Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree48Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 17th, 2014, 05:30 PM   #51
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
You posted this "by an oligarchy founded on corruption" from a 3600 word document that you have never seen, will never see, and do not have a clue what it is about because you found it on the internet. The property rights referenced had to do with the qualification to vote.

What is there for me to save face about? You posted a lie, and do not have the integrity to admit it. Rather you keep on lying about a quote that is six words taken from a 3600 word document you haven't a clue what it is or its purpose.

I am misleading with the entire statement by Madison rather than your six word out of context quote? You truly are pathetic. Income inequality and the founders had nothing in common. They were not socialists and communists such as yourself, but keep on dreaming. I guess being humiliated on the court ruling regarding the Declaration of Independence wasn't enough for you.
Nonsense, all that huffing and puffing cannot cloud over your bs on this. Address the points in my links and posted articles, otherwise, you've got nothing. I posted a piece on PBS. Another person paraphrased Madison's words on the matter. I don't know what you are going on about, you look desperate.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 05:36 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Nonsense, all that huffing and puffing cannot cloud over your bs on this. Address the points in my links and posted articles, otherwise, you've got nothing. I posted a piece on PBS. Another person paraphrased Madison's words on the matter. I don't know what you are going on about, you look desperate.
I did address the points: they are out of context lies. I posted the full qoute from Washington you lied about, and the full quote by Madison you lied about. Keep it up, this is as entertaining as your expert same sex marriage ruling comedy sketch.

You got that right, I sure do look desperate.
Thanks from TNVolunteer73
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 05:45 PM   #53
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I did address the points: they are out of context lies. I posted the full qoute from Washington you lied about, and the full quote by Madison you lied about. Keep it up, this is as entertaining as your expert same sex marriage ruling comedy sketch.

You got that right, I sure do look desperate.
They must EDIT points out of quotes.. to get the outcome they want.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 05:55 PM   #54
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I did address the points: they are out of context lies. I posted the full qoute from Washington you lied about, and the full quote by Madison you lied about. Keep it up, this is as entertaining as your expert same sex marriage ruling comedy sketch.

You got that right, I sure do look desperate.
You have completely ignored it then and are making stuff up now. You did no such thing and I in fact responded to your postings, however what you are saying I lied about is in fact in an article I linked to, it is not me saying that and you know it.
Address this from the article please:

Quote:
In one of the most famous of the Federalist Papers, No. 10, James Madison discussed the problem of factions, and noted that they most often arise based on economic interests. In preparation for the Constitutional Convention, Madison made notes of the defects of the Articles of Confederation. Vices of the Political System of the United States These short notes amplify and clarify Madison’s thinking on the formation of a new government. Here is a section dealing with the problem of emerging oligarchies:
6. Want of Guaranty to the States of their Constitutions & Laws against Internal Violence.

According to republican theory, right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonymous. According to fact and experience, a minority may in an appeal to force, be an overmatch for the majority: 1. If the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill and habits of military life, & such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one third only may conquer the remaining two thirds." (Emphasis added)
I added emphasis to show that one scenario Madison feared was that accumulated wealth would achieve so much political power that republican rule would be subverted or obstructed. That pretty much sums up where are today, with a horrible skewing of income and wealth inequality to the top one tenth of one percent of the population, and with the rich enjoying political access and influence while the vast majority of Americans do not.
And this:

Quote:
At the beginning of the American republic, it was widely recognized that great disparities in wealth and income were fatal to the health and longevity of a republic. On April 23, 2011, DailyKossak J Edward wrote in Founding Fathers and Wealth:
The new United States, as James Madison had noted, needed to become more equal, through laws that, “without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.” Aristocracy equals inequality, republicanism equals equality.

Aristocracy, pronounced the utopian-minded William Leggett in the 1830s, served to “concentrate all wealth and privilege in the hands of a few.” “In monarchies and aristocracies,” pronounced a far more conservative New Jersey Whig, Congressman Joseph Fitz Randolph a few years later, “there are classes of the very wealthy and of the very poor; in a Republic both extremes are avoided.” This conviction — that concentrated wealth endangers republican virtue— so dominated American political life before the Civil War that every side to every great political controversy would invariably justify its position by claiming that the opposition viewpoint, if followed, would leave America dangerously unequal.

Throughout the nation’s first century, historian James Huston notes, Americans continually celebrated “the egalitarian nature of the American distribution of wealth.” The United States, noted the economist Theodore Sedgwick, had achieved an equal division of property “such as has never been known among mankind.” Equality, made America different — and better. Unlike the European States. . . .
In a 2010 book, Unfinished Revolution: The Early American Republic, University of Texas at Arlington Professor Sam Haynes explores how early Americans were deeply conflicted about the United Kingdom they had won freedom from. While they admired and sought to emulate British industrialization, humanitarian reform, and literary accomplishments, Americans thoroughly despised Britain’s class system and feared that the mother country actively sought to transplant aristocratic ideas into the American body politic and especially the economy. Haynes writes:
When Hezekiah Niles and other economic nationalists offered the hopeful prediction that the United States would one day rival Britain as an industrial giant, they described a future that some Americans could only regard with unmixed horror. To old school Jeffersonians, the republic owed its success to its self-reliant yeomanry, who tilled the land, harvested their crops, and sought no assistance from the government. In their view, the republican nation-state had been conceived, born, and nurtured in a pastoral world; it could not properly thrive in any other environment. An industrial society might compete with Great Britain in the global marketplace, but at an unacceptable cost: the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Only a nation devoted exclusively to agricultural pursuits could foster the broad distribution of economic and political power that was the sine qua non of republican government.

. . . . the emergence of an urban oligarchy brought home to Americans with special force the realization that the arcadian world they had known was slipping away. It was one of the ironies of the Jacksonian period that at a time in which white society embraced the principles of economic democracy and the rise of the so-called "common man," the gap between rich and poor grew visibly wider. Rapid economic expansion had created a new aristocracy, an urban upper class that seemed oblivious to the obligations of its social position. To many Americans, the new rich seemed to exhibit all the characteristics of Britain's titled nobility, aping its manners and demonstrating a like contempt for the laboring classes.

Americans who felt the twinge of class resentment did not merely draw comparisons between the socioeconomic elites of the two countries. As earnest republicans, they hewed to the belief that aristocracy in all its forms was a foreign institution. The existence of a cosmopolitan beau monde was evidence that "a regal fungus" bearing all the hallmarks of an Old World ruling class had taken hold and was slowly eroding the principles upon which the country had been founded. The disparity of wealth and income was nothing less than "a germ of English growth transplanted here by some foreign monarchists," Jacksonians maintained. Contributing to these suspicions was the widely held belief that American commercial and financial elites were in league with monopolists and fund-mongers across the Atlantic. British banking and mercantile firms all had agents in the United States who had grown rich through their overseas business connections. Unseemly displays of luxury and affectation by the titans of commerce and banking would have rankled republican sensibilities under any circumstances. But such behavior seemed all the more deplorable because it bore the unmistakable imprint of British collusion, of wealth attained by dishonest means. In the minds of many stalwart democrats, the nation's traditional enemy had, in effect, subsidized a new ruling elite, which did not share the true interests and sympathies of Americans.
Two months ago, I argued in Economics as Cultural Warfare, that modern conservative thinking is based on the ideas of subalterns and factotums of the English and other European oligarchs, most especially economic thinking:
Simply put, [Adam] Smith was a factotum for the British oligarchy, and as such, was fundamentally hostile to the United States and its grand experiment in self-government. Is it just coincidence that a "science" of economics that holds as its guiding light an oligarchical apologist should give us a body of economic thinking that has ruined our economy, impoverished our working people, and debased our public finances? Was that the intent of "classical economics" based on Smith and Ricardo, and its ugly step-child, neo-liberalism, all along? If you get your economic thinking from oligarchs, perhaps you should expect that thinking, when put into practice, to result in the creation of an oligarchy. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
And I quoted from a 1834 book entitled Tracts on Sundry Topics of Political Economy, written by Oliver Putnam, a sickly but wealthy merchant of Newburyport, Massachusetts. To preserve his health, Putnam retired in his thirties, but busied himself with an intense study of political economy. Putnam's ideas were informed by his travels throughout the U.S. and Europe, travels he had undertaken in search of a cure for his ailments. The second part of the book is entitled "Observations on Smith's Wealth of Nations."
We have not been sufficiently awake to the mischievous effects of introducing many English writings into our seminaries of education, and of giving credence to their authors on subjects of political economy and politics. —It is a truism to say that our institutions are radically different from the English. Ours are throughout republican, theirs are substantially monarchical. Theirs are the oft-changed remnants of feudal barbarism; ours are a great political invention, which undergoes its first trial in this country.—And yet we have Blackstone and Paley for our text books in politics, who, whatever may be their excellencies on other accounts, are certainly the bigoted advocates, the courtly apologists, of whatever, in the system of the British government, is corrupt in itself, and most adverse to the genius and principles of our own government.
real economics: Wealth and Income Inequalities are Markers of Oligarchy
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:09 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
You have completely ignored it then and are making stuff up now. You did no such thing and I in fact responded to your postings, however what you are saying I lied about is in fact in an article I linked to, it is not me saying that and you know it.
Address this from the article please:



And this:



real economics: Wealth and Income Inequalities are Markers of Oligarchy
You really don't know how far out of your depth you are, do you? Why are you avoiding the lies you were caught spreading about Washington and Madison?

Madison and Federalist No. 10, really?

Only someone who knows a little as you about history would use Federalist No. 10.

Perhaps you should Google the political party (known as a faction), Madison and Jefferson started after abandoning the no faction one-party system referenced in Federalist No. 10.

The rest of the screed about Smith has no value.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:16 PM   #56
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Perhpas you could actually address the point about it. You never do.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:19 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Perhpas you could actually address the point about it. You never do.
I did. I addressed the out of context lie you made about Washington, the out of context lie you made about Madison, and the ridiculous use of Federalist No. 10 to make a point about Madison and factions.You have posted nothing but lies and misrepresentations about the founders, and there is nothing to address other than that because you cannot make a point with lies.

Why don't you address the misrepresentations I pointed out you made?
Thanks from excalibur
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:24 PM   #58
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
He loves being intellectually humiliated by a woman.


So speaks the lap dog, who allegedly has Jimmy on ignore. Oh what a tangled web we weave .......



.
Thanks from Jimmyb
excalibur is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:26 PM   #59
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I did. I addressed the out of context lie you made about Washington, the out of context lie you made about Madison, and the ridiculous use of Federalist No. 10 to make a point about Madison and factions.You have posted nothing but lies and misrepresentations about the founders, and there is nothing to address other than that because you cannot make a point with lies.

Why don't you address the misrepresentations I pointed out you made?

Because she never reads the stuff, just cuts and pastes it here. Reding it would require comprehension, which is sorely lacking in WT.



.
excalibur is offline  
Old February 17th, 2014, 06:28 PM   #60
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I did. I addressed the out of context lie you made about Washington, the out of context lie you made about Madison, and the ridiculous use of Federalist No. 10 to make a point about Madison and factions.You have posted nothing but lies and misrepresentations about the founders, and there is nothing to address other than that because you cannot make a point with lies.

Why don't you address the misrepresentations I pointed out you made?
No, you didn't jimmy.
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
america, give, raise



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thanks For The Raise America Podium Pentothal Current Events 46 December 24th, 2012 06:05 AM
Fiscal Fitness: Give Yourself a $200 Raise Right Now highway80west Money and Finance 2 January 20th, 2010 03:25 PM
Gay Penguins Raise Chick hevusa Gay and Lesbian Rights 253 June 30th, 2009 01:01 PM
Give Me Candy or Give Me Death intangible child Crime and Punishment 3 November 5th, 2008 08:33 AM
Edwards needs to raise cash for '08 CNN Current Events 2 December 7th, 2006 04:52 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.