[annatar1914]

@The Resister ;

If an individual is motivated to work nights, week-ends, and holidays building a business, then he should fully own that business and run it the way he or she sees fit.

I don't disagree,as long as it is legal and ethical.

That way that business grows as much (or as little) as the owner sees fit.

There are many factors outside a business owners control relating to growth few people look at the overall system in it's totality.

In America, if a group wants a cooperative, they can do so. Why don't they and why are you advocating it?

There are cooperatives all over America.I advocate for it because I believe that cooperation works better than competition.

You advocate it because you believe in force and distraint. Your way only works by force.

That's not so. In any case,human beings in general often resort to force to get their way,sadly.

BEFORE America began adopting socialist principles, our country progressed faster and further than any nation in history.

America never adopted Socialist principles, Socialism is worker ownership of the means of economic production in a society. Whatever else something is, if it doesn't adopt that, it isn't adopting Socialism.

This is so basic,but I marvel at the multitude of people, who are intelligent and educated, and yet have no clue as to what Socialism really is.

[Pants-of-dog]

That kind of talk is annoying. You nor I can change what governments have done in the past. If anything you should be supporting The Charter. It is not an attempt to start a new government or even overthrow the existing one. That is why I am supporting it. The government guaranteed we, the people certain Rights and then, through deception and force, they rescinded the guarantee. They duped the people into buying a pig in a poke. Liberals keep using the terminology "social construct" as if it means something. It doesn't. Socialism is a social construct; communism is a social construct; atheism is a social construct. It's utterly meaningless.

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,..."

IF truth is self evident and we do have these unalienable Rights, then there should be no problem making good on the guarantee. OTOH, if you are correct and all this Rights talk is lot of cheap B.S. - a "social construct" as you like to call it, then the government should be compelled to admit it. If we, the people, don't like that outcome there are legal remedies for us... win, lose or draw. The point is, you don't need some half assed document purporting to guarantee Rights and then having a government make excuses for not honoring their part to guarantee said Rights. Did it ever occur to you that if those people pushing hard and demanding satisfaction from the government might evoke the response you long for?

The only thing that is accomplished by not forcing the government to address the fact that they are not upholding their end of the social contract called the Constitution is for people like me to have unrealistic expectations. There is no point in having a document proclaiming all these wonderful Rights I have, only to find out I'm really a push button monkey for some Armani suit wearing tyrant in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption or maybe some billionaire Canaanite in New York City.

You continue to prod me over my personal views on a thread about The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. I have no authority to make my personal views a part of that document nor can I say that others who may sign it have the same views I have. It's simply a demand that the government make good on the guarantees pursuant to the interpretations of the Constitution by the men who ratified it. My personal view is not incumbent upon The Charter. Understand that going in. The two are not related. I'm not arguing my personal views with you on a thread about The Charter as you would be dishonest and try to claim that since I said something, it is a pretext for others not to support The Charter.

My views may or may not reflect the consensus of those that wrote that document. And when I tell you what the law is or how things came to be, it has NO bearing on what I believe or disbelieve. My private thoughts on the matter are mine and mine alone, not associated with what this OP is about.

Having said that, the founders and framers justified their actions in terms of Manifest Destiny and their view that since the Indians were not civilized NOR did they have any concept of property Rights, it was justifiable to appropriate it. Would I have held the same views I have today if I had lived back then? I honestly don't know. What I do know are facts. The facts are that the over-all view was that the colonists were the Israelites of the Bible; America was the New Jerusalem; Manifest Destiny was the future. We go back to the Declaration of Independence. Truth is supposed to be self evident. Well, the colonists and early Americans were blessed in proportion to their obedience to God. When America ceased being governed by biblical principles, they were punished with curses as per the Holy Writ. That is an observation, not a manifesto.

As someone who has lived in slavery and had it as bad as any slave, there is not a snowball's chance in HELL that I would forfeit my God given, unalienable Rights. Those are my words about me, not what I expect from others. I won't give up the Right to keep and bear Arms lest we become subjects to a tyrannical master. Nobody is going to tell me what religion I can or cannot adopt. If the need arises that I should use the prohibited words that whites can't say without it being a felony, I would defend myself against an unlawful arrest because America was founded on the presupposition that all men have unalienable Rights. You can call presuppositional Rights that have proven to be God given social constructs or whatever floats your boat. Their origin has been proven to me to my satisfaction. Therefore, I will support them. If you don't, more power to you. Benjamin Franklin said that America would ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. I think that, in the meantime, we should live and let live and work toward unalienable Rights. It's a journey, NOT a destination.

Just answer the question:

Do you personally think the land we now call the USA should be given back to Indigenous people because the government took their land without consent? Yes or no?

[annatar1914]

@The Resister, you said a couple things I want to ask you to address. As you wrote them here in this thread, I think it only appropriate to ask questions about them.

There is no point in having a document proclaiming all these wonderful Rights I have, only to find out I'm really a push button monkey for some Armani suit wearing tyrant in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption or maybe some billionaire Canaanite in New York City.

I know exactly what you're suggesting by using the word ''Canaanite'' in this sentence of yours, and for the sake of argument I'll let it stand as is. However, the implication is that America and Europe are full of ''Israelites'' and perhaps a''Mixed Multitude'' as well. Again, I'll let all that stand for the sake of argument.

No, my question is this; do you feel that your ''the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man'' is limited in it's scope to actual ''Man'', and not others such as the ''Canaanites'', and other not-strictly speaking ''real'' men?

If so? What's the point in this public manifesto exactly?

What I do know are facts. The facts are that the over-all view was that the colonists were the Israelites of the Bible; America was the New Jerusalem; Manifest Destiny was the future. We go back to the Declaration of Independence. Truth is supposed to be self evident. Well, the colonists and early Americans were blessed in proportion to their obedience to God. When America ceased being governed by biblical principles, they were punished with curses as per the Holy Writ. That is an observation, not a manifesto.

Are all future ''Colonists'' to America considered ''Israelites'', or is there some cut-off point chronologically? Or is there some other criterion for determination of ''Israelite'' American status?

So again, would the principles of ''the Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man'' apply to only Israelites? And secondarily, do you find opposition to your belief system here on PoFo a confirmation of what you believe? Are your opponents in these debates Non-Israelites, bound by what and who they are to oppose Your (and God's!) order for America?

[late]

Explain if you will what that has to do with the OP.

I was responding to your comment. Which I quoted.

Back then we had slavery, ethnic cleansing, most couldn't vote, and both the legal and political system were mostly interested in men of property. If you were a regular Joe, and there was a problem, usually you were poop out of luck.

It's why Shay's Rebellion is one of my favorite moments in American history, it's illustrative.

[The Resister]

@The Resister ;



I don't disagree,as long as it is legal and ethical.



There are many factors outside a business owners control relating to growth few people look at the overall system in it's totality.



There are cooperatives all over America.I advocate for it because I believe that cooperation works better than competition.



That's not so. In any case,human beings in general often resort to force to get their way,sadly.



America never adopted Socialist principles, Socialism is worker ownership of the means of economic production in a society. Whatever else something is, if it doesn't adopt that, it isn't adopting Socialism.

This is so basic,but I marvel at the multitude of people, who are intelligent and educated, and yet have no clue as to what Socialism really is.

When you feel a need to do those multi quotes, it's painful to read. I know what socialism is. I simply disagree with your assessment of it. The history of the United States shows, unequivocally, that free enterprise and private ownership produce more goods, generate more money, and lead the entrepreneurs to unlimited heights. The people who became Americans accomplished more in 300 years than even the Roman Empire did in 1000 years (1500 depending upon which historian you rely on). Of course, I have to throw in all the idiotic disclaimers so that facts don't get confused with objective observation, so my personal views are not necessarily how I would have done things.

The people in the United States have had more inventions than any country in history. They have sent more people into battle to protect the Freedoms and Liberties of any country at any time in history. The United States sends out more missionaries to help underprivileged people than any other country (and by a SIGNIFICANT number). The U.S. fights in wars at no cost to the people we're defending and we rebuild war torn countries. The U.S. leads the world in grants and loans to foreign countries - up until the point that they adopted socialist principles. In the fields of space exploration, medicine, engineering, agriculture, and education, the United States has led the way. I think we should make America great again; I just don't think that an egotistical, bloated, narcissist is the way to get there.

[what kid marley]

i AM JE$U$ CHRI$T + I DYED ON DA CRO$$$ 4 u !

W . T . F .



- mar1ey

[The Resister]

I was responding to your comment. Which I quoted.

Back then we had slavery, ethnic cleansing, most couldn't vote, and both the legal and political system were mostly interested in men of property. If you were a regular Joe, and there was a problem, usually you were poop out of luck.

It's why Shay's Rebellion is one of my favorite moments in American history, it's illustrative.

You continue to conflate unalienable Rights with slavery. That is unfortunate. There is no "right" to vote. If you wanted to call something a "social construct," voting would be the ultimate "social construct. The problem with what you're selling boils down to the fact that people who do not want to produce are not incentivized to produce.

I'm working out of my house this week. In the room next to me is a parasite - he is a democratic socialist. He games the system. He goes and gets a job just long enough to draw unemployment. Then he maxes that out. He moves into homes and apartments and once he stays a couple of months, he quits paying. It worked out good during the pandemic. He's gotten almost a year's worth of free rent from me. We face off as he passes me in the hallway or such. I can't initiate the fight, but if the cops would let me exercise a Right to control of my private property, I'd kick the POS to the street. But, it has taken a lot to get the eviction process under way. Once I'm rid of him, he will do the same, identical thing to someone else. Sadly, his democratic socialist mother aids in this kind of behavior. Thanks, but I'll pass on having this kind of vermin participate "equally" when they aren't required to expend an equal amount of effort to live.

[ingliz]

I won't give up the Right to keep and bear Arms

After reading @The Resister's posts, it's plain his thinking is disordered (PPD?).

He shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm.

[The Resister]

i AM JE$U$ CHRI$T + I DYED ON DA CRO$$$ 4 u !

W . T . F .



- mar1ey

How is that related to this topic? Is this more trolling or are you just a crackpot in general? You "dyed" on a cross? Did you dye yourself pink?

[The Resister]

Just answer the question:

Do you personally think the land we now call the USA should be given back to Indigenous people because the government took their land without consent? Yes or no?

No. By any metric, the land was lost in a manner whereby there is no legal way to determine the facts. Did the indigenous people ever own the land? The answer to that is questionable since they never colonized nor laid claim to the land in most instances. In some instances, the colonists bought the land. Yeah, the Indians sold it for trinkets, but you know, if I presume we're all equal, then it's fair.

The colonists took the land pursuant to a belief in Manifest Destiny. History proved the claim. I'm not qualified to challenge destiny - especially after it's proven to be correct.

If you had a legal action, you would have to deal with a myriad of issues like the statute of limitations and questions as to how much indigenous blood one must have in order to get the land. I had a waitress last weekend that said she is part Mexican, part Apache, and part Vietnamese. Would she qualify as indigenous? It's impossible to go back any appreciable amount of time and pass retroactive laws. As a matter of fact ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution. What we focus on is the right here and now realities. We're not going to reverse history; we aren't going to turn back the clock on history or technology. We start with what we have today (a Constitution that is being disrespected) and figure out if it is relevant or not and then work forward from there.

[late]

You continue to conflate unalienable rights with slavery.

Meaning I don't buy crazy.

[annatar1914]

When you feel a need to do those multi quotes, it's painful to read. I know what socialism is. I simply disagree with your assessment of it. The history of the United States shows, unequivocally, that free enterprise and private ownership produce more goods, generate more money, and lead the entrepreneurs to unlimited heights. The people who became Americans accomplished more in 300 years than even the Roman Empire did in 1000 years (1500 depending upon which historian you rely on). Of course, I have to throw in all the idiotic disclaimers so that facts don't get confused with objective observation, so my personal views are not necessarily how I would have done things.

The people in the United States have had more inventions than any country in history. They have sent more people into battle to protect the Freedoms and Liberties of any country at any time in history. The United States sends out more missionaries to help underprivileged people than any other country (and by a SIGNIFICANT number). The U.S. fights in wars at no cost to the people we're defending and we rebuild war torn countries. The U.S. leads the world in grants and loans to foreign countries - up until the point that they adopted socialist principles. In the fields of space exploration, medicine, engineering, agriculture, and education, the United States has led the way. I think we should make America great again; I just don't think that an egotistical, bloated, narcissist is the way to get there.

@The Resister ,generally speaking, I multi-quote to be precise in answering specific points, more as a service to the person I'm trying to communicate, to do their thoughts due justice.

Regarding Socialism, I believe that you are engaged in a too-blythe dismissal of the system. I don't believe in utopias from any socio-economic system, but I believe in voluntary adoption of certain socio-economic measures in any case.

Since I am not a Modernist and see this age since 1492 AD as a time of cultural and spiritual decay and nihilism, your comments regarding inventions by Americans and all that leaves me rather cold to say the least.

And,I'm by no means a fan of President Trump, as you threw him into the conversation (will future political discussions always bring him up, like the infamous ''Godwin's Law'' and Adolf Hitler/the Nazis?). I do think Trump is a clever and ruthless operator, with a keen mastery of neuro-linguistic programming, and nobody should foolishly underestimate him mistaking his crafted persona for his real identity.

[The Resister]

Meaning I don't buy crazy.

No one need sell you what you already are. You make insults because you are afraid. That is what causes most insults. You are not informative, educational, or entertaining. You're boring me, so if you don't have something related to the OP, I will be treating you like the resident commie - IGNORED.

[The Resister]

@The Resister ;



I don't disagree,as long as it is legal and ethical.



There are many factors outside a business owners control relating to growth few people look at the overall system in it's totality.



There are cooperatives all over America.I advocate for it because I believe that cooperation works better than competition.



That's not so. In any case,human beings in general often resort to force to get their way,sadly.



America never adopted Socialist principles, Socialism is worker ownership of the means of economic production in a society. Whatever else something is, if it doesn't adopt that, it isn't adopting Socialism.

This is so basic,but I marvel at the multitude of people, who are intelligent and educated, and yet have no clue as to what Socialism really is.

Socialist Security. the income tax, Obamacare, and equality by force are all socialist in nature, proposed by democratic socialists. Even Critical Race Theory is being pandered by self proclaimed socialists.

[annatar1914]

Socialist Security. the income tax, Obamacare, and equality by force are all socialist in nature, proposed by democratic socialists. Even Critical Race Theory is being pandered by self proclaimed socialists.

None of those things you mentioned are Socialistic by any stretch of the imagination, but are attemps to salvage the Capitalist system. Why would a Socialist for example push for a ''equality by force''? Gregor Strasser would disagree with you for one thing. Nothing in Socialism necessarily precludes a Heirarchical worldview.


And all of these measures you mention are things liberal Capitalists do, among the Bourgeoisie. A Socialist tries to implement Socialism, the ownership of economic concerns by the workers.

[The Resister]

@The Resister ,generally speaking, I multi-quote to be precise in answering specific points, more as a service to the person I'm trying to communicate, to do their thoughts due justice.

Regarding Socialism, I believe that you are engaged in a too-blythe dismissal of the system. I don't believe in utopias from any socio-economic system, but I believe in voluntary adoption of certain socio-economic measures in any case.

Since I am not a Modernist and see this age since 1492 AD as a time of cultural and spiritual decay and nihilism, your comments regarding inventions by Americans and all that leaves me rather cold to say the least.

And,I'm by no means a fan of President Trump, as you threw him into the conversation (will future political discussions always bring him up, like the infamous ''Godwin's Law'' and Adolf Hitler/the Nazis?). I do think Trump is a clever and ruthless operator, with a keen mastery of neuro-linguistic programming, and nobody should foolishly underestimate him mistaking his crafted persona for his real identity.

I did my own little experiment and every time I posted on a board was to ask people who actually vote when America was truly great. After the early 1960s the respondents started ending their ideas of when America was great. Hardly anybody thought America was great beyond the early to mid 1960s unless they were born in the 1980s to present. Even then, only a minority of respondents thought America's greatness extended beyond the 1960s. That pretty much corresponded with what I've read about history.

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_ ... &psid=3158

https://www.vox.com/2016/11/28/13708364 ... ion-colony ( a mainstream view just to balance out the discussion)

https://www.loc.gov/collections/early-f ... l-context/

I will add more each time the point is challenged. Suppose you tell me why the democratic socialists (AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES) are in favor of forcing equality on the American people by locking whites out that were legitimately chosen by a majority the voters in their respective districts. Why demand that Critical Race Theory be taught, but lock out opposing views? Why pass laws that infringe on First Amendment Rights simply because it thwarts the notion that there is universal equality?

[The Resister]

None of those things you mentioned are Socialistic by any stretch of the imagination, but are attemps to salvage the Capitalist system. Why would a Socialist for example push for a ''equality by force''? Gregor Strasser would disagree with you for one thing. Nothing in Socialism necessarily precludes a Heirarchical worldview.


And all of these measures you mention are things liberal Capitalists do, among the Bourgeoisie. A Socialist tries to implement Socialism, the ownership of economic concerns by the workers.

What dumbassery! All of that stuff was introduced / passed / or kept in place by people that self identified as being democratic socialist or socialist.

[ingliz]

IGNORED

Just because you choose to ignore me doesn't mean I have to ignore you.

There is no rule saying the ignored cannot comment on or laugh at the shite you post.

by people that self identified as being democratic socialist or socialist.

By *Americans* self-identifying as being democratic socialist or socialist.

Unfortunately for you, these Americans, whatever they call themselves, are not socialists by definition.

[annatar1914]

What dumbassery! All of that stuff was introduced / passed / or kept in place by people that self identified as being democratic socialist or socialist.

@The Resister , you are simply wrong. None of those initiatives were introduced, passed, or kept in place by self-identified ''democratic socialists'' or ''socialists''. You have presented no proof of that so far. It seems ''Socialism'' is some kind of ideological placeholder for you for any idea you don't like, instead of it's classical well defined definition.

Self identified Socialists try to implement the ownership of the means of economic production by the workers, anything else proposed (according to them) does not address the real issues or help the working people in any way.

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

Then you do not believe in the right to land that is advocated in the charter.

I find a lot of right wing libertarians think freedom and land is paramount, unless it is for women, Indigenous people, and non-whites.

By any metric, the land was lost in a manner whereby there is no legal way to determine the facts. Did the indigenous people ever own the land? The answer to that is questionable since they never colonized nor laid claim to the land in most instances. In some instances, the colonists bought the land. Yeah, the Indians sold it for trinkets, but you know, if I presume we're all equal, then it's fair.

You are contradicting yourself here.

Either they sold the land legally, or there is no way to determine what happened. You cannot simultaneously argue both unless you abandon logic.

The colonists took the land pursuant to a belief in Manifest Destiny. History proved the claim. I'm not qualified to challenge destiny - especially after it's proven to be correct.

I guess it was destiny that you pay income taxes and lose your rights to government then. Too bad for you.

If you had a legal action, you would have to deal with a myriad of issues like the statute of limitations and questions as to how much indigenous blood one must have in order to get the land.

Prove it. Where do you live? How was that land legally purchased or otherwise taken into US possession?

I had a waitress last weekend that said she is part Mexican, part Apache, and part Vietnamese. Would she qualify as indigenous?

That depends. Why does this matter?

It's impossible to go back any appreciable amount of time and pass retroactive laws. As a matter of fact ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Constitution. What we focus on is the right here and now realities.

Sure, and since we are talking about groups like the Haudenosaunee (you would cal them Mohawks), the Lakota (aka the Sioux), and the Dene (i.e. Apache) who are still alive and still making land claims, we can say that we are not discussing the past but instead what is happening right now.

We're not going to reverse history; we aren't going to turn back the clock on history or technology. We start with what we have today (a Constitution that is being disrespected) and figure out if it is relevant or not and then work forward from there.

What part of the Constitution says we should keep depriving these people of their land rights?