Re: #Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation:DeathThreats,MurderedPets, and Vandalized Property

[Sid9]

"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in message
news:o5CdneNu1IyxmD_M...@giganews.com...
> On 05/26/2013 07:32 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>> "trainguard" <barry_wo...@sky.com> wrote in message
>> news:87d4e4d7-8c19-4e1a...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 6:40:56 PM UTC+1, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 05/25/2013 09:44 AM, Lee wrote: > David Hartung wrote: > >> On
>>>> 05/24/2013 10:16 PM, Zepp wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:59:01
>>>> -0600, Yoorghis wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:50:58 -0500,
>>>> David Hartung >>>> <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> So an
>>>> employer can refuse an employee access to insurance >>>>>>>> which
>>>> covers blood transfusions, or emergency medical >>>>>>>> care during
>>>> pregnancy on the grounds that it could result >>>>>>>> in abortion?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Refuse access? How would the employer be refusing
>>>> access? >>>>>> >>>>>> By refusing insurance coverage of whatever it
>>>> is that tweaks >>>>>> his superstitions. >>>>> >>>>> So you do
>>>> support extortion. >>>> >>>> Laws are not extortion, moron >>>> >>>>
>>>> Any employer who inserts his own beliefs and forces them on >>>>
>>>> others are breakng laws. >>> >>> And anyone who says, "If you want to
>>>> keep your job you must submit >>> to my religious beliefs" is
>>>> practicing extortion.
>>>
>>>>> >> Once again we have illustrated one of the most fundamental >> >>
>>>>> differences between us. You honestly believe that you have the moral
>>>>> >> >> right to take what belongs to others, in order to support
>>>>> your >> social >> agenda. In my opinion, this is the biggest
>>>>> weakness in our >> system. >> Those who have nothing, and who pay
>>>>> few, if any taxes, >> have the power >> through their numbers at the
>>>>> ballot box, to take >> from those who have >> something and who pay
>>>>> most of the taxes.
>>>
>>>> > > 1) Is it your position that only wealthy people > be allowed to
>>>> vote?
>>>
>>>> It is my position that we return to the practices of requiring those
>>>> who would vote to be citizens of substance. If I could figure out a
>>>> way to make it work, I would grant votes on the basis of taxes paid.
>>>> Everybody who has a net Federal tax liability gets one vote. Those
>>>> who pay more, would get extra vots depending on how much they pay.
>>>> This would ensure that those who actually pay the taxes, control how
>>>> those tax monies are spent.
>>>
>>> "Really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to
>>> live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear
>>> that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his
>>> own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that
>>> the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to
>>> that government that he has not had a voice to put himself under."
>>>
>>> "I do hear nothing at all that can convince me why any man that is
>>> born in England ought not to have his voice in election of burgesses.
>>> It is said that if a man have not a "permanent interest" he can have
>>> no claim; and that we must be no freer than the laws will let us be;
>>> and that there is no law in any chronicle will let us be freer than
>>> that we now enjoy. Something was said to this yesterday. I do think
>>> that the main cause why Almighty God gave men reason, it was that they
>>> should make use of that reason, and that they should improve it for
>>> that end and purpose that God gave it them. And truly, I think that
>>> half a loaf is better than none if a man be an-hungry."
>>>
>>> "This gift of reason without other property may seem a small thing,
>>> yet I think there is nothing that God has given a man that anyone else
>>> can take from him. And therefore I say that either it must be the law
>>> of God or the law of man that must prohibit the meanest man in the
>>> kingdom to have this benefit as well as the greatest. I do not find
>>> anything in the law of God that a lord shall choose 20 burgesses, and
>>> a gentleman but two, or a poor man shall choose none. I find no such
>>> thing in the law of nature, nor in the law of nations. But I do find
>>> that all Englishmen must be subject to English laws; and I do verily
>>> believe that there is no man but will say that the foundation of all
>>> law lies in the people; and if it lie in the people, I am to seek for
>>> this exemption."
>>>
>>> "Every man born in England cannot, ought not, neither by the law of
>>> God nor the law of nature, to be exempted from the choice of those who
>>> are to make laws for him to live under - and for him, for aught I
>>> know, to lose his life under."
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> "I am a poor man, therefore I must be oppressed? If I have no interest
>>> in the kingdom, I must suffer by all their laws - be they right or
>>> wrong? Nay thus: a gentleman lives in a country and has three or four
>>> lordships - as some men have (God knows how they got them) - and when
>>> a parliament is called he must be a parliament-man. And it may be he
>>> sees some poor men - they live near this man. He can crush them; I
>>> have known an invasion to make sure he has turned the poor men out of
>>> doors; and I would fain know whether the potency of rich men do not
>>> this, and so keep them under the greatest tyranny that was ever
>>> thought of in the world."
>>>
>>> Thomas Rainsborough
>>> Speaking at the Putney Debates, 1647.
>>>
>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2) Should poor people have no say in the laws > that will govern
>>>> them? I would actually be in favor of those who receive SNAP or TANF
>>>> benefits be restricted from voting for as long as they are on those
>>>> programs. Those who are net beneficiaries of the Federal government,
>>>> should not have the ability to vote themselves ever increasing
>>>> benefits from the Federal trough. Does this sound hard? Yes it does,
>>>> but if we are to survive another hundred years as a free nation such
>>>> moves will be necessary.
>>>
>>
>> See the outcome of Louis XVI's regime.
>
> What followed was better?
>
> The French revolution led to the "Reign of Terror", which resulted in
> anywhere between 40,000 and a million deaths. Then came Bonaparte.
>
> So the question is simple, did all those deaths actually accomplish
> anything?

Wow! I don't know how to reply. I'm astounded!

[Bret Cahill]

> >> See the outcome of Louis XVI's regime.
>
> > What followed was better?
>
> > The French revolution led to the "Reign of Terror", which resulted in
> > anywhere between 40,000 and a million deaths. Then came Bonaparte.
>
> > So the question is simple, did all those deaths actually accomplish
> > anything?

"No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
the ancien regime are exemplary families."

-- Tocqueville 1833

[David Hartung]

So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?

[Bret Cahill]

> So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?

[Nickname unavailable]

jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.

here jefferson as paine is laying out the foundations of the social
welfare state.


http://www.per-fidem.org/mobile/bookshelf/tjwealth.html


Thomas Jefferson Letter to Rev. James Madison
Fontainebleau, October 28, 1785
The entire letter is included here, though the important part is the
first three paragraphs, especially the third in which Jefferson
discusses the inequality of wealth present in France just before the
French Revolution (1789). In this letter to Bishop Madison (not the
statesman, but his cousin), Jefferson argues that an inequal
distribution of wealth, such as what can be seen in France, is a
violation of the natural right to property and the related right to
labor. Jefferson advocates a graduated tax as one solution to this
problem.
DEAR SIR,
-- Seven o’clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to
enter into conversation with you. This is a village of about 15,000
inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 when they are,
occupying a valley through which runs a brook and on each side of it a
ridge of small mountains, most of which are naked rock. The King comes
here, in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also
the foreign diplomatic corps; but as this is not indispensably
required and my finances do not admit the expense of a continued
residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the King’s
levees, returning again to Paris, distant forty miles. This being the
first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place.
For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the
mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.
As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman
walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course.
Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into
conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which
would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries
into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a
day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two
children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house
(which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no
employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together
near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on
parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could
perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had
probably never before received so great an aid. This little
attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of
reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the
numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this
country and is to be observed all over Europe.
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few
hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year
downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of
them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a
great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of
laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of
all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself
what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are
willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable
proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for
the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the
enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention
to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be
labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is
impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality
producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot
invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to
let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of
the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all
the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations
in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another
means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt
all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher
portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever
there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is
clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to
violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to
labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to
be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided
to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the
fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is
too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find
employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to
cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to
provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be
without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most
precious part of a state.
The next object which struck my attention in my walk was the deer with
which the wood abounded. They were of the kind called "Cerfs," and not
exactly of the same species with ours. They are blackish indeed under
the belly, and not white as ours, and they are more of the chestnut
red; but these are such small differences as would be sure to happen
in two races from the same stock breeding separately a number of ages.
Their hares are totally different from the animals we call by that
name; but their rabbit is almost exactly like him. The only difference
is in their manners; the land on which I walked for some time being
absolutely reduced to a honeycomb by their burrowing. I think there is
no instance of ours burrowing. After descending the hill again I saw a
man cutting fern. I went to him under pretence of asking the shortest
road to town, and afterwards asked for what use he was cutting fern.
He told me that this part of the country furnished a great deal of
fruit to Paris. That when packed in straw it acquired an ill taste,
but that dry fern preserved it perfectly without communicating any
taste at all.
I treasured this observation for the preservation of my apples on my
return to my own country. They have no apples here to compare with our
Redtown pippin. They have nothing which deserves the name of a peach;
there being not sun enough to ripen the plum-peach and the best of
their soft peaches being like our autumn peaches. Their cherries and
strawberries are fair, but I think lack flavor. Their plums I think
are better; so also their gooseberries, and the pears infinitely
beyond anything we possess. They have nothing better than our sweet-
water; but they have a succession of as good from early in the summer
till frost. I am to-morrow to get [to] M. Malsherbes (an uncle of the
Chevalier Luzerne’s) about seven leagues from hence, who is the most
curious man in France as to his trees. He is making for me a
collection of the vines from which the Burgundy, Champagne, Bordeaux,
Frontignac, and other of the most valuable wines of this country are
made. Another gentleman is collecting for me the best eating grapes,
including what we call the raisin. I propose also to endeavor to
colonize their hare, rabbit, red and grey partridge, pheasants of
different kinds, and some other birds. But I find that I am wandering
beyond the limits of my walk and will therefore bid you adieu.
Yours affectionately.

[Steve]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> > So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
>>
>> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
>> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
>> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>>
>> -- Tocqueville 1833
>
> jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
>liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.

Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified as a
libertarian today.

[David Hartung]

On 05/28/2013 12:41 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
>>
>> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
>> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
>> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>>
>> -- Tocqueville 1833
>
> jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
> liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.

I don't see Jefferson decrying "wealth inequality". I do see Jefferson
calling for what we today would call "land reform".

> here jefferson as paine is laying out the foundations of the social
> welfare state.

Funny, that isn't what I see.

[David Hartung]

Should you do some checking, I think that you will find that among the
causes of the French revolution was the French governments financial aid
to the American Revolution.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 06:16:06 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:

Indeed, that was part of the financial crisis.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 06:14:45 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:

Nowhere in any of Jefferson's writing did he advocate the kinds of
social welfare that the leftists want. He advocated equal
opportunity, not equal outcome. He believed strongly in limited
government and would never have tolerated our current massive debt.

His crusade against accumulated wealth had only to do with the laws of
the time that dictated property inheritance to the eldest son and thus
kept property ownership in the fewest number of hands.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified
> as a libertarian today.

Hardly...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY0Y7vQF13U

-Ramon

[Bob]

You make Steve's point more than yours.

[Neolibertarian]

In article
<2475f653-8cae-4e9b...@be10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

That's not much of an answer.

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:27:58 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

>On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified
> > as a libertarian today.
>
>Hardly...

"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that
state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from
his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd
Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

[Bret Cahill]

> Well he was a member of the aristocracy, as was Lafayette.
> Why did so many French aristocrats get decapped? They deserved it.

And it worked!

"No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
the ancien regime are exemplary families."

Bret Cahill

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> > So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
>
> >> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
> >> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
> >> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>
> >> -- Tocqueville 1833
>
> > jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
> >liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.
>
> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified as a
> libertarian today.

no, that is a lie that cannot be backed up with facts, how ever, i
have facts:))


no, you are using the european definition of liberalism, its the
opposite of traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the
majority of the founders of the united states of america, who
enshrined american liberalism into the constitution of the united
states of america.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]


as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

i can understand your problems, in fact, all you have are problems.

he clearly states a progressive income tax to level the wealth gap,
redistribution of land, and providing work for all. as he said, its to
soon to take it farther, but today is farther.

[Nickname unavailable]

snicker, it had nothing to do with the starving masses. boy, when
stupid comes out, it comes out in force.

[Nickname unavailable]

and more stupidity.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<7fe754ca-420f-4f8f...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:


> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
> the ancien regime are exemplary families."

Care to prove that all remnants of the ancien regime are exemplary
families?


Thought not.


Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



Gawd, leftards are stupid.

[Harold Burton]

In article <knt9cm$j5c$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:

Hardly a surprise.



snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 7:00 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

no, he was for redistribution, and progressive taxation, and
providing work for all. and then he said maybe more further on. you
simply ignore the truth, its a "CONSERVATIVE" thing. the majority of
the founders were american liberals, who were against concentrated
wealth and power, despised "CONSERVATISM", and were
redistributionists.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-ruskin/the-common-sense-entitlem_b_3273757.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


Ian Ruskin
Director of The Harry Bridges Project



The Common Sense Entitlements of Thomas Paine
Posted: 05/14/2013 5:04 pm


"More and more able bodied people are becoming dependent upon the
government...it will bankrupt the nation." -- Paul Ryan

"The poll
found strong opposition to reductions in Medicare and Social Security
benefits and strong support for taxing the rich." -- Kaiser Family
Foundation poll
"Simply eliminating the payroll tax earnings cap would, according to
the Congressional Budget Office, solve the financial crisis facing the
Social Security system." -- New York Times
In 1797 Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice was published, perhaps the
final chapter in the development of his understanding of the path from
revolution to social action. It was presented to a world of great
cruelty and injustice, a world, not unlike ours, of great wealth and
great poverty. The "corporations" of the 1790s were mainly
agricultural estates, where lucky individuals reaped huge profits from
the produce of the lands that they "owned." The poor, with little or
no land to call their own, struggled to grow or barter enough to stay
alive. And this was a world that controlled its poor through debtors'
prisons, workhouses (sweatshops for the destitute) and harsh
sentences, from flogging to prison to exile to death, for stealing
even life's basic necessities.
In 1776 Paine had written the much-quoted line in Common Sense that
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," a line
so loved by America's political conservatives. What they happily
ignore is the fact that Paine, one of the world's greatest
propagandists (in the positive sense of the word) was writing a
pamphlet to rouse up the colonists against the rule of a distant and
oppressive British government. He used anything at his command,
including quotes from the scriptures that he would later attack as "a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind" and the idea that we, society, could do a better job of
governing than a disinterested English monarch 3000 miles away.
But when the American and then French Revolutions did not lead to
Paine's vision of true democracy, he turned his pen, in Rights of Man
and Agrarian Justice, to specific ways to create more economically and
socially just societies. And it would be through the actions of
government.
"I had come to realize the importance of the Nation, and of shared,
communal, social responsibility, to be held as equally important as
individual concerns. The elderly, the widowed, newly married couples,
the poor, the unemployed, disbanded soldiers and children, who would
be required to attend school, must be provided for from state funds.
And all this support is not the nature of charity, but of a right." --
Rights of Man, Part the Second, 1792
In other words, the people would receive Social Security, including
widows' benefits, welfare, unemployment benefits, veterans' benefits
and free education, plus a sum to every married couple to help them
start out in life, and these would be rights, things that you were
ENTITLED to. Not in any way a charity! Paid for through general
taxation.
AND that our purpose in life was to help our fellow human beings:
"The greatest offence of all to the great Father is when we seek to
torment and render each other miserable." -- Rights of Man, Part the
Second, 1792


"There will be a National Fund to pay ever person at age 21 a sum as a
compensation in part for the loss of his or her natural inheritance of
land, and a sum per year to every person at age 50, and to those,
blind and lame, who cannot provide income themselves, for the rest of
their lives."

And how would these entitlements be financed?
Paine said, 75 years before Karl Marx:
"When land is improved through cultivation, it is the value of the
improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual
property. Every proprietor of cultivated land, therefore, owes the
community a ground-rent for the land he holds. The Fund will also be
financed by a tax of a tenth part on the value of all estates when
they are passed on to relatives due to death. And this will be not a
charity but a right, not bounty but justice." -- Agrarian Justice,
1797
So, again, these are ENTITLEMENTS, not in any way a charity. And Paine
would tax corporations and family estates to raise the money, far more
radical than our present system!
And today we have debate about cutting Social Security and Medicare,
the entitlement programs paid for by, not corporations or family
estates, but by working people out of their paychecks all through
their working life. These people are OWED the money back from these
programs. And when we read that the government will soon be paying out
$6 to seniors to every $1 to children, it is somehow not mentioned
that the seniors who will now receive it BACK have been paying it in
for decades. This is yet another fine example of the Mark Twain quote
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

What is true is that Thomas Paine would be appalled by the continuing
lack of equality in America, by the ever-growing power of corporations
and the ever-increasing difficulty of maintaining life as a "middle
class" American. And he would be appalled by the suggestion that
entitlements lead to dependency, and by the fact that the very rich
continue to do all they can to make sure that less goes to everyone
else.
Again, as the Deist, NOT atheist, Paine said "The greatest offence of
all to the great Father is when we seek to torment and render each
other miserable." We still have some way to go.
Ian Ruskin is the Director of The Harry Bridges Project and The Life
of Thomas Paine and will be performing his one-man plays about these
two radical forgotten heroes in Los Angeles in May and June. Ticket
information

[Nickname unavailable]

but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power, advocated
for a progressive income tax, and wealth redistribution. you are
simply taking a few quotes, and some out of context, such as the
parasites he mentions, in reality, it was the wealthy and their
corporate power he considered parasites.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<7161ec27-6282-4dcf...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> boy, when stupid comes out, it comes out in force.

No better evidence of that than Nickname Unavailable



laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh

[Clave]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-B625...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...

> In article
> <7fe754ca-420f-4f8f...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
>> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
>> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>
>
> Care to prove that all remnants of the ancien regime are exemplary
> families?

Care to prove that you know what quote marks mean?

Idiot.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<d4db8cfc-3a2a-44c9...@m8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> On May 28, 6:14 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> > On 05/28/2013 12:41 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >
> > > On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > >>> So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
> >
> > >> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
> > >> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
> > >> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
> >
> > >> -- Tocqueville 1833
> >
> > >   jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
> > > liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.
> >
> > I don't see Jefferson decrying "wealth inequality". I do see Jefferson
> > calling for what we today would call "land reform".
> >
> > >   here jefferson as paine is laying out the foundations of the social
> > > welfare state.
> >
> > Funny, that isn't what I see.
>
> i can understand your problems, in fact, all you have are problems.
>
> he clearly states a progressive income tax to level the wealth gap,

Cite?


Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.



snicker

[Clave]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:hal.i.burton-D9DC...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...

<...>

> Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.

Wingnut shitbag rule #1: steal every argument that works against you and
pretend you made it up.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 11:52 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7161ec27-6282-4dcf-b871-e27f54135...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> > boy, when stupid comes out, it comes out in force.
>
> No better evidence of that than Nickname Unavailable
>
> laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh

when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
criminals.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&

Harold Burton
View profile
 More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article
<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
 Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:


- Show quoted text -

Well doh.  Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
numerous
other cities.
snicker


you were responded to promptly by a patriot.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
While It's ALWAYS DISconcerting To Encounter a HOPELESS IGNORAMUS,
it is Conversely, a GREAT PLEASURE To Illustrate - And Hopefully
DISSIPATE - The HARM  of The DEPENDABLY, Self-Serving, Fact-
INTOLERANT, Delusional And INTRACTABLE IGNORANCE of such Notable
RighTARDS as "Harold Burton"...
   THUS: The Rationale For AND Decision To Bomb [FIRST With High-
Explosives, THEN With Incendiaries] Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] Was a - Waaaaait Forrr Iiiiiit - *British* Undertaking...
FDR's Involvement being Limited To his Administration's LONG-Standing
Acquiescence To Placing [American] Eighth Air Force assets At The
Disposal Of British Air Marshalls... As  Would Be Expected Of a GOOD
War-Time Ally...
   ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...
   ERGO - The Sequel: CONTRARY To Harold The RighTARD's HOPELESSLY
IGNORANT And Self-Serving, Ignoramus-Speak Blather, FDR had LITTLE OR
NOTHING To Do With The Bombing Of Dresden and Most Likely, Wasn't
Even 
Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb
Several 
East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian
Advance...

even after knowing the slaughter of americans in the Philippines,
and all of the other atrocities commited by them, they would have to
be worn down, as they tried to do to us.
and here is your response, you defended the nazis, and now you defend
the imperialists japanese.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
  
The buck stopped at FDR's desk.

>  . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

Hahahahahahahahahaha.  Now THAT's even funnier.
I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
Tokyo . . .   
and Osaka . . . and Kobe  . . .  and Fukuoka . . . and,
oh hell just 
check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How
are you going to 
blame that on the Brits?
then i demanded a apology,
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
and he owes WWII vets a apology.

you said,

Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
Hahahahahahahahahahah


you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.

and you added this recently

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/3803f1d64d8e4b45/5d73a1560313be84?hl=en&

. . . and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 11:53 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d4db8cfc-3a2a-44c9-b1a7-6015db087...@m8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

what a moron, you cannot ever read.

[opel]

On 5/28/2013 10:58 PM, Clave wrote:
> Wingnut shitbag rule #1:

Yeah, a clam would be all over that one...

Give us a squirt dearie, then go back to filtering your shit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaBjLKqx8yk

"Oh you got a double!"

[opel]

On 5/28/2013 10:53 PM, Clave wrote:
> Care to prove that you know what quote marks mean?
>
> Idiot.

Your sig is perfect, keep using it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaBjLKqx8yk

[opel]

On 5/28/2013 10:58 PM, Clave wrote:

> pretend you made it up.

If Clammie's parents had done this we'd all be better off now...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=EBtk5k3eV-g&NR=1

World class clam digger, Dick Finzer, is affectionately known among
Oregonians as Clam Dick. Rain or shine, you can find him out there on an
Oregon beach expertly harvesting this delicious treasure. In this five
minute video Clam Dick reveals the secrets of efficiently and perfectly
cleaning a fresh Oregon Razor Clam.

[David Hartung]

You must be from a different universe than I.

[Tom Sr.]

> --

> You must be from a different universe than I.

Nickname Unavailable is in what is called Reality.

You, Hartung, are in some universe to the far right of it.

Have you ever at least *tried* to live in Reality?

.

-----
-----
Please Note:

In select newsgroups my post will be followed by an out-of-date, cut-
and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving post by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 10,000s of Sockpuppets -- Winner
of The alt.usenet.kooks Awards: Palmjob Paddle (July 2008)*, KO0k of
the Month (Sept. 2012)**, and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet (Oct.
2012)!***

* This award is given to the person who gets spanked (as in,
thrashed) the most in a given month by other posters or even himself.
** Given to someone whose Kookery is judged to have surpassed all
others.
*** For those most prolific in the art of, abiet thinly,
disguising their net.presence behind whatever nose and glasses they
can concoct.

We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------

[Harold Burton]

In article
<69b2224e-ae58-4eb0...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

"Tom Sr." <thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 29, 6:24�am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> > On 05/28/2013 11:51 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > > but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
> > > advocated for a progressive income tax, and wealth
> > > redistribution. you are simply taking a few quotes, and some
> > > out of context, such as the parasites he mentions, in reality, it
> > > was the wealthy and their corporate power he considered
> > > parasites.
> > --
> > You must be from a different universe than I.
>
> Nickname Unavailable is in what is called Reality.

Hahahahahahahahaahahahah. You clearly aren't.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> > So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
>>
>> >> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
>> >> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
>> >> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>>
>> >> -- Tocqueville 1833
>>
>> > jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
>> >liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.
>>
>> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified as a
>> libertarian today.
>
> no, that is a lie that cannot be backed up with facts, how ever, i
>have facts:))
>

You really have nothing ....

Here's my fact..

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

[Steve]

Irony anyone..

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,

...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
property be passed on to the eldest son.

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>he clearly states [...]
>redistribution of land,

Here he says quite the opposite..

[Steve]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>
> no, he was for redistribution,

<LOL>@ your stupidity.. below he says otherwise..

[Harold Burton]

In article <ko41mt$kaf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Leftard wingnut shitbag rule #2: clip previous content to make it
difficult for readers to see how much you're BSing.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <ko41cu$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>,

i struck a nerve.



snicker.

[Nickname unavailable]

yes, one that is sane.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

no, you have a few quotes taken out of context. however, i not only
have extensive writings of the american liberal founders, i also have
their actions written in stone. its called the american constitution,
and the backbone of american liberalism is clearly enshrined into the
constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]


as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:43:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 28, 7:00 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 06:16:06 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 05/28/2013 05:32 AM, Steve wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On May 28, 12:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> So did the deaths of the Reign of terror accomplish anything?
>
> >> >>>> "No one will deny that the 18th Century French aristocracy was
> >> >>>> extremely dissolute but no one will deny that today the remnants of
> >> >>>> the ancien regime are exemplary families."
>
> >> >>>> -- Tocqueville 1833
>
> >> >>> jefferson saw the french revolt coming, as most of the founders were
> >> >>> liberals, who understood wealth inequality, and the damage it causes.
>
> >> >> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified as a
> >> >> libertarian today.
>
> >> >Should you do some checking, I think that you will find that among the
> >> >causes of the French revolution was the French governments financial aid
> >> >to the American Revolution.
>
> >> Indeed, that was part of the financial crisis.
>
> > and more stupidity.
>
> Irony anyone..

you used to be a pretty good sociopath, today i have reduced you to a
blubbering serial liar who has nothing:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>
> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
> property be passed on to the eldest son.

unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
writings and actions he called for.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >he clearly states [...]
> >redistribution of land,
>
> Here he says quite the opposite..
>
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
writings and actions on the subject, you have one quote taken out of
context.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> > no, he was for redistribution,
>
> <LOL>@ your stupidity..  below he says otherwise..
>
> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 8:11 am, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <ko41mt$ka...@dont-email.me>,
>
>  "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> > "Harold Burton" <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:hal.i.burton-D9DC...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...
>
> > <...>
>
> > > Leftard rule #1:  lie, lie again, then lie about lying.
>
> > Wingnut shitbag rule #1: steal every argument that works against you and
> > pretend you made it up.
>
> Leftard wingnut shitbag rule #2:  clip previous content to make it
> difficult for readers to see how much you're BSing.
>
> snicker

[Steve]

If you have Jefferson's extensive writings you might have where he
referred to Adam Smiths book, 'The wealth of Nations" as the best book
on political economy.. Smith was a promoter of free economy..

You might also have where Jefferson called John Locke's book on
government as perfect "as far as it goes." Jefferson thought Lock was
one of the three greatest men that have ever lived... had a picture of
him on the wall in Monticello.. Lock was a definitive classic
liberal, you know...

<LOL> I bet you never even heard of him, you ignorant bozo..

[Steve]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>>
>> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
>> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>
> unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
>writings and actions he called for.

<CHUCKLE> He did no such thing..

[Steve]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:38:03 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>> > no, he was for redistribution,
>>
>> <LOL>@ your stupidity..  below he says otherwise..
>>
>> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
>> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
>> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
>> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
>> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
>> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
>> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
>
>except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
>writings and actions on the subject, you have one quote

which you cannot refute...

[Steve]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >he clearly states [...]
>> >redistribution of land,
>>
>> Here he says quite the opposite..
>>
>> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
>> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
>> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
>> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
>> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
>> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
>> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
>
> except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
>writings

[opel]

Pound for the clam, LOL!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The problem being that I can take my wealth and convert it into items
that I can then destroy or drop into the Marianas trench and let it be 7
miles below the surface where it's NOT economically practical to go get
it.

Or maybe put a treasure map in my memoirs for my posterity to code it
into it for them to go looking for it and keep it for themselves.

Having something of value in a depression or having it in another
country might make their life better. But it's better to risk its being
lost for all time than to give it to Liberal-Socialists that Only want a
free lunch.

And once you are dead and it has already happened, you aren't breaking a
law because dead people can't break a law.

So the Liberals plan to level the playing field has failed before it
even started because the smart will work around it.

[David Hartung]

"Yes, and here is what precedes the article:
This article needs attention from an expert in liberalism. Please add a
reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with
the article. WikiProject Liberalism (or its Portal) may be able to help
recruit an expert. (June 2010)"

In other words, the article has issues and should not ab take at its
face value.

[David Hartung]

On 05/29/2013 10:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>> no, he was for redistribution,
>>
>> <LOL>@ your stupidity.. below he says otherwise..
>>
>> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
>> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
>> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
>> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
>> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
>> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
>> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
>
> except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
> writings and actions on the subject, you have one quote taken out of
> context.

Some more of Jefferson's comments on taxation:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1330.htm

A socialist he was not.

A classic liberal he was.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

This is an example of how Socialists try to twist reality like a pretzel
to create propaganda that they can use to blur the lines between them
and the rest of us. Truth is they are Very Very different and so much
so that they would never be accepted with their RADICAL ideas of Socialism.



--


*Rumination*
#77 - "There were no shovel ready JOBS" Hahahhhahhahahahahhh -Obama-

[Clave]

"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:hal.i.burton-E110...@unknown-98-136-209-x.yahoo.com...

If "struck a nerve" means you made a horse's ass of yourself again, then I
guess so.

Jim

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 5:24 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 11:51 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 7:48 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:27:58 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>

> >> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >>> On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified
> >>>> as a libertarian today.
>

> >>> Hardly...
>
> >> "Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that
> >> state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from
> >> his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd
> >> Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382
>
> >   but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power, advocated
> > for a progressive income tax, and wealth redistribution. you are
> > simply taking a few quotes, and some out of context, such as the
> > parasites he mentions, in reality, it was the wealthy and their
> > corporate power he considered parasites.
>
> You must be from a different universe than I.

i come from a universe based in reality, yours is a tiny sliver of
reality, that lets in no light.


the american liberal Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As
he said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently
lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation
below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in
geometrical progression as they rise.”

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2010/06/16/the-founding-fathers-and-ta...

The Founding Fathers and Taxes: The Real Story
Post on June 16, 2010 by Jeff Shaw
Alabama congressional candidate Rick Barber, a Teabagger, has a buzz-
creating political ad that’s gathering attention. The out-there bit of
marketing casts Barber as a tax revolutionary — and lumps in some
American luminaries with his fringe views.

Observers have mostly focused on the video’s kookiest parts — Barber’s
calls for the impeachment of Pres. Obama, and Fake George Washington’s
call to “Gather Your Armies” — and don’t get me wrong, those are
plenty crazy sentiments.
But it’s the milder portions of the video that actually caught my
attention. Specifically, the assumption that the Founding Fathers
would have opposed any taxes, especially the progressive kind.
It’s funny how the people who venerate the Founding Fathers most tend
to know the least about them, and the people who use the constitution
as a political prop don’t seem to have read it. For one thing, it’s
pretty silly to treat the Founding Fathers as a unitary entity that
didn’t have internal dissent.
The populist Jefferson got into numerous debates with his more elitist
contemporaries, and history has been much kinder to the redhead than
his opponents, who referred to everyday people (the people Barber is
trying to incite) as “the rabble.”
And Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As he said in a
1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently lessening the
inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain
point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical
progression as they rise.”
Thomas Paine was also a vocal advocate of the progressive income tax.
The country passed a progressive estate tax in 1797, and this debate’s
been settled at least since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Even George Washington, who “appears” in the ad as an impersonator,
wasn’t anti-tax. General Washington levied the first tax in the new
republic, the Whiskey Tax, and when people rebelled, he “gathered his
armies” — and not in the way Barber would like. Yes, he used the
military to enforce tax policy.
Conservatives always quote one snippet from Washington where he says
that taxes are always “inconvenient and unpleasant.” Strangely, they
never quote the whole passage, which shows Washington’s views in
context. He said this in his farewell address (emphasis mine):
To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential
that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of
debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes;
that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient
and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the
selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of
difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction
of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of
acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public
exigencies may at any time dictate.
In other words: yeah, it’s always going to be a pain to pay taxes, but
to promote the common good, we need them so we can raise revenue and
do the things the public needs done.
Which is still the mainstream position among Americans now.

Next time you hear a Teabagger ranting about the Founding Fathers,
give them a history lesson. The history of this country — like the
constitution — is a lot more interesting and rich if you actually read
it.

[Nickname unavailable]

he was a lefty, just as jefferson was. you are sitting in your own
excrement again:)))))


http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers



Estate tax and the founding fathers
You can't take it with you
Oct 14th 2010, 21:44 by Lexington



MY FRIEND the Liberal Curmudgeon strikes again:
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and
those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most
definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and
inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the
Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government
abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to
perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited
Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the
source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely
echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is
manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every
generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from
posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said:
"There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we
conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The
states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving
expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that
equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of
wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that
by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old
system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of
particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue
influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice."
Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend
to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and
principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further;
Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that
landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each
generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent"
— in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed
at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all
citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or
her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed
property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party,
the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often
emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a
democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich"
and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore
Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated
tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of
large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of
great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

In her
debate in Delaware yesterday, the Republican Senate candidate
Christine O'Donnell asserted that the estate tax is a "tenet of
Marxism." I'm not sure how much Marx she has read, but she might want
to read the works of his fellow travelers Adam Smith, Thomas
Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt before
her next debate.



adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm



"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad
effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the
sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing
concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with
regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain
only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the
natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry
Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to]
'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor
of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects
different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The
proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this
order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and
carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be
one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence,
or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the
labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of
what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means
made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary
those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a
great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much
greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks
and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a
great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides
the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the
produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under
their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The
artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the
injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience
of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor
labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who
while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the
other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his
shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be
buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is,
unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of
those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and
uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their
actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"....Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
of our moral sentiments.”

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>
> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>
> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
> >writings and actions he called for.
>
> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..

yes he did. the more you lie, the dumber you look.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 12:12 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2013 10:33 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote

wrong as usual,

[Nickname unavailable]

he was a american liberal. lie all you want, but you are simply
sitting in your own excrement in public.

the american liberal Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As
he said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently
lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation
below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in
geometrical progression as they rise.”

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2010/06/16/the-founding-fathers-and-taxes-the-real-story/

[opel]

On 5/29/2013 3:04 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 29, 5:24 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>> On 05/28/2013 11:51 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 7:48 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:27:58 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
>>
>>>> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>>> On May 28, 5:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Jefferson was a classic liberal who would be classified
>>>>>> as a libertarian today.
>>
>>>>> Hardly...
>>
>>>> "Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that
>>>> state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from
>>>> his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd
>>>> Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382
>>
>>> but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power, advocated
>>> for a progressive income tax, and wealth redistribution. you are
>>> simply taking a few quotes, and some out of context, such as the
>>> parasites he mentions, in reality, it was the wealthy and their
>>> corporate power he considered parasites.
>>
>> You must be from a different universe than I.
>
> i come from a universe based in reality,

You come quoting the 'progressive pulse', LOL!

Buzz off, lib dip.

[opel]

On 5/29/2013 3:06 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and
> those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most
> definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and
> inherited wealth.



Bullshit.

http://nodeathtax.org/deathtax/history

he Death Tax has been imposed on American taxpayers five distinct times
over the last 200 years. The first three times it was repealed shortly
after the conflict ended.

The First Three Death Taxes

A stamp tax was imposed on wills and estates in 1797, to help collect
funds for the Undeclared War with France, and repealed in 1802. In
1862, an inheritance tax with rates of 0.75% to 5% was imposed to
collect funds for the Civil War, and was repealed in 1870. In 1898 an
estate tax with a top rate of 15% was imposed on all assets above $1
million to collect funds for the Spanish-American war, and was repealed
in 1902.[1]

The Fourth Death Tax

The fourth Federal Estate Tax was imposed in 1916, to support the
U.S. involvement in World War I. That war ended over 90 years ago, yet
the tax was only finally repealed on January 1, 2010. Over the course
of the last 94 years, the estate tax rate changed several times. The
initial top rate was 10 percent, and then increased to 25 percent, and
ultimately climbed as high as 77 percent.[2]

In 1976 Congress enacted legislative changes designed to make it
impossible for a person to transfer substantial assets without being
taxed by either the estate tax, the gift tax, or the generation skipping
tax. The gift tax applies to any gifts above $12,000 in a year (and any
gifts in a lifetime over $1 million) and the generation skipping tax
applies to any gifts that “skip” the first generation (children) and go
to grandchildren. Together, these taxes prevent any large transfer of
assets from escaping the IRS.

The 2001 Death Tax Repeal Law

In 2001, President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA). EGTRRA reduced the estate tax from 55
percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2009 and repealed the estate tax on
January 1, 2010. However, due to complex Senate budget rules, the
EGTRRA tax relief was not permanent. In 2011, all of the EGTRRA tax
relief “expired” and the applicable tax rates were set to return to
their pre-tax relief rates. Consequently, the death tax would have
“come back to life” in 2011 at the rate of 55 percent.

The 2009 Death Tax Fight

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
and their allies in Congress tried to stop the 2010 repeal. They
attempted to make the estate tax permanent at the rate of 45 percent –
if not higher. When that failed, they tried to temporarily extend the
tax through 2010…without addressing the tax’s looming return to 55
percent in 2011.

AFBI exposed their strategy and shifted public opinion against it.
AFBI’s work created bipartisan opposition to a permanent, 45 percent
estate tax. We stopped the death tax from being included as a
revenue-raiser in healthcare legislation, and we gathered dozens of
allied organizations to tell Congress to keep the death tax repealed in
2010. As a result, Congress did not extend the death tax past 2009, and
as a result the tax was temporarily repealed in 2010.

The 2011 Temporary Death Tax

On December 17, 2010, President Obama signed H.R. 4853 into law, which
temporarily prevents the tax from returning at the scheduled 2011 rate
of 55 percent and exemption of $1 million. It set the death tax at the
rate of 35 percent with an exemption of $5 million. However, this law
will only last for two years and on January 1, 2013, the tax returns at
the rate of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption.

[opel]

On 5/29/2013 3:07 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> the more you lie, the dumber you look.

http://nodeathtax.org/deathtax/history

The Death Tax has been imposed on American taxpayers five distinct times

[opel]

On 5/29/2013 3:08 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> Estate tax and the founding fathers

[opel]

On 5/29/2013 3:09 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> liberal Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation.

[Steve]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:09:49 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 12:22 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>> On 05/29/2013 10:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> no, he was for redistribution,
>>
>> >> <LOL>@ your stupidity..  below he says otherwise..
>>
>> >> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
>> >> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
>> >> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
>> >> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
>> >> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
>> >> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
>> >> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
>>
>> > except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
>> > writings and actions on the subject, you have one quote taken out of
>> > context.
>>
>> Some more of Jefferson's comments on taxation:
>>
>> http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1330.htm
>>
>> A socialist he was not.
>>
>> A classic liberal he was.
>
> he was a american liberal.

He was a classic liberal who thought John Locke’s "little book on
government is perfect as far as it goes."

John Locke is sometimes referred to as the father of classic
liberalism. Jefferson revered Locke.

[Steve]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>>
>> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
>> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>>
>> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
>> >writings and actions he called for.
>>
>> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..
>
> yes he did.

...and yet you can't produce any evidence that Jefferson was for an
estate tax.

[Steve]

<SMIRK> So indeed, you'd never even heard of John Locke, who was
Jefferson's roll model on government and is often referred to as the
father of classic liberalism.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/29/2013 5:09 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 29, 12:22 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>> On 05/29/2013 10:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> no, he was for redistribution,
>>
>>>> <LOL>@ your stupidity.. below he says otherwise..
>>
>>>> "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that
>>>> of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
>>>> who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
>>>> to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the
>>>> guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
>>>> fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de
>>>> Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
>>
>>> except its one quote taken out of context. i have his extensive
>>> writings and actions on the subject, you have one quote taken out of
>>> context.
>>
>> Some more of Jefferson's comments on taxation:
>>
>> http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1330.htm
>>
>> A socialist he was not.
>>
>> A classic liberal he was.
>

> he was a American liberal.


And he would piss on any of today's American Liberals, because today's
Liberals are Nothing but Socialists.


NEWS WEEK SAID IT.... *WE'RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW*


And they were talking to the Democrat/lefty fellow travelers because no
one reads that Main Stream Media Liberal-Socialist puke except the
Democrats and Libs and Progressives and Socialists and Communists and
Marxists.


SO they claimed for all the world to see that Democrats and all the
Lefties are NOW Socialists and you know what..... that's the only truth
they have had printed in their worthless failing rag for years.




*Rumination*
#5 - You can't have Social Justice and Equal Justice at the same time,
they are 'mutually exclusive'.

[Nickname unavailable]

which means you cannot refute it. typical lair.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 4:34 pm, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:


blubber on liar. we have not only the american liberal founders
writings, but also their actions.

[Nickname unavailable]

it won't work anymore.


follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.



we not only have the american liberal founders writings, we have
their actions.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 4:45 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>
> >> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
> >> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>
> >> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
> >> >writings and actions he called for.
>
> >> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..
>
> > yes he did.
>
> ...and yet you can't produce any evidence that Jefferson was for an
> estate tax.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 29, 4:45 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

snicker, jefferson was a american liberal. who was for progressive
taxation, the estate tax, redistribution, and the curtailing of
wealthy driven power. i have provide clear empirical evidence. i know
locke idiot. you seem to have backed away from smith though:))))))))

[Steve]

Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.

"Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.
http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

[Steve]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 4:34 pm, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>
>

we have

[Steve]

Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.

"Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."

[Steve]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On May 29, 4:45 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>>
>> >> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
>> >> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>>
>> >> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
>> >> >writings and actions he called for.
>>
>> >> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..
>>
>> > yes he did.
>>
>> ...and yet you can't produce any evidence that Jefferson was for an
>> estate tax.
>
>
> it won't work anymore.
>

It seems nothing works for you...

[Steve]

Jefferson was a classic liberal whose philosophy closely followed
his role model, John Locke, whom he considered one of the three
smartest men in the world.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 4:34 pm, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>
>  we have
>
> Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.
>
> "Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."
> --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 4:45 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>
> >> >> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
> >> >> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>
> >> >> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
> >> >> >writings and actions he called for.
>
> >> >> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..
>
> >> > yes he did.
>
> >> ...and yet you can't produce any evidence that Jefferson was for an
> >> estate tax.
>
> > it won't work anymore.
>
> It seems nothing works for you...
>
> Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.
>
> "Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."

> --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:10 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

[Steve]

<LOL> Of course it does. You have no evidence to the contrary

[Nickname unavailable]

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson

was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.

you missed a few parts of the wealth of nations. in fact, i doubt you
have the logic capabilities to even understand the work.

adam smith socialist:The rate of profit is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries
which are going fastest to ruin:No society can surely be flourishing
and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm



"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad
effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the
sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing
concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with
regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain
only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the
natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry
Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to]
'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor
of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects
different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The
proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this
order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and
carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be
one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence,
or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the
labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of
what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means
made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary
those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a
great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much
greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks
and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a
great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides
the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the
produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under
their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The
artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the
injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience
of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor
labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who
while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the
other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his
shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be
buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is,
unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of
those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and
uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their
actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"....Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
of our moral sentiments.”

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 4:34 pm, opel <a...@novalid.org.> wrote:
>
>  we have
>
> Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.
>
> "Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On May 29, 4:45 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 29, 11:33 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 29, 6:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >> >> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >but he was of course against concentrated wealth and power,
>
> >> >> >> ...only towards the laws of the time that dictated that a person's
> >> >> >> property be passed on to the eldest son.
>
> >> >> > unless of course he was for the estate tax, which in his extensive
> >> >> >writings and actions he called for.
>
> >> >> <CHUCKLE>  He did no such thing..
>
> >> > yes he did.
>
> >> ...and yet you can't produce any evidence that Jefferson was for an
> >> estate tax.
>
> > it won't work anymore.
>
> It seems nothing works for you...
>
> Jefferson's testament to classic liberal, John Locke.
>
> "Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes."

> --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:05 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, May 30, 1790.http://retirementseries.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=150954612

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 30, 1:10 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

yet that still does not refute the empirical evidence that jefferson
was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.

[Nickname unavailable]

was a american liberal, who was for progressive taxation, the estate
tax, redistribution of wealth, and the curtailing of wealthy/corporate
driven power.

follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick
to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking
ridiculous.

never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong;
never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave
room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at
a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this
word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent,
it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in
contradiction of the plain facts.”[6]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget
any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it
is needed...


If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough,
people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are
saying is total crap.

[Steve]