Journal Jeremiah Cornelius's Journal: The Constitution IS NOT your FRIEND. 24
And the Federalists were fascist bastards.
"By transforming democracy into a concept that encouraged uninhibited wealth accumulation rather than wealth equality, the founding elite (and subsequent generations of elites) tamed what they could not defeat. They turned democracy from a threat into an asset by making it into a concept that supported their own ideals and interests."
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/11/concerning-american-change-in.html
Ya crapflooder (Score:2)
Hoisting a middle finger at the first real advancement in civics since the Roman Republic, merely for the sake of hoisting a finger, macht nichts.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you read the whole source link?
Also, your bizarre assertion about "first real advancement in civics" displays little real knowledge of the Roman republic, nor of other more advanced and participatory forms of government that pre-dated this supposed pinnacle - as well as those that succeeded it.
The egalitarian empire of Cyrus the great, the Icelandic Althing prior to Norwegian monarchy and the Iroquois confederation are those that come, immediately to mind.
The fact is, the American Revolution DID produc
Re: (Score:1)
"Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powe
Re: (Score:1)
He's already admitted to being of the southern conservative persuasion. You know what that entails.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Smitty really sleeps with his sister, he's just trying to get a rise out of you.
Re: (Score:1)
He's gonna die trying. Somebody should let him know I'm not into that kind of thing...
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose monkeys
down at the zoo
count themselves courageous
for flinging their poo.
Re: (Score:1)
"Round" is in illustration I linked in the other thread I mentioned. However, being a 'SoCon' as you said a while back belies all you claims of 'standing up for liberty'. They are mutually exclusive, except within the context of your definition of 'individual', which is clearly not all inclusive. And flinging poo is what your boss does, literally. An observation is not an accusation, no matter what you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not unsupported. It's in plain sight. That's why I saw and reported it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's already admitted to being of the southern conservative persuasion. You know what that entails.
Closeted homosexual?
Re: (Score:1)
I would never say that... but then again you never know [alternet.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is true, and people willing to say these things to other people here in the US is going to form the basis for a new politics.
We've had to bow before this constitution, written by a bunch of wine snobs who didn't feel like paying taxes or giving up their
Re: (Score:1)
The Articles were very flawed - but that was used to institute an elitist power grab. The wrangle was to get the states to accede to the Federalist power-grab.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is was it an advancement, or just a reordering of the deck chairs on the titanic.
The fallacy of "equality" (Score:1)
The equality we already have is the equality of opportunity. After reaching adulthood our station in life largely depends on our own intellect and industry. Despite certain political groups' best efforts to the contrary, it is still true in this country: if you can not afford certain things by middle age, you have only yourself (and, perhaps, your parents) to blame for it. Millions of immigrants — both legal and otherwise — are the living proof. Not only do they manage to attain substantial weal
Re: (Score:1)
You are mixing arguments, and pushing for the idea that this is a meritocracy, with mobility guaranteed for the capable.
This is a lie. It is perpetrated to ensure your docility, and feeling vested in the system.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, sure. "A lie". And your arguments proving — or even suggesting — it is a lie are?.. Oops...
Regardless. Whether or not the capable can achieve the (upward) mobility is not relevant. My main point was to unmask the true nature of the most often heard demands for "equality". Those so demanding seek equality of results, rather than the equality of opportunity.
Growing up in the USSR, I've had my share of the former. I came to the US and am happy to have found the former. If you are so unhap
Re: (Score:2)
Or Sweden, where "equality" means everyone has to take a number and stand in the same queue. :)
Re: (Score:1)
"Lie" or "pernicious, destructive myth". You take your pick.
The US is inferior in in every regard to "socialist nanny-state" Norway, it terms of real opportunity and social mobility.
According a report on social mobility published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], the United States ranks pretty poorly among industrialized nations on intergenerational advancement--that is, the ability to transcend the socioeconomic class, income level, and educational attainment of your family. So that whole bootstraps thing? It looks like that quintessential self-made man is more at home in Norway than Our Town.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/11-5 [commondreams.org]
Overall, these statistics are very depressing for those who subscribe to the notion that America is a meritocracy and a "land of opportunity." We see that there is far less social mobility in the United States than in other countries and other studies have shown clearly that this mobility is declining.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/class-mobility_b_1676931.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Reagan and Thatcher were successful in serving the elite and sealing off opportunity to an exclusive group at the top. Or is this just coincidence, that the 1980-1990 period saw the complete destru
Re: (Score:1)
Really? "Inferior in every regard"? Why the heck are you still here? Sacrificing yourself to make your country better? I see... Norway's oil income provides 20% of their government revenue. Bad example — they can afford giving things away to the poor(er), because they don't have to tax other people for it (as much).
The surveys you cite concentrate on results, rather than rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The equality we already have is the equality of opportunity.
Yes and no.
After reaching adulthood our station in life largely depends on our own intellect and industry.
I like how you slipped that in there, I guess so you could claim you said it if caught out, then proceeded to ignore it completely thereafter. Even though it immediately dispels the rest of your arguments.
Because it is impossible to make everyone swim as fast, or look as good, or think as well, let's instead cripple the strong, maim the good-looking, and dumb down the smart. Oh, and "tax the rich" too...
When you learn to distinguish "is" from "has", we'll talk.
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? What is it you "like"?.. Be specific, avoid pronouns. Thanks.
There is no difference between being hardworking and having industry. Between being smart and having a brain...
Re: (Score:2)
We don't really have the equality of opportunity. Dumb luck (or God's will if you prefer) plays a bigger part than anything. You can't choose your parents. If your parents are well off and connected it would be very unlikely that you would not do well in life. Talents one is born with are just dumb luck. I've been gifted in many ways but I can't take credit for what I was born with.
My grandparents were dirt poor but many of their children and grandchildren did very well, especially Uncle Dan, who became pre