Free Market V Government Control

In the early 1600s, one of the very first American Colonies tried government-controlled socialism: From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. It failed miserably. It almost destroyed the colony as the people came close to starving to death in toto. The colony switched to free market principles. The people owned their land. The people owned their own industriousness. The people owned their own harvests and could do with them what they wished. At that point, the colony switched from decimation by starvation to wealth-generation and resounding success.

From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles to become the wealthiest, freest, most generous nation in the history of the world. Starting around the 19-teens, American “Progressivism” has been destroying the very thing that made America great, with a brief respite in the roaring 1920s as Conservative free market principles held sway.

Around 1930ish, “progressivism” once again held sway, to the demise of the American economic framework. “Progressive” principles, which are anti-free market, anti-freedom, hyper-extended and greatly deepened a recession-turned-depression into the “Great Depression” which America felt longer and more deeply than most of the rest of the world. Contrary to some Conservative opinions, the Great Depression was not ended by the need for materiel during WWII. The Great Depression actually extended slightly beyond the end of WWII.

Around 1946, there was a mild cut-back in the “progressive” agenda, which greatly helped kill off the Great Depression. The Conservative principles put into Law around that time cannot be lightly dismissed as they helped generate the massive economic explosion. Granted, the US was one of the extreme few heavily industrialized nations that were not decimated by WWII*, which greatly benefited the US post-WWII, but that benefit would’ve been heavily dampened had it not been for a roll-back on “progressive” Laws.

From the late 1940s through the 1960s, the US economic explosion benefited greatly from their being the only nation that could actually produce en masse. Europe and the Pacific Rim were decimated. It really was up to the US to pull the world out of the destruction that was WWII. And American ingenuity and industriousness and freedom and generosity did just that.

But, after the free world recovered from WWII, economic competition from the free world slowed US growth. And American “progressivism” further eroded US growth. American “progressivism” has pumped millions of people into the role of leaches; made millions of people dependent on others instead of independent and responsible for themselves. And American “progressivism”, which is government mandated “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”, is rapidly decimating the US, American culture, and by extension, the world.

The US is still the most generous nation in the world. And American Conservatives are still the most generous people in the world. But as the American “Progressive” movement continues to decimate the US, we will soon reach the point where we can no longer be generous, as a nation or as individual people. And the world will be much the worse for it.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” has decimated nations everywhere it has ever been implemented, and will continue to decimate nations everywhere it is implemented until the Day of the New Millenium when Christ rules the world (when “from each to each” will be an illegal philosophy).

When the Iron Curtain finally fell, East Germany was absolutely cratered while West Germany was massively successful and it took lots of time to repair East Germany from the devastation of WWII+Communism. Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Empire, the Balkans, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc, etc, were all still decimated from WWII and Communism. Cuba is still decimated from Communist “from each to each”. North Korea is absolutely decimated from Communist principles. In the Middle East, except for Israel, the people are impoverished while the ruling class is grossly wealthy.

In fact, looking at the world, the American middle class is wealthier than many nations’ wealthy class (when excluding their ruling classes). But if “progressives” get their way, the American middle class will vanish. The American wealthy class (except for the ruling class) will vanish. Freedom across the world will vanish. And the “progressives” will never understand what happened. Because the “progressives” will always, always, always depend on the continuously and always failed policies of history.

___________________
*While Canada, New Zealand, Australia were not decimated in WWII, I don’t believe any of those three were heavily industrialized because they were mainly agrarian in my estimation. Switzerland was nominally neutral but loved it some Nazi treasure. And in my own view, Switzerland was an agrarian/banking nation and not heavily industrialized.

92 Comments

  1. Mr Hitchcock began:

    In the early 1600s, one of the very first American Colonies tried government-controlled socialism: From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. It failed miserably. It almost destroyed the colony as the people came close to starving to death in toto. The colony switched to free market principles. The people owned their land. The people owned their own industriousness. The people owned their own harvests and could do with them what they wished. At that point, the colony switched from decimation by starvation to wealth-generation and resounding success.

    A more modern example of such failure was the Stalinist attempts at collectivization of agriculture. The peasants were reduced to workers on the kolkhozi and sovkhozi, and very poor productivity led to famine and hunger; millions of Soviet subjects, many actually living on farms, starved to death.

    Eventually, the Soviets allowed the peasants to retain some of the traditional household plots, lichnii podcobnii khozyaictva, on which families could work and own their own small bits of land. Never more than 4% of the arable land in the USSR, these plots consistently produced a quarter to a third of all agricultural produce. Socialism failed, while a form of private enterprise prospered.

  2. From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles to become the wealthiest, freest, most generous nation in the history of the world.

    Slave labour, stealing land from the original inhabitants, federal land grants and use of state and federal power in creating roads and railroads counts as “free market principles” now?

    Uh-huh:

    Most Generous Countries in 2008 as donation per citizen in 2008 (report July 2010)

    The GHA July 2010 report also lists countries ranked by generosity as donation per citizen from data collected in 2008.[5]

    1. Luxembourg – $114.4/citizen
    2. Norway – $95.7/citizen
    3. Sweden – $65.9/citizen
    4. Ireland – $55.9/citizen
    5. Denmark – $54.1/citizen
    6. The Netherlands – $38.6/citizen
    7. Kuwait – $32.8/citizen
    8. Saudi Arabia – $28.7/citizen

    9. Finland – $27/citizen
    10. Switzerland – $25.4/citizen

  3. Slave labour, stealing land from the original inhabitants, federal land grants and use of state and federal power in creating roads and railroads counts as “free market principles” now?

    Once again, the idiot liar from down under futilely tries to force me to defend a position I never made and adds in absolutely false history to boot.

    Hey, idiot liar from down under, show where that Colony used slave labor of any sort after it got rid of socialist principles. Show where that Colony gave out federal land grants of any sort. Show where that Colony used federal power to create roads and railroads. Or admit you’re an idiot and a liar. But you won’t do any of that because you absolutely have to lie and ignore histo-facts to push your anti-American and socialist agenda.

    Once again, the idiot from down under’s premise is fatally flawed, thus eliminating every statement based on the idiot from down under’s fatally flawed premise from consideration.

  4. Hey, idiot liar from down under, show where that Colony used slave labor of any sort after it got rid of socialist principles

    Your quote: “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    Gosh, don’t YOU look stupid now…

  5. As a nation, the US is leaps and bounds more generous than any other nation in the history of the world. Nation-to-nation, that cannot be truthfully denied at all. On an individual basis, American Conservatives are clearly much more generous with their own time and money than American “Progressives”. Furthermore, those Americans who go to church regularly are more generous with their own time and money than those who do not, whether Conservative or “Progressive”. Again, that is a statistical fact which cannot be honestly denied. Thus, if it is a fact that on a per-capita basis the US is less generous than another country (and I doubt that is the case (wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable and left-leaning source)), then the generosity-gap between the generous Conservatives and the skin-flint “Progressives” is a major contributing factor.

  6. Why, Mr Hitchcock, it’s entirely your fault that the Phoenician thought you meant slave labor, given that you didn’t specify that you were referring to Plymouth Plantation in Massachusetts.

    Some of the wealthier families in Plymouth Colony owned black slaves, which unlike the white indentured servants, were considered the property of their owners and passed on to heirs like any other property. Slave ownership was not widespread and very few families possessed the wealth necessary to own slaves. In 1674, the inventory of Capt. Thomas Willet of Marshfield includes “8 Negroes” at a value of £200. Other inventories of the time also valued slaves at £24–25 each (£2.83 thousand as of 2010, or $4,300 at PPP), well out of the financial ability of most families. A 1689 census of the town of Bristol shows that of the 70 families that lived there, only one had a black slave. So few were black slaves in the colony that the General Court never saw fit to pass any laws dealing with them.

  7. “Conservatives are clearly much more generous with their own time and money than American “Progressives”. Furthermore, those Americans who go to church regularly are more generous with their own time and money than those who do not, whether Conservative or “Progressive”. Again, that is a statistical fact which cannot be honestly denied.”

    More made up stuff here: Citation please!

  8. More made up stuff here: Citation please!

    Once again, Idiot LIAR hypocrite Dictator Perry, go fsck yourself and quit calling me a liar. Dana has provided multiple citations of that very thing, multiple times. I have previously discussed that very thing, with citations. SO, IDIOT LIAR PERRY, QUIT WITH YOUR LYING WAYS AND GO FSCK YOURSELF.

  9. “Once again, the idiot from down under’s premise is fatally flawed, thus eliminating every statement based on the idiot from down under’s fatally flawed premise from consideration.”

    The Hitch, you have not demonstrated that: Citation please!

  10. Idiot liar dictator hypocrite Perry, your demand for a citation of your idiot master’s fatally flawed premise is you once again leaping into the abyss. You’re a fsckt@rd without doubt and you have proven time and time again you deserve absolutely zero respect for your inability to think clearly or read for comprehension or remember past ten minutes ago or even to cross over to the links provided you, much less to actually research one mutha-fsckin thing beyond radical extremist left-wing socialist talking points.

  11. As a nation, the US is leaps and bounds more generous than any other nation in the history of the world. Nation-to-nation, that cannot be truthfully denied at all.

    I deny it. Per capita it is stingy; showing up in any listings is a function of size not generosity. Per capita giving is the only way to assess generosity.

    “Conservatives are clearly much more generous with their own time and money than American “Progressives”.

    PB, you’re a documented liar. Provide proof for your claims.

  12. Here’s a novel idea for you, fsckt@rd Perry: Why don’t you actually try to logically and intellectually discuss the topic at hand instead of throwing your brain-dead sh!t bombs? I know it might be difficult for you to try something that diametrically opposed to your normal tictacs, but is it impossible for you to even give it a try?

  13. Naturally, upon looking at the Phoenician’s numbers, I figured that I had better follow the link. And there we find, under Official Development Assistance, the following: “Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations.”

    The chart the Phoenician used came from the last grouping, but one wonders: what is the “GHA” to which it refers? That comes from two charts above, “Humanitarian donation in absolute terms from non-DAC countries in 2009 (report July 2010),” with the defining paragraph being:

    Global Humanitarian Assistance have published a report in July 2010 ranking countries both inside and outside the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), on the total amount of humanitarian aid channelled through United Nations (83.6%), elected governments (7.3%), NGOs (3.3%), and others (5.8%). The figures for non-DAC countries are below. These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself.

    Translation: charitable contributions from the United States used within the United States itself are not counted!

    I knew that the chart had a huge limitation to it as soon as I sew the numbers attached. Luxembourg was listed as number one with donations of $114.4/citizen, for the entire year of 2008. We give almost that much to the church every week, and we’re not the only people in our church who give. My wife’s bi-weekly contributions to the United Way — they come out of her check — are a measly $10, but that, all by itself, equals $260 a year, or twice what the Luxembourgers are supposed to have given.

    Make a note of it: when the Phoenician gives you a source, actually check his source material.

  14. Idiot from down under, Dana has already multiply given the proof you’re demanding of me. Idiot from down under, Dana has just within the past 24 hours provided multiple links where he gave a multitude of proof you’re demanding from me. Idiot from down under, you have been proven multiple times that you’re a liar. Idiot from down under, you’ve been shown multiple times by a multitude of people that my statements have not been lies but your accusations against me have been lies.

    I would tell you to go fsck yourself, idiot from down under, but being the intellectual eunuch you are, that is an impossiblity. You can’t even go fsck that chicken.

  15. As a nation, the US is leaps and bounds more generous than any other nation in the history of the world. Nation-to-nation, that cannot be truthfully denied at all. (quoting me)

    I deny it. Per capita it is stingy; showing up in any listings is a function of size not generosity.

    Do note the idiot liar from down under had to ignore the qualifications I made and change them totally to push his lie-filled agenda. Once again, he proves his premises are flawed because he has to completely reject and replace qualifiers that don’t fit his model. Once again, he proves why nothing out of his festering mind can be taken at face value.

  16. Perry wrote, at 1858:

    “Conservatives are clearly much more generous with their own time and money than American “Progressives”. Furthermore, those Americans who go to church regularly are more generous with their own time and money than those who do not, whether Conservative or “Progressive”. Again, that is a statistical fact which cannot be honestly denied.”

    More made up stuff here: Citation please!

    I, of course, had already given him the sources, at 1546, on a thread in which he had been a heavy participant. But, I’ll do so again:

    While, individually, charitable contributions vary widely, conservatives are much more generous than liberals, generally speaking.

    Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the (2004) presidential election.

    It’s no surprise to me; I wrote about it here and here and here.

    Naturally, each of those links contains further documentation within the articles.

  17. Global Humanitarian Assistance have published a report in July 2010 ranking countries both inside and outside the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), on the total amount of humanitarian aid channelled through United Nations (83.6%), elected governments (7.3%), NGOs (3.3%), and others (5.8%). The figures for non-DAC countries are below. These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself.

    Translation: charitable contributions from the United States used within the United States itself are not counted!

    And charitable contributions from Luxembourg used within Luxembourg itself are not counted. So your point was… what, again?

    And you seem to have missed that PB waffled on about international contributions and then claimed that the US was the most generous nation.

    My wife’s bi-weekly contributions to the United Way — they come out of her check — are a measly $10, but that, all by itself, equals $260 a year, or twice what the Luxembourgers are supposed to have given.

    And if there’s a J Random Luxemborgoise somewhere who gives $20 a week? You are cherrypicking an example and comparing it to an average.

    PB, idiot and liar that he is, asserted that the US is the most generous of nations. He did not supply any bassis for this assertion. Looking at the information we have data for – international aid – we see that the US is far from the most generous of countries.

    Now, you claim that this is made up for by contributions within the US.

    Where’s your proof, Dana?

  18. Dana, you know full well that Idiot liar hypocrite Dictator Perry will never actually follow any of those links or their secondary or tertiary links. Neither will he admit that he has been falsely accusing people of lying. Neither will he admit that source material was already plentifully supplied on this blog long before he demanded that source material. Neither will he admit to the truth in all your research material. His is an agenda and philosophy and ideology that can only survive in a world where facts are nonexistent and he will demand to live there in perpetuity.

  19. Oh, and by the way, PB:

    Your quote was: “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    Are you going to admit that you fucked up, dickhead?

  20. One further point on the paragraph:

    Global Humanitarian Assistance have published a report in July 2010 ranking countries both inside and outside the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), on the total amount of humanitarian aid channelled through United Nations (83.6%), elected governments (7.3%), NGOs (3.3%), and others (5.8%). The figures for non-DAC countries are below. These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself.

    If that includes funds channelled through the UN and “elected governments,” how much would be considered voluntary charitable contributions, and how much was actually taxed away from the citizens.

  21. “Idiot from down under, Dana has already multiply given the proof you’re demanding of me. Idiot from down under, Dana has just within the past 24 hours provided multiple links where he gave a multitude of proof you’re demanding from me. Idiot from down under, you have been proven multiple times that you’re a liar. Idiot from down under, you’ve been shown multiple times by a multitude of people that my statements have not been lies but your accusations against me have been lies.

    I would tell you to go fsck yourself, idiot from down under, but being the intellectual eunuch you are, that is an impossiblity. You can’t even go fsck that chicken.”

    Christian Hitchcock once more passes on his so-called wisdom with the “Cuss meter” about to go off scale, but lacking for a letter or two. Congratulations John, for your display of your version of Christian behavior/witness.

    Perhaps you need to hook up with the FL so-called Pastor of a so-called Christian church with a congregation under 5, who took it upon himself to burn the Koran, since I think you might approve. Do you?

    Or maybe it could be the Westboro Baptist Church, you know in GA, the one whose members picket funerals of our troops who happen to be gay. Do you support that too, John? You come over to me as one approaching this level of radical behavior. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  22. Your quote was: “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    Yup, that’s my statement. And factual data supports my statement, contrary to socialist revisions and socialist dependence on nobody knowing history.

  23. The Phoenician wrote:

    PB, idiot and liar that he is, asserted that the US is the most generous of nations. He did not supply any bassis for this assertion. Looking at the information we have data for – international aid – we see that the US is far from the most generous of countries.

    Really? From the source you cited, the very first chart listed:

    Official Development Assistance by country in absolute terms (April 2010)

    To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements:

    1. Be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency);
    2. With promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective;
    3. At concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.)

    Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations.

    According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the countries giving the highest amounts of money (in absolute terms) are as follows:[1]

    1. United States – $28.67 billion
    2. France – $12.43 billion
    3. Germany – $11.98 billion
    4. United Kingdom – $11.50 billion
    5. Japan – $9.48 billion
    6. Spain – $6.57 billion
    7. Netherlands – $6.43 billion
    8. Sweden – $4.55 billion
    9. Norway – $4.09 billion
    10. Canada – $4.01 billion
    11. Italy – $3.31 billion
    12. Denmark – $2.81 billion
    13. Australia – $2.76 billion
    14. Belgium – $2.60 billion
    15. Switzerland – $2.31 billion
    16. Finland – $1.29 billion
    17. Austria – $1.15 billion
    18. Ireland – $1.00 billion
    19. South Korea – $0.82 billion
    20. Greece – $0.61 billion
    21. Portugal – $0.51 billion
    22. Luxembourg – $0.40 billion
    23. New Zealand – $0.31 billion

    Who’s number one on that list? :)

  24. Perhaps I should point out that, on that list, with the exception of Japan at number 5 and the Republic of Korea at 19, we are looking at a list of predominantly Christian nations. But, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

  25. Idiot hypocrite liar Dictator Perry: Do I support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt, without reservation.

    Do I support Quran burning? Hey, sometimes you need to use trash to start your bonfire. And since the Quran is far more vile than the US Flag, which leftists support burning and trampling, why not support the rights of Americans to burn the Quran? And since leftists support the vile mistreatment of crucifixes and Bibles and Christian visual representations, why not support the right to mistreat something the vile left supports (to their own destruction, if they succeed) in what is supposed to be the freest nation in the world?

    Or do you, Idiot liar hypocrite Dictator Perry, support stripping some freedom from people with whom you disagree? I know that’s a rhetorical question since you have proven time and again that you actually do support that.

  26. “Socialism failed, while a form of private enterprise prospered.”

    So your point is what, Dana?

    There is no movement toward socialism by Progressives in this country. Progressives believe wholeheartedly in free enterprise, but they also believe in just rewards of productivity, a concept that has been corrupted by the Right. Rather, it is just one of your talking points to label Progressives Scoialists, because resonates with Righties, in my view.

  27. Perry wrote:

    Perhaps you need to hook up with the FL so-called Pastor of a so-called Christian church with a congregation under 5, who took it upon himself to burn the Koran, since I think you might approve. Do you?

    John got it right: such an activity is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. We don’t have to approve of the message or the method to recognize that the activity is not, and cannot be, criminal.

    Or maybe it could be the Westboro Baptist Church, you know in GA, the one whose members picket funerals of our troops who happen to be gay. Do you support that too, John? You come over to me as one approaching this level of radical behavior. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Actually, the members of the Phelps clan have no idea whether the soldiers whose funerals they are picketing were homosexual of not, and never claimed that they knew. However, I wrote about the Supreme Court decision here, beginning, “Sometimes the Supreme Court hands down a decision with which you have to agree, but still hate,” and John, in the second comment, agreed.

  28. Perry wrote:

    “Socialism failed, while a form of private enterprise prospered.”

    So your point is what, Dana?

    There is no movement toward socialism by Progressives in this country. Progressives believe wholeheartedly in free enterprise, but they also believe in just rewards of productivity, a concept that has been corrupted by the Right. Rather, it is just one of your talking points to label Progressives Scoialists, because it sounds good to Righties.

    You say that y’all “believe wholeheartedly in free enterprise, (and) they also believe in just rewards of productivity,” but every policy you advocate runs contrary to that. You advocate increased regulations on businesses, advocate higher taxation on businesses, advocate higher taxes on the more productive people, and generally support programs which redistribute the rewards of the free enterprise system from those who earn them to those who have not.

    Telling me that you’re not a socialist while advocating socialist policies makes me wonder if you even realize just what you are saying.

  29. In the years leading up to the (not so) Civil War,

    Which side had the vast majority of railroads?
    Which side was vastly more industrial?
    Which side had the most freedom?
    Which side depended on the labor of those who weren’t free, thereby truncating free-market principles?

    Yeah, the idiot from down under can spout his nonsense, but he never lets facts get in the way of his lies about history, philosophy, and other people. He never lets facts get in the way of his socialist hatred of actual individual freedom.

  30. Idiot hypocrite liar Dictator Perry, you have claimed you support the First Amendment. You have even given your own flawed representation of what the First Amendment is, declaring those blog-owners who ban commenters to be in violation of the First Amendment. So, tell me, Idiot hypocrite liar Dictator Perry, why did you beg Dana to violate the First Amendment by your definition in regards to me? Why did you beg Dana to restrict my authoring rights on this blog, in direct violation of your definition of the First Amendment? Could it have been because you disagreed with what I wrote?

    Or are you going to lie and “claim by understanding” you did no such thing? If you give one of your vile and wholly dishonest “citation please” responses, those who have been here a couple years will automatically know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a flat-out liar on the matter.

    The ball is in your court, fsckt@rd.

  31. Perry wrote, at 1858:

    “Conservatives are clearly much more generous with their own time and money than American “Progressives”. Furthermore, those Americans who go to church regularly are more generous with their own time and money than those who do not, whether Conservative or “Progressive”. Again, that is a statistical fact which cannot be honestly denied.”

    More made up stuff here: Citation please!

    I, of course, had already given him the sources, at 1546, on a thread in which he had been a heavy participant. But, I’ll do so again:

    While, individually, charitable contributions vary widely, conservatives are much more generous than liberals, generally speaking.

    Na na na na na, Conservatives contribute to charity more than Progressives. Is that the game we have decided to play on this issue?

    Dana, your citation does not support your contention. In fact, it concludes that poor people contribute 30% more than wealthy people, when comparison is made on the basis of the percentage of their income which they donate to charity. Moreover, it states that those who believe that government has an important role in helping those in need, contribute more to charity than those opposed to this kind of governmental largesse.

    The best way to study this question is to normalize the charty contribution data per capita per annual income (as a percentage) versus family income. I’ve done some looking and have not yet been able to find the data in this form.

  32. Who’s number one on that list

    As was stated above, dickhead, generosity has to be established per capita.

    # United States – $28.67 billion
    # France – $12.43 billion

    The US has a GDP better than 5 times that of France.

    Once again, you keep saying “the US is the most generous nation”.

    And we keep stating “proof”?

  33. In the years leading up to the (not so) Civil War,

    Which side had the vast majority of railroads?

    The progressive side

    Which side was vastly more industrial?

    The progressive side.

    Which side had the most freedom?

    The progressive side.

    Which side depended on the labor of those who weren’t free, thereby truncating free-market principles?

    The wingnut side.

    If you wingnuts dislike the Southern Confederacy so much, PB, why are you hell-bent on replicating it in modern America?

  34. “Or are you going to lie and “claim by understanding” you did no such thing? If you give one of your vile and wholly dishonest “citation please” responses, those who have been here a couple years will automatically know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a flat-out liar on the matter.”

    Citation please, John, then I will respond!

  35. In the years leading up to the (not so) Civil War,

    Which side had the vast majority of railroads?

    The progressive side

    Which side was vastly more industrial?

    The progressive side.

    Which side had the most freedom?

    The progressive side.

    Which side depended on the labor of those who weren’t free, thereby truncating free-market principles?

    The wingnut side.

    If you wingnuts dislike the Southern Confederacy so much, PB, why are you hell-bent on replicating it in modern America?”

    Christian Hitchy sure did step in it there, didn’t he PiaToR? :)

  36. Your quote was: “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    Yup, that’s my statement.

    Uh-huh.

    Followed immediately by

    “Once again, the idiot liar from down under futilely tries to force me to defend a position I never made and adds in absolutely false history to boot.

    Hey, idiot liar from down under, show where that Colony used slave labor of any sort after it got rid of socialist principles. Show where that Colony gave out federal land grants of any sort. Show where that Colony used federal power to create roads and railroads. Or admit you’re an idiot and a liar. But you won’t do any of that because you absolutely have to lie and ignore histo-facts to push your anti-American and socialist agenda.”

    So tell us, PB, how exactly can I be “forcing you to defend a position you never made” when you admit it was your own statement, and which “Colony” were you ranting on about from “the early 1600s to the early 1900s”?

    You fucked up, dickhead. Admit it.

  37. Perry wrote:

    The best way to study this question is to normalize the charty contribution data per capita per annual income (as a percentage) versus family income. I’ve done some looking and have not yet been able to find the data in this form.

    Most of the data come from charitable contributions reported on Form 1040; since the Form 1040 doesn’t ask your party affiliation or political persuasion, and with the few exceptions of politicians who feel a need to release their Forms 1040, are private, it’s hard to correlate that way.

    We wind up with noting trends, which indicate that the states more likely to vote Republican tend to have higher charitable contributions. There are some assumptions taken with that, since it’s always possible that a higher percentage of liberals in otherwise conservative states could be making the contributions, but when we note that the very liberal, Democratic states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts, numbers one, two and three on the “Having Rank” chart, are 45th, 48th and 49th in the 2005 “Generosity Index,” while poor Mississippi, 50th on the “Having Rank” is number one on the Generosity Index, then yeah, I’d say the correlation is pretty strong.

  38. And factual data supports my statement, contrary to socialist revisions and socialist dependence on nobody knowing history.

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, PB?

  39. Most of the data come from charitable contributions reported on Form 1040;

    Dana, you’ve been asked to provide proof demonstrating that the US is “the most generous nation”. We’ve shown proof suggesting otherwise – in international aid, per capita, it is far from generous.

    Where’s your proof for PB’s assertion, Dana?

  40. “Perry wrote:

    “Socialism failed, while a form of private enterprise prospered.”

    So your point is what, Dana?

    There is no movement toward socialism by Progressives in this country. Progressives believe wholeheartedly in free enterprise, but they also believe in just rewards of productivity, a concept that has been corrupted by the Right. Rather, it is just one of your talking points to label Progressives Scoialists, because it sounds good to Righties.

    You say that y’all “believe wholeheartedly in free enterprise, (and) they also believe in just rewards of productivity,” but every policy you advocate runs contrary to that. You advocate increased regulations on businesses, advocate higher taxation on businesses, advocate higher taxes on the more productive people, and generally support programs which redistribute the rewards of the free enterprise system from those who earn them to those who have not.

    Telling me that you’re not a socialist while advocating socialist policies makes me wonder if you even realize just what you are saying.”

    More regulations? Of course. Time and again we have learned what happens with a laissez faire approach.

    Higher taxes on businesses/corporations? Where did I say that, Dana? What I said was that once tax loopholes are closed, then we should lower taxes on corporations, to around 20%. On small businesses, I favor 0% taxes.

    Advocate higher taxes on wealthier people? Absolutely!

    Advocate for programs which redistribute rewards? Tax policy can take care of that, since obviously corporations have failed to do so voluntarily.

    Again, you label these socialist policies, because they resonate with your kind. Actually, they are not socialist policies! Moreover, I am not a socialist. Label me a progressive, if you must.

  41. How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”

    Once again, the liar from down under tries to make people defend positions those people never made because the liar from down under cannot debate without lying. But the fsckt@rd Perry will support the idiot from down under without reservation, without question, without contradiction, without reprimand, without soul.

  42. [snort!] You think that the northern states were “progressive” before the War of Northern Aggression? They were anti-slavery, to be sure, but progressivism wasn’t even a term in any common use at the time.

    In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

    Maybe if you asked the Irish immigrants of the latter half of the 19th Century how progressive the north was, you might get a different answer.

    You are attempting to define the nineteenth century in terms which bear no real relationship to it.


  43. So tell us, PB, how exactly can I be “forcing you to defend a position you never made” when you admit it was your own statement, and which “Colony” were you ranting on about from “the early 1600s to the early 1900s”?

    You fucked up, dickhead. Admit it.

    I’ll say he screwed up. He screwed up by answering you in the first place. It’s a Lose-Lose situation.

  44. Higher taxes on businesses/corporations? Where did I say that, Dana? What I said was that once tax loopholes are closed, then we should lower taxes on corporations, to around 20%. On small businesses, I favor 0% taxes.

    Advocate higher taxes on wealthier people? Absolutely!

    Of course, by Dana’s standards, Reagan must have been a socialist too – his America had higher taxes than exist today. Eisenhower, Nixon and Truman must have been goddamned communists.

  45. The Phoenician wrote:

    Of course, by Dana’s standards, Reagan must have been a socialist too – his America had higher taxes than exist today. Eisenhower, Nixon and Truman must have been goddamned communists.

    Ahh, well, he could only lower them so much at a time . . . .

  46. Once again, the liar from down under tries to make people defend positions those people never made because the liar from down under cannot debate without lying.

    Your quote:

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, dickhead?

  47. You are attempting to define the nineteenth century in terms which bear no real relationship to it.

    Not me, dimwit. I’m merely responding to PB’s inanity.

  48. “There are some assumptions taken with that, since it’s always possible that a higher percentage of liberals in otherwise conservative states could be making the contributions, but when we note that the very liberal, Democratic states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts, numbers one, two and three on the “Having Rank” chart, are 45th, 48th and 49th in the 2005 “Generosity Index,” while poor Mississippi, 50th on the “Having Rank” is number one on the Generosity Index, then yeah, I’d say the correlation is pretty strong.”

    This so-called Generosity Index is useless, because the data is not in a form that can be interpreted meaningfully. Moreover, I call your attention to your citation in a previous post which concluded that poor people give 30% more than wealthier people. The GI might be reflecting this claim, who knows? But to claim that liberal Dems give less is absolutely ludicrous, because you have no data to demonstrate that to be true. For example, is it possible that the wealthier classes in the Northeast are mostly Repubs? Do you see my point?

  49. Perry wrote:

    For example, is it possible that the wealthier classes in the Northeast are mostly Repubs? Do you see my point?

    Well, those states certainly vote more Democratic. It’s true that wealthier people — who are normally smarter; that’s how they got to be wealthy in the first place — are more likely to be Republican. :)

  50. It’s true that wealthier people — who are normally smarter; that’s how they got to be wealthy in the first place — are more likely to be Republican.

    It’s also true that the worse informed and ill-educated the voter, the more likely they are to be Republican.

  51. The liar from down under can’t lie fast enough, it seems.

    Your quote:

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, dickhead?

    Note he quotes me directly, then immediately afterward tries to lie and force me to support a position I never made. The liar from down under failed miserably, yet again. But I’m sure he’s used to it by now, being the abject failure of a person that he is.

  52. It’s also true that the worse informed and ill-educated the voter, the more likely they are to be Republican.

    Now, anyone who watches the below video will know how much of a lie that absolute liar and socialist from down under made.

    Don’t worry, I know without a doubt the liar from down under will not watch the video, nor will Darth Supercilious (aka Perry), because the claims do not bear out under the burden of examination.

  53. How’s that for a fscking citation, idiot Perry? A fscking video disproving your sorry arse and your master’s sorry arse. Now, take that citation and shove it up your sorry arse, fsckt@rd Perry.

  54. Note he quotes me directly, then immediately afterward tries to lie and force me to support a position I never made.

    Hey, PB, from the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US was built on slavery and on land stolen from the Natives.

    Your quote:

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, dickhead?

  55. Hey, PB: Misinformation and the
    2010 Election – A Study of the US Electorate”

    Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
    ????
    most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
    ????
    most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
    ????
    the economy is getting worse (26 points)
    ????
    most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
    ????
    the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
    ????
    their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
    ????
    the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
    ????
    when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
    ????
    and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
    These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

    (Page 20).

    Gosh, don’t YOU look foolish? Again.

  56. Idiot from down under once again purports to answer a claim I never made. Not like the idiot from down under was ever under any circumstances truthful in his accusations.

  57. Idiot from down under once again purports to answer a claim I never made.

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, dickhead?

  58. Idiot from down under once again purports to answer a claim I never made.

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”, dickhead?

    The idiot liar from down under once again attempts to force me to defend a position I never made. The idiot liar from down under once again fails miserably. But who expects anything else from the miserable failure from down under than more miserable failure? Other than the miserable failure’s padawan, of course.

  59. But here’s a little hint, idiot liar from down under: I’m part Indian (feather). My daughter is more Indian (feather) than am I. And she also considers you to be an idiot and a liar and worthless scum.

  60. The colony switched to free market principles. The people owned their land. The people owned their own industriousness. The people owned their own harvests and could do with them what they wished. At that point, the colony switched from decimation by starvation to wealth-generation and resounding success.

    It looks like PIATOR beat me to the obvious but I’d still like an explanation from JH (PB?) how slavery fits into his estimation of the colonies blossoming into a free market paradise. Under what formulation of free market disciplines is labor free?

  61. I saw mike g commented and I hoped I’d see an intellectual comment. Oh well, maybe next time. Since Dana already covered what mike g dishonestly hit, I’ll let Dana’s words stand.

    In other words, mike g, quit your muthafsckin’ lyin’ and start bein’ honest in yer debates. Ya’ll get further with honesty than yer lyin’ @ss will carry ya.

  62. Honesty would compel you to address slavery instead of retreating to ad hominem.

    Honesty would compel you to address the article instead of retreating to distractions and ad hominem attacks, and refer to Dana’s information instead of ignoring that information out of hand. But it is too much to expect honesty out of outright leftists like the ilk that come from Iowa Liberal mindsets.

  63. “…. I’d still like an explanation from JH (PB?) how slavery fits into his estimation of the colonies blossoming into a free market paradise. Under what formulation of free market disciplines is labor free?”

    Slavery is not consistant with capitalism nor free markets. You may want to go back in history and try to blame every single fault of humanity on anyone you wish. I don’t choose to do so. Slavery cuts the heart out of a free market. Since you ask how labor is “free” under a free market I must answer: It is not! Slavey has existed since the dawn of time, free markets have not. Matter of fact, it may very well be due to free marketeering that slavery became obsolete. No one, no nation can run a free market economy when they allow slavery. If one cannot sell his goods or services to another (a slave) there is no truely free market. Today, in modern times who is the slaves? perhaps you should look to North Korea, Cuba or some third world country. You know, the throwbacks to when men were inhuman to their fellow man. (Oh, that could mean moslems, sorry politicaly incorrect). ( but you do realize slavery is quite okay with moslems?)

    The colonies blossemed in spite of the fact of slavery and because they were not all slave colonies (holders). Had we been, we most likely would not have blossemed. The fact that as Christians the majority refused to accept the institution is the bulwark of our freedom. The same bulwark you guys are trying to destroy today. Good job. What is the difference between beholding to a landowner as a slave or being beholding to a government as a slave? You would answer (if you were truthful) “a majority”. No, not a majority. It is the same malignant poison which has existed in man’s time: The desire of power over others.

  64. Hitchcock, you’re a redskin? Cool! One of my best friends is married to a Micmack. (don’t know if the spelling is corect). His name is Cory, but his indian name is “Runs With Beer”. Just kidding (about his indian name) his wife’s name is Monapolchese. What a lovely woman. And man, can that girl cook! He met her when he was working for the electric company and was sent to Maine to cut trees off the wires. She was a migrant worker (I guess seasonal) picking blueberries. He saw her, she saw him… next thing you know …..Love!

  65. BTW Hitchcock, legend has it they first made love in the back of his truck. I really think the legend is crap ( Cory told me the legend). But I can say that their son, White Feather, met me and my wife at the Foxwoods and compt’d our entire weekend. I know by this time you think I’m shittin’ you, but I’m not. Matter of fact, if you come to the next luncheon I’ll bring him and her and introduce you. You’ll love’em. Good people. Bit crazy, but good none the less. But, NO firewater! Tell you this, the man can handle a pistol!

  66. The idiot liar from down under once again attempts to force me to defend a position I never made

    Reaaaaaallly?

    So who hijacked your computer and wrote:

    “From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles …”

    liar?

  67. Slavery is not consistant with capitalism nor free markets. You may want to go back in history and try to blame every single fault of humanity on anyone you wish. I don’t choose to do so. Slavery cuts the heart out of a free market

    Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who advocates mass genocide of one and a half billion people…

  68. Sure I do, you crazy-assed bastard. Show me one sentence where I said “genocide” . Ignorant a-hole. You twist, you turn, yet you are still a con man, and now a liar too! But I do love it when you can’t argue and find the need to go waaaaaay back to a throwaway statement and try to make it stick. You are so stupid you make me laugh! HA, HA.

  69. While on the subject of the free market, the following is anecdotal, but quite typical, in my view:

    “After a year like the one he’s had, the CEO of Transocean should count himself very lucky that, unlike Japan, America lacks an ‘old-way’ tradition for a company manager to prostrate himself with shame and grief at his job performance, especially after loss of life. Instead, this Transocean weasel gets a bonus ($5.8 million) for the “best year in safety performance in our company’s history.”

    200 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico?

    11 lives lost (so far) including nine of his own employees?

    2010 is your best safety year? It’s a model of safety performance, bonus-worthy even? May we ask, Transocean, what you aren’t telling us about safety fails in previous years?” [from Firelakedog]

    Besides the obvious greed, there is an important moral issue hear, one which escapes the consciousness of the Transocean Board of Directors. It’s a sign of the times!

  70. Sure I do, you crazy-assed bastard. Show me one sentence where I said “genocide” .

    Hey, ignorant fuckwit, what do you call murdering 1,500,000,000 people based on what religion they are?

    The Nazi Holocaust was a genocide. What you advocate is a genocide.

    Deal with it, fuckwit.

  71. Definition from Wikipedia: “Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”.

    So when the ignorant fuckwit says:

    “When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out.”

    he’s advocating genocide.

    Again, why exactly do you want to murder my 25 year old friend who has done nothing to you, you sick little fuck?

  72. The idiot padawan of the idiot from down under blockquotes some nonsensical materiel he adamantly refuses to source. The connection to the article is obviously missing, as is common from the idiot padawan of the idiot from down under. The nonsensical meanderings of the idiot from Delaware are thus dismissed as the rantings of an idiot.

  73. So when the ignorant fuckwit says:

    “When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out.”

    he’s advocating genocide.

    The idiot from down under, based on his statement above, admits that Mohammedans refuse to denounce and deal with the Islamic Jihadist terrorists within their sphere. And the idiot from down under asserts the rights of idiot Mohammedans to tacitly approve of the terroristic actions of a mere ten percent of the one point five billion Mohammedans and decry the retaliatory measures of sane peoples.

  74. The idiot from down under, based on his statement above, admits that Mohammedans refuse to denounce and deal with the Islamic Jihadist terrorists within their sphere.

    Except, of course, that those are Hoagie’s comments, not mine.

    Ooops – don’t YOU look foolish? Yet again…

    decry the retaliatory measures of sane peoples.

    “Kill them all and let God sort them out” is a sane retaliatory measure?

    Careful, PB, you’re ranting more than usual. What’s the matter – being an unemployed, unemployable loser too much for you?

  75. What’s the matter, idiot socialist worthless wart on a maggot’s bum? Being called out for your abject and depraved dishonesty too much for you? Trying to claim Lou Ferrigno status while being Erkel and being laughed at by everyone with a brain too much for you? I saw you a couple hours ago, and it took a bit to get rid of you. I actually had to flush twice.

  76. Yes, I am mocking you, you idiot socialist from down under. But it’s so easy to mock an idiot socialist anti-American fool from down under. Not to worry, your padawan, Darth Supercilious (aka Perry) still worships at your corn-encrusted feet. Or am I being heartless in mocking your sorry medical condition? Not to worry, since you rejected your socialist principles (or should I say “desires” since you so easily rejected your own “principles”?) to avail yourself of free-market solutions to your medical problems instead of the readily available socialist solutions in your homeland. Your feet will be alright, due to free-market decisions on your part for your own self-interest. And free-market professionals will benefit from the likes of you, who reject your own socialist agenda for your own selfish needs and desires and gain from the free-market.

    Oops, you were crushed again by the facts. Hurts to be you. But it’s oh, so much fun mocking you and your abject dishonesty, you worthless socialist fsckt@rd (but I redundantly repeat myself with gratuitous repetition).

  77. “When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out.”

    Did you say this Hoagie John? Answer: Yes. Then you are out-of-control, man!!!

  78. According to the definition offered by New Zealand Steatopygite, genocide is the official doctrine the Mohammad’s Religion of Submission.

    Perhaps under Perry’s direction, and his theory that it’s all genetic, Marxists will themselves soon be applying for recognition to the UN, on the theory that they are bearers of a recognized genetic mutation deserving of human rights protection. Then killing communists will be genocide, whatever the color their skin or cultural background.

  79. Strike “the” from “the Mohammad’s Religion of Submission”. I added “Mohammad” as a kind of clarifying afterthought as I didn’t wish progressives to mistake their own religion of submission for the other one we know as “Islam”.

  80. Yes, I am mocking you, you idiot socialist from down under. But it’s so easy to mock an idiot socialist anti-American fool from down under. Not to worry, your padawan, Darth Supercilious (aka Perry) still worships at your corn-encrusted feet. Or am I being heartless in mocking your sorry medical condition? Not to worry, since you rejected your socialist principles (or should I say “desires” since you so easily rejected your own “principles”?) to avail yourself of free-market solutions to your medical problems instead of the readily available socialist solutions in your homeland. Your feet will be alright, due to free-market decisions on your part for your own self-interest. And free-market professionals will benefit from the likes of you, who reject your own socialist agenda for your own selfish needs and desires and gain from the free-market.

    Oops, you were crushed again by the facts. Hurts to be you. But it’s oh, so much fun mocking you and your abject dishonesty, you worthless socialist fsckt@rd (but I redundantly repeat myself with gratuitous repetition).

    [Raises an eyebrow]

    Gee, I wonder why no-one will hire you, PB?

  81. “Did you say this Hoagie John? Answer: Yes. Then you are out-of-control, man!!!”

    Yes I did say that you have a good memory. Unfortunately it’s a selective memory because I later noted that the phrase is one I grew up with and is not meant to be taken literally. I also grew up with “eyes wide shut” which is also not literal. Where I come from those are throw-away terms but if you feel some deep need to believe them as literal you would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks (also non-literal).

    Are we clear now? I am not a proponant of genocide. Got it?

  82. Slavery is not consistant with capitalism nor free markets.

    Did you miss the part where I asked for JH to square his free market fantasies with the presence of slavery? Since you have difficulty with context let me help you:

    I’d still like an explanation from JH (PB?) how slavery fits into his estimation of the colonies blossoming into a free market paradise.

    You took it upon yourself to interject the obvious.

    You may want to go back in history and try to blame every single fault of humanity on anyone you wish. I don’t choose to do so.

    Who are you talking to?

    Slavery cuts the heart out of a free market.

    Thanks. Now go tell that to Logic Boy.

    Since you ask how labor is “free” under a free market I must answer: It is not!

    Which is my point exactly. So you’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreeing with JH.

    Slavey has existed since the dawn of time, free markets have not. Matter of fact, it may very well be due to free marketeering that slavery became obsolete.

    Slavery did not become obsolete. It became illegal.

    No one, no nation can run a free market economy when they allow slavery. If one cannot sell his goods or services to another (a slave) there is no truely free market. Today, in modern times who is the slaves?

    So we can agree that Hitchcock’s statement that the United States flourished because of its adherence to free market principles is incorrect since cotton was the primary commodity of the Industrial Revolution and eliminating wage labor from the equation gave us an advantage in that regard.

    Considering Hitchcock’s claim that he has a “near photographic memory” I can only assume that he hasn’t read any materials regarding the importance of cotton to the Confederacy and why they were able to produce it so cheaply.

    “King Cotton”, John. Look that phrase up and perform a little introspection.

  83. Are we clear now? I am not a proponant of genocide. Got it?

    Gosh, I’m so glad I saved the entire thing – I knew this ignorant fuckwit would try to walk away from his words.

    Hoagie says:
    9 March 2011 at 09:55

    Perry stated;”Neither Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan involved legally declared wars, so something is amiss about the distinction of which you speak.” I agree completly! (although Korea and Nam were U.N. actions in which we assisted) If we’re going to commit troops and treasure, we should have the balls to DECLARE WAR. Then when we do, we go all-out like WWII. Bomb their cities, farms, industry, armies, citizens, pets and farm animals into submission. Then go into the defeated rubble and set up a new capitalist economy and a new constitutional government (ala Japan, Germany and Korea). It’s good war and good business afterward.

    But then Perry asks:”Shall we now talk about the war of the American Right against the American Middle Class”? Well, we could but then we’d also have to talk about the war of the American left (and their allies in NZ) on the American entrepreneur, American business, American taxpayer, and American culture. You really want to go there?

    followed by

    Hoagie says:
    10 March 2011 at 10:22

    PM asks Dana: “Who exactly are “Islamists”? How do you distingush between them and the one and half billion Muslims, Dana?”

    Unfortunately, Dana responded with a George Bush answer. My answer is: we don’t distinguish. When my father arrived in Normandy in 1944 he shot every German he came across, whether or not they were Nazi’s. When my uncle Tom flew his B-17 over Berlin he bombed everybody, not just Nazi’s. When a country declares war on you they are all your enemy. When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out. That’s how you win, anything else is doomed to failure.

    Why is it so difficult for you guys to understand that a religion rather than a nation has declared jihad on the West and therefore they are, by that declaration an enemy which must be defeated? Our little crazy armchair general cum philosopher cum economist PM would piss his pants if he ever heard a gun go off. I don’t. I see those who want to take my freedom, and I have no qualms about sending them to Allah.

    So it wasn’t just a phrase, the ignorant fuckwit is lysing, AND he’s advocating genocide. he wants to murder 1.5 billion people based on their religion – including 5 million Americans.

    Let’s stress that again – Hoagie wants to murder 5 million AMERICANS because they follow the wrong religion.

  84. He’s not a proponent of genocide. He just wants to see every person on the planet that identifies themselves as belonging to a specific religion killed. Why can’t you guys understand that?

    Couldn’t help but notice this gem:

    Then go into the defeated rubble and set up a new capitalist economy and a new constitutional government (ala Japan, Germany and Korea).

    It takes a really expensive education (or a high level of indoctrination, same difference) to be able to sweep a guy like Syngman Rhee under the rug.

  85. How long will this crazy nut-job insist on telling me what I think, advocate and believe? Now I also want to murder 5 million Americans? I do not believe in genocide and if you say I do you’re a liar.

  86. How long will this crazy nut-job insist on telling me what I think, advocate and believe? Now I also want to murder 5 million Americans? I do not believe in genocide and if you say I do you’re a liar.

    “Unfortunately, Dana responded with a George Bush answer. My answer is: we don’t distinguish. When my father arrived in Normandy in 1944 he shot every German he came across, whether or not they were Nazi’s. When my uncle Tom flew his B-17 over Berlin he bombed everybody, not just Nazi’s. When a country declares war on you they are all your enemy. When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out. That’s how you win, anything else is doomed to failure.”

  87. The Phoenician wrote:

    How exactly is slavery and stealing land from the Natives “free market principles”,

    They are very much free market principles: the free market includes competition, and in competition with the white settlers, the Indians lost out. In competition with the white slavers, the black Africans lost out.

    Now, we’ve moved away from that: moral principles pushed the strictly economic position that slavery was a good thing out of favor. Industrialization would have done so eventually, as slavery continued in other places in this hemisphere until the 1880s, when slavery’s inherent economic weaknesses helped to cause its decline and demise.

    As for the Indians and their land, we wanted it, and we took it, pretty much like the English settlers in Australia and New Zealand did. I’ve said it many times before: virtually every nation on earth is governed the way it is as a result of military conquest. Considering that everybody who comments here is the beneficiary of those military conquests, I find it silly for anyone to complain about them.

  88. John asked:

    How long will this crazy nut-job insist on telling me what I think, advocate and believe? Now I also want to murder 5 million Americans? I do not believe in genocide and if you say I do you’re a liar.

    As long as he thinks he can score points with it.

    Whenever the Phoenician finds something he thinks he can use, it’s obvious that he makes some sort of notes about it, and records the hyperlinks. The fact that you might be kidding and even say that you were kidding — such as my statement that it would be better for the Republicans to win fraudulently than to have the Democrats win legitimately — will not faze him; he will simply keep repeating himself, both here and elsewhere.

    His sole purpose in life is to argue, and he’s actually pretty good at it, because he’s so anal about it. But what he’s good at is nit-picking; when it comes to actually understanding things, there he’s not so good.

  89. But what he’s good at is nit-picking; when it comes to actually understanding things, there he’s not so good.

    Let’s see

    - you don’t know the difference between micro- and macroeconomics.
    - you don’t know the difference between money and wealth
    - and you don’t know the difference between the budget and the trade deficit.

    And you’re preaching about understanding?

    Hoagie’s comments, including the full set on that thread, illustrate precisely what he is and what he stands for. I have them saved so he can’t squirm away from them – as we have seen, he has tried that “just a phrase” crap and been blown out of the water when I showed both teh full comment and the one proceeding it in context.

    Wingnuts lie. If i keep repeating, it’s because I’m rubbing a wingnut’s nose in the fact that he lies.

Comments are closed.