choice but to push ObamaCare.



Your logic is similar to people in a car noticing the driver taking a wrong turn and going in the wrong direction and when late for an engagement blame the driver because it wasn’t their place to do anything about it.



REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
(About a dozen paragraphs from the top.)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html

The actual exchange takes place in one of these two videos. I’m not sure of the exact time as I’m not receiving YouTube videos very well tonight. Take a listen.

(Parts one and two)



How can you even suggest anyone is trying to do that when every member of JPP has put up with your wrongness for years?

I got a chance to hear former Secretary of State George Shultz speak last week who described his time during the Nixon years and the price and wage controls the Nixon Administration (wrongly) administered. Those who lived through the '70's can tell you about those. He compared it to Obamacare and said what Obamacare is going to create is shortages just like we had in the '70's. While you believe Obama's health care is going to be some panacea I will make you any bet that it is going to harm the quality of health care in our country.
 
1) I'm sure individuals had all kinds of reasons... But the stated reason the pilgrims came to the new world was to escape the State supported religion, much like the type of government religious conservatives want to allow to creep further and further into our government.

2) My experience is that the rhetoric is often up and down but over time it's not any worse than it's been over the years!

3) I saw post # 10... no specific there, Maxine Waters says a lot of dumb things but you gave no examples of harsh rhetoric.

Additionally, I know you have a hard on for the idea of a new civil war, sorry to burst your bubble.... No bullets have been put in my head yet!


Bravo. Where there is no controversy, the right will create it. Where there is no strife, the right will sow it. Where there is no division, the right will institute it. Where there is consensus, the right will find a rift and exploit it. And people wonder why folks liken them to "evil incarnate", all the while claiming to be the stalwarts of Christianity and Christian values, but the farthest from it.
 
And you seriously believe the slave owners would have compromised?

As I said, they did in Maryland and Delaware, it had already been tried, and was successful. Most of those who owned slaves in the South, were well aware of the fact that slavery, as an institution, was on the way out. It had been decades since we outlawed slave trading, you could no longer go to the slave market at the ports and buy slaves, that had stopped years before the Civil War. To suggest that Southern plantation owners believed they could continue slavery indefinitely, is abject ignorance on the highest order... they knew and understood the times were changing and slavery was in decline. The ISSUE was principle and the Constitution. Slave owners didn't purchase slaves illegally, or on the black market or something... they LEGITIMATELY AND LEGALLY purchased "property" according to the Supreme Court, and thus, the slaves themselves were considered property of the person who paid for them legally... just like someone buying a horse or cow today. Now, that sounds awful and deplorable, and it is... but that WAS the law back then, it's how things WERE! So.... If the Federal Government came to your door and wanted to take your TV.... would you let them have it? If they came to confiscate your car.... would you have a right to refuse to let them? THAT is what the Civil War was about, from the Southern perspective. These people had enormous monetary investment in slaves, billions of dollars worth... and the Abolitionists didn't give two shits about property rights or the law, they just wanted slavery to end.

Getting back to my question, “And what suitable compromise is possible between looking after the ill and poor and not looking after the ill and poor?” We saw the results of trying to compromise for almost 50 years and I think it’s fair to say medical care is a lot less controversial than slavery. Obama had no choice but to push ObamaCare.

Why do you have to turn every thread into THIS debate? Look... Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it will be repealed in 2013, if the SCOTUS doesn't do away with it sooner. There is nothing in our Constitution about the government or its citizenry, footing the bill for the medical/health care of others.... not one word!



REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
(About a dozen paragraphs from the top.)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html

The actual exchange takes place in one of these two videos. I’m not sure of the exact time as I’m not receiving YouTube videos very well tonight. Take a listen.


As I said, Greenspan never said what you quoted him as saying. That was YOUR interpretation of something he said, and I doubt you even have the intellect to understand what he was talking about.

How can you even suggest anyone is trying to do that when every member of JPP has put up with your wrongness for years?

I'm very seldom wrong, when I am shown to be wrong, I am the first to admit it. You, on the other hand, aren't even as right as a broken clock, which is at least right twice a day... you can't meet that standard... that's pretty bad.
 
LMFAO.... The Alternative Socialist History of America According to Apple!

Why do you detest learning to such a degree? Have you ever picked up a history book?

It's truly a shame. You're fighting a phantom enemy. Somewhere along the way you've associated social programs, helping ones neighbor, with Communist dictatorships. Either you've misunderstood a professor or been indoctrinated by some radical group or....I don't know what happened but something has definitely twisted your thinking. :(
 
Why do you detest learning to such a degree? Have you ever picked up a history book?

It's truly a shame. You're fighting a phantom enemy. Somewhere along the way you've associated social programs, helping ones neighbor, with Communist dictatorships. Either you've misunderstood a professor or been indoctrinated by some radical group or....I don't know what happened but something has definitely twisted your thinking. :(

what thinking, honey? LOL
 
I can tell you in one sentence. The U.S. became the world's eonomic power because we have the most liberalized economy and we have created an entrepreneurial environment where the best and the brightest in the world want to come.

Exactly. Freedom. That's what I wrote, however, it has been perverted. And it's worthwhile noting the best and the brightest corporations are going elsewhere.

I do question if China and Pakistan have "liberalized economies".
 
Exactly. Freedom. That's what I wrote, however, it has been perverted. And it's worthwhile noting the best and the brightest corporations are going elsewhere.

I do question if China and Pakistan have "liberalized economies".

I didn't exactly pick that up in the 12 paragraphs you wrote but I'll take your word for it that it is what you meant. While some corporations are leaving the U.S. due to tax and regulation issues most are still based right here so do you have some examples in mind of the best U.S. corporations leaving?
 
I got a chance to hear former Secretary of State George Shultz speak last week who described his time during the Nixon years and the price and wage controls the Nixon Administration (wrongly) administered. Those who lived through the '70's can tell you about those. He compared it to Obamacare and said what Obamacare is going to create is shortages just like we had in the '70's. While you believe Obama's health care is going to be some panacea I will make you any bet that it is going to harm the quality of health care in our country.

I doubt it will be a panacea but it is a start to full government medical and it will be most welcome by those who are unable to afford decent medical coverage.
 
Why do you detest learning to such a degree? Have you ever picked up a history book?

I happen to be most proficient at history, not a scholar, not a know-it-all encyclopedia, but I can hold my own with most anyone who isn't a history major. Judging by the socialist claptrap you posted, it would appear that any history you may have learned in your younger days, has long-since been replaced with brainwashed propaganda. Nothing in your diatribe was either factual or accurate.

It's truly a shame. You're fighting a phantom enemy. Somewhere along the way you've associated social programs, helping ones neighbor, with Communist dictatorships. Either you've misunderstood a professor or been indoctrinated by some radical group or....I don't know what happened but something has definitely twisted your thinking. :(

Somewhere along the way, you have associated social programs and helping ones neighbor, with a function of the federal government. Sorry, but we simply disagree on this being the role of the federal government. It's not, it never was intended to be. Helping your neighbor is something YOU should do, not the government, and not "wealthy people" through taxation. What you mistakingly advocate, through your ignorance of government's role under the Constitution, is the exact system of government advocated by Karl Marx. Now you can deny that all you like, but I have read Marx, and I have read the DNC platform over the past 16 years, and yeah.. pretty much the exact same thing... if Marx was alive, he could sue the DNC for plagiarism.
 
Republican civility in action:


The Pima County Republican Party is asking for $10 per ticket for a chance to win a Glock.


The party is selling 125 tickets, and the gun is the prize.


Chairman Mike Shaw sees nothing inappropriate, the Associated Press reported. Shaw said that past gun raffles have been effective fundraisers and that responsible gun ownership is a constitutional right.


Speaking of sensitivity - you have no idea how sensitive the trigger is on this sweet baby we're raffling! All the easier to fire those 36 bullets you'll get in those three magazines. Loughner only got off 32 shots. Think you can do better? Then give us your money.


Don't retreat - reload!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-01/GOP-assailed-for-gun-raffle-in-Giffords-Ariz-district/50230780/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-brantzawadzki/az-republicans-celebrate-_b_943014.html

http://www.pimagop.org/files/etracks%20August%2026%202011.pdf
 
As I said, they did in Maryland and Delaware, it had already been tried, and was successful. Most of those who owned slaves in the South, were well aware of the fact that slavery, as an institution, was on the way out. It had been decades since we outlawed slave trading, you could no longer go to the slave market at the ports and buy slaves, that had stopped years before the Civil War. To suggest that Southern plantation owners believed they could continue slavery indefinitely, is abject ignorance on the highest order... they knew and understood the times were changing and slavery was in decline. The ISSUE was principle and the Constitution. Slave owners didn't purchase slaves illegally, or on the black market or something... they LEGITIMATELY AND LEGALLY purchased "property" according to the Supreme Court, and thus, the slaves themselves were considered property of the person who paid for them legally... just like someone buying a horse or cow today. Now, that sounds awful and deplorable, and it is... but that WAS the law back then, it's how things WERE! So.... If the Federal Government came to your door and wanted to take your TV.... would you let them have it? If they came to confiscate your car.... would you have a right to refuse to let them? THAT is what the Civil War was about, from the Southern perspective. These people had enormous monetary investment in slaves, billions of dollars worth... and the Abolitionists didn't give two shits about property rights or the law, they just wanted slavery to end.

And as I have said negotiations regarding fixing medical care have been going on for decades. There comes a time when action is required.

Why do you have to turn every thread into THIS debate? Look... Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it will be repealed in 2013, if the SCOTUS doesn't do away with it sooner. There is nothing in our Constitution about the government or its citizenry, footing the bill for the medical/health care of others.... not one word!

I brought it up as you mentioned compromise. After decades of trying there was no compromise so Obama did what he had to do. As for what's in the Constitution we've been over this before. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." Domestic tranquility and the general welfare. Allowing people to die due to a lack of proper medical care (45,000/yr according to a Harvard study) is not ensuring domestic tranquility and the general welfare of the citizens/country.

As I said, Greenspan never said what you quoted him as saying. That was YOUR interpretation of something he said, and I doubt you even have the intellect to understand what he was talking about.

Honestly, Dixie, you try a man's patience. Check out http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/grilling-greenspan/3xyaulvv?fg=rss from 1:15 - 1:30. Click on "Grilling Greenspan". His "view of the world", his "ideology", was wrong just like your view and your ideology are wrong.
 
Got this paragraph in an e-mail from CATO this morning. As they say apple would see no limits to anything the government wanted to do.


""Soon the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on perhaps the most important question of the post–New Deal era: Are there any remaining limits on the breadth and scope of federal power? Reinforced by decades of Court decisions that have gutted the Framers’ original conception of limited government, the Obama administration has embraced an unprecedented expansion of centralized control….An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA’s directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it’s unconstitutional""
 
I happen to be most proficient at history, not a scholar, not a know-it-all encyclopedia, but I can hold my own with most anyone who isn't a history major. What you mistakingly advocate, through your ignorance of government's role under the Constitution, is the exact system of government advocated by Karl Marx. Now you can deny that all you like, but I have read Marx, and I have read the DNC platform over the past 16 years, and yeah.. pretty much the exact same thing... if Marx was alive, he could sue the DNC for plagiarism.

LOL, dumbass Dixtard thinks "mistakingly" = "mistakenly". He couldn't 'hold his own' with a pair of needlenose pliers.


Behold the imaginary mulitimillionaire exposed as a bloviating blowhard yet again:


Compare these two documents that Dixtard claims are "pretty much the exact same thing" and laugh at his ludicrous lies...


http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html


http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform



:lol:​
 
I got a chance to hear former Secretary of State George Shultz speak last week who described his time during the Nixon years and the price and wage controls the Nixon Administration (wrongly) administered. Those who lived through the '70's can tell you about those. He compared it to Obamacare and said what Obamacare is going to create is shortages just like we had in the '70's. While you believe Obama's health care is going to be some panacea I will make you any bet that it is going to harm the quality of health care in our country.


He is entitled to his opinion, what was his solution for bringing affordable medical care to ALL Americans, I bet he didn't have one, did he?
 
Back
Top