This is the problem with trusting progressives on the Right. You people better figure it out, to elect a Progressive is to leave Obama and his ilk in.
What is Agenda 21? If you do not know about it, you should.
Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.
‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right? It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.
At risk from Agenda 21;
Private Property ownership
Private car ownership and individual travel choices
Privately owned farms
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the- … ot-hidden/
And you all say the Progressives and Leftists are just making the copromises they need to to help America... what a bunch of BS.
America has been nothing but one huge political scam from the beginning.
For the last Approx 100 years it has been. Ever since the infiltration of Socialists/Progressives in the 20th century.
It is round about Cags... we all know about Teddy R.
Like I said- go back further. America has been corrupted since it's inception and the fact that people created America under the ideology that all "men" were created equal is just a farce, because when you look at the time in which it was created and how people lived at the time....it wasn't a shared ideology of all those who actually lived at the time.
A prime example- the people who created America were "slave" owners and businessmen, who didn't actually believe all "people" were created equal. Much less, just "men".
Racial problems. Women equality. Continues today.
You can find corrution in all political systems, Cags... it is the nature of the beast. But the Leftists and Progressives are worse than that. Their intent is the total transformation of this nation to a Socialist-Centralized govt under strict state control. And that is unacceptable. Especially since they have betrayed us to our enemies to accomplish their dirty deed.
I always hear the Left omplain aboit Slavery, but the fact is my Country only allowed that aboniable practive for approx 90 years before we ceased it. Less that any country in the world who practiced it. And for that I am proud of my nation.
Your knowledge of history is equal to your ability to spell words correctly.
P.S. Congratulations on the double digits. I knew you had it in you!
Count the years from the founding of this nation, the "United State of America", till the end of the civil war and Imancipation Proclamation.... just under 90 years. Thats a fact. Anything before then would be on britain,france spain, etc...
And have you tried the edit button lately? You can attack me all you want... but I don't see any facts in your arguements.
And my grasp of history is excellent... it just isn't your leftist revisionist history, ron.
I have gone into to edit three times and it doesn't happen. oh well.
If you have a Google toolbar, it has a spell check button that is very handy for online posts. You could also consider e-mailing your comments to Maven 101. He can check spelling and grammar for you, e-mail it back; and then you can submit them in such a way that I can only make fun of your ideas, not the errors.
Maven 101 seems to be very concerned with your self esteem. I think he also may have a man crush on me and is confused as to the best way of dealing with it.
P.S. If you can spot one or more grammatical errors in my post, I will personally lobby HP staff to add ten points to your score.
This comment contributes nothing to the thread...As usual, all you can do is insinuate your feckless cheap-shots at anything conservative...denigrating fellow hubbers is unnecessary and pointless. If you must attack, attack the message, not the messenger...
If you think TM's postings represent "conservative" views, you should probably do some research. If you think TM is in any way offended by our back and forth frivolity, you should probably ask him. If you think cheap shots should be hyphenated, you should definitely consult E.B. White.
I appreciate your looking to cease these simple attacks on me that so many on here seem to think represent pure genius, Mavin.
I have been around here for 19 months and am pretty thick skinned. I know exactly how these leftists work. They have no facts and cannot support 99% of what they say, so attacks and bad jokes are all they have left.
I hope you are having a good day, mavin, and thanks again.
@Ron... your right... I do not represent YOUR idea of a Consevative. You, as many others, think Progressives are Conservatives. They are not. My avatar was about the last true Conservative politician in America, and a great American hero.
God bless ole Joe... and yourself also, mavin
"They have no facts and cannot support 99% of what they say,"
Heh, that's funny coming from a guy who makes up history and pretends still to be correct when confronted with facts that prove him incorrect. Further, he throws the word "revisionist" around like some kind of talisman, as if that alone refutes the points and facts raised by his opponents.
Every now and then you say some good stuff, TM, but your blind patriotism is as dangerous as any other blind prejudice.
" my Country only allowed that aboniable practive for approx 90 years before we ceased it. Less that any country in the world who practiced it. "
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Another way might be that our country didn't have the courage to abolish slavery when it was founded, didn't get around to abolishing it until many years after almost every other country that ever practiced it abolished it, and about half the country was willing to go to war to ensure that slavery would continue. Yep. We're just chock full of virtue.
If they had tried that they would have never got the Constitution passed Jeff. you know that. And it was America and England who led the way abolishing slavery jeff. see; Wilbur Wilburforce, and look at the Abolitionist movement of the North East. So that is just wrong. And brazil was the last country to abolish slaver in 1921. Thanks to us ceasing the Atlantic slave trade they could not get any frest stock.
Um, Portugal abolished slavery in the 1760s.England abolished it in the 1770s (or in the late 1500s, depending on which benchmark you use). The Holy Roman Empire abolished it in the 1780s. Revolutionary France abolished it in the 1790s. Mexico abolished slavery in 1810. (Interestingly, part of the reason for the rebellion in Texas was that the "Texians"--settlers of US-extraction--wanted to be able to keep owning slaves.) Spain in the 18-teens. Various independent countries in South America abolished it at different timed throughout the first half of the 1800s. Greece abolished it in the 1820s. In the 1840s, Sweden Denmark, and Tunisia abolished slavery. While all this was going on, various countries were also taking steps to end the slave trade; Britian led this effort, but was joined by such diverse nations as Venezuela, Russia, France, Uruguay, Chile, and The Ottoman Empire. (The US banned the importation of slaves in 1808, but that doesn't do much good for those already enslaved, born as slaves, or illegally smuggled into the country as slaves.)
So, pretty much the entire Western world had abolished slavery (with a few exceptions) before the US got around to it, and about half the US thought slavery was so great that they were willing to die to keep being able to enslave other people.
American captains (smugglers) continued the slave trade long after the US banned importation of slaves, and the US didn't try very hard to enforce that ban. England and her allies did that, without our help.
So don't go pretending that the USA 'led the world' in abolishing slavery. It bloody well didn't.
Not only did we NOT lead the way to abolishing slavery, we also were one of the few (if not the only) countries that had to do it through warfare and violence.
Even though the Civil War originally had nothing to do with slavery, the rhetoric changed half-way through to be about ending slavery. At the end of it all, slavery was abolished by legal decree of a dominant nation over a subservient nation.
Also, keep in mind that slavery was largely profitable only because it was subsidized by law: the fugitive slave act, the 3/5ths clause, and numerous other legal actions helped make slavery profitable.
"But they had to use those measures to pass the Constitution" -- so what? Who the hell cares about "passing the Constitution" if that document was one of tyranny?
Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution. But clearly one can discern that those trying to pass it were not of clean intentions if they wanted it passed so badly that they would allow slavery to exist.
The 3/5ths clause was designed to undercut the Southern slave holding states majority through representation. And the Constitution os not a tyranical document. Oh brother...
And I guess I should have been more specific, America and england led the way ceasing the Atlantic Slave trade. Which was a mainstay of the Islamic economy (see Arab slave traders). And if there was no world wide slavery, then why was there still an Atlantic Slave trade?
God.. you guys and your revisionist history. The world good, America bad. Please. And you do not call surfdom slavery eh?
"America and england led the way ceasing the Atlantic Slave trade."
Not true. England led the way. America abolished the importation of slaves, not the trade itself. Stop making stuff up, and stop pretending America is always and in all ways a paragon of virtue. It ill-becomes you.
"And if there was no world wide slavery, then why was there still an Atlantic Slave trade?"
Oh, so since marijuana is illegal, nobody sells marijuana? That's good news.
As for your goalpost-moving point about serfdom and slavery, Prussia abolished serfdom in the early 1800s. Estonia and Livonia followed suit in the 18-teens. The Kingdom of Hawaii did away with its version of serfdom in the 1850s. And Russia got rid of serfdom in the 1860s, while we were fighting a bitter war in which half of our country was trying desperately to preserve the institution of slavery.
And you accuse people of revisionism. Stop trying to whitewash American history. It just makes you look silly when people who know history correct you.
Also, Evan, if you read the various southern states' declarations of secession, you'll see that preserving slavery was foremost in their minds. The Civil War had everything to do with slavery from day one.
No, the 3/5ths clause was added to appease the South. The Northern states didn't want it at all, but they sold their souls to the devil for stronger central government.
Sorry, but the North wanted a Strong central government so bad that it allowed slavery.
Only because certain things of the "nature of the beast" are misunderstood. If more people actually understood, then the "nature of the beast" wouldn't actually be a problem.
One side isn't any worse than the other. You saying so, doesn't make it so. They are both pathetic.
I'll only agree with the "control" aspect. As for the socialist-centralized govt? Would only be a wrongly perceived paranoid statement.
Yes, socialism is unacceptable. There isn't any doubt about that, but it's not what is actually happening to America.
Politicians have been deceiving the public for years and until the distortion and misinformation is revealed for what it is, then it is going to continue. Adding to it, isn't an option.
I had to look up the word you used and the definition makes no sense with what I said. Things being misunderstood is about the level of distortion and misinformation spread by those who do want control.
Those who want to control other people, will do as your statement claims, because if it isn't done in the manner which those who control, then those in power will lose control? Once they lose control, then they lose power. And, they don't want to give up power.
Too bad you couldn't put yourself in a time machine and go back a couple of hundred years! You might be happier.
As a foreigner I should perhaps not intrude on your private discussion, but was the recent robbing of America by the bankers and financiers really a socialist Leftist plot?
I had not realised that George Bush senior was a closet socialist.
This myth that is peddled that America has been ruined by the socialists is really just funny. One sparring partner recently complained that socialism crept in under Alexander Hamilton!
"The Bush family are Progressives"
Think I asked this before: Have you ever heard of Skull and Bones?
"Illuminati?" - there are no membership lists unlike Council on Foreign Relations and Skull and Bones. I always thought it was a black-ops creation to give the upstarts a diversion. Illuminati can mean any secret ruling class society, and it can also mean the European faction of the ruling powers like the Bilderbergs.
One phrase for you, Jeff... revisionist history.... and yes the southern states did fight to preserve slavery, it is headed right on their Constitution, which reads, the "Slave holding southern states of America". And slavery had to do with the civil war for the north, only in what it represented economic terms.
And go read about the USS Aligator and other slave catcher American vessels. England was involved yes, but we, America and England led the way. So... whatever, revisionist.
And it is that revisionism, that is spurring true Americans to reject the Leftists and their agenda in this nation, and to reclaim our education system from you all.
Deny all you like, you are the revisionist. England was more than "involved;" England led the world in abolishing slavery. Most of the rest of the world followed, and the US had to be dragged along, kicking and screaming. There's no way any thinking person can conclude that the US "led the way" to the ending of slavery when most of the world had already outlawed it before our Civil War. You're whitewashing our history and pretending we're better than we really are. Jingoism is a symptom of insecurity, I suspect. You might want to see someone about that.
Yes, you did, implying that the US and England were something like equal partners in patrolling the seas for slave smugglers. We weren't. England was the leader. The US sorta helped a bit. That bit was laudable, to be sure, but nowhere close to the level of England's (the real leader of worldwide anti-slavery efforts).
Please try truth, not fear:
I am failing to see how this screws the USA. It seems it only is intended to stop the systemic destruction of Natural Earth rersources, for greed and profit only.
The rain forests are desimated by imoral greed, to me it seems needed, not a screw job.
The article is below:
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
Too much power for a non-representative, or representative, Govt to have. There is alot more to it than building green houses and restoring forest lands. Alot. the green agenda they run under is no more than a smoke-screen to impliment centralized world Govt.
Please do not Fear monger like this TM, I have seen results of the Diamond Wars, Have seen why Somalia people fight for food by pirating because Japan rapes their shores from fish food, and the US vetoes every objection.
I ducked bullets in a Lebanese cafe one night because Christian and Shiia could not eat dinner together.
Green is a start not a reason to fear. If we destroy the Planet while we destroy each other, what purpose does it serve?
The USA, its people are more educated now, the youth far more advanced now and we will not succumb to that kind of tyranny allowed inside itself. The world as a system matters. We all need to survive, not have absolute power over another.
Green could be a means as a first for World wide agreement, from that could spawn more agreement and understanding. The Council at the UN is merely trying to unite. Believe me, the CIA and NSC has that well monitored, as do the Other Countries.
If it gets to anything above harmless, from my experiences with an NSC7 clearance and my world bank travels, I can tell you honestly. We will know it. Relax.
I am not fear mongering, Dutch. You do not have to buy the story, or believe it in any way, but that doesn't make it fear-mongering.
There have been alot of accusations of fear-mongering about issues... that were then prove to be true. So I am aware and watching, and calling attention to it. Nothing more. you can decide for yourself as all others can.
But I am not fear mongering.
Fear mongering would be.. the repubs want to kill old people, the right are racists and want to enslave the blacks and browns, the repubs want to kill the poor, etc. That would be fear mongering, dutch.
And if I am fear mongering... what the hell is Chris and many others on here doing? No no fear... just facts.
Fear mongering would be..Death panels, Obama = white slavery, the democrats want to impose communism, etc. Those are examples of fearmongering that we've actually seen lately, TM.
And we haven't heard the Right wants to kill the old? Or that repubs want to starve poor kids... right, Jeff. Selective ignorance, is still ignorance. And you should know better. It happens on both sides, I will not deny that. But the Left specializes in it. They a race card, fear-mongering, class warfare experts.
The health care bill and now medicare prove that. You are smarter than that jeff.
I gotta go do a few things so I will be back later. We can finish, or continue then if you want.
You're right: I am smarter than to fall for fearmongering.
I'm also smart enough to recognize projection when I see it.
Why don't you go review my McCarthy Hubs for me... you can point out all those things you find to be wrong within them. Besides, you might learn something, and I source all the Senate records. Matter of fact I think I will add the links to the U.S. Senate records themselves. be right back.
"Why don't you go review my McCarthy Hubs for me... you can point out all those things you find to be wrong within them."
Well, I usually charge a fee for my editing services, but seeing as how you asked so nicely, maybe I'll do one for you for free.
Are you sure you want me to?
Yes I am. And you can verify all the testimony in the U.S. Senate records. have at it.
Okay, when I get some time I'll take a look at one of your McCarthy hubs. No promises on how soon it'll get done, you understand, 'cos I've got my own stuff going on, but I'll have a go at one of them eventually.
Anytime, Jeff. I would appreciate your opinion, even if you do not agree with the hub itself. Criticism to my work does not bother me. It is all a building and learning experience. But I do hope you enjoy whichever one you choose to read. I will be posting several more in the coming days, I have almost completed editing and sourcing them. As one writer to another, setting aside politics, I would truly appreciate it.
we have a lot of confusion of information right now TM, that’s really what I mean, alarm the folks is ok, fear mongering is problem, and may be in truth too strong for this.
but alarms promote suspicion’s without folks actually researching the issue, and that is the part that’s not good. Words have power and we have a responsibility to know this. I know I am preaching to the Choir here, you know it also, just a mechanism triggering from being on world assignment for a few years.
we make a lot of USA mistakes out there TM, a lot.
thats really all i meant.
Well stated. TM is an anachronistic Joe McCarthyite.
And Chris is? Just stating facts.
I am still waiting for you to point out the errors you claim are in my hubs. But I didn't expect you to actually do it... since your gripes and snipes are unfounded in any real history of Islam, or America. Just another of those who cry... no your wrong... and never anything else.
Repubs do hurt poor kids...they would hurt the old if they could, but seniors are too poweful (as a group).
Right here in Mass....Repub Mitt Romney CUT dental and eye care for poor kids. CUT it out!
So, poor kids were doing without dental care and eye care....FACT.
Democrat Deval Patrick re-enstated those programs when he became gvr.
Who do they ALWAYS go after? Welfare moms....which translates into poor kids. FACT. they do it. always.
Of course, they care deeply about the fetus. Once it's born though--it's adios muchachos!
Social and Economic Deminsions- (re-distribution of wealth.)
Look it up. World wide Socialism.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_ … 1_00.shtml
Brought to you by George Soros and his world wide Socialist Globalist ilk.
He that controls the past controls the present...he that controls the present controls the future....History is a body of lies created by men in power...power is not a symptom, it is the means for man to manipulate man...Larry
Nice quote from Rage Against The Machine, Mavin.
Actually, its a quote from Orwell's " 1984 "...
TM - I am still bemused by your concept of the Bushes being closet socialists. It must be a tribute to the strength of socialism as an ideology that even oil millionaires and their puppets are closet socialists.
Is there anyone in politics today whom you would support?
It's easy Charles. Anything and everything that TM disagrees with is socialism by default.
Even bad capitalism!
And you'r a funny lil Socialist, John. And it is funny that you try to project your issues onto me. Anyone you don't agree with is a Capitolist. Ahh your funny.
What, you mean it's OK for you to label everything you don't like as socialism but it's not OK for me to point out the flaws in capitalism?
I don't see capitalism as wholly evil and I don't see capitalism as wholly wrong, I can also tell the difference between free market capitalism and state capitalism and I can also see the difference between free market capitalism and a mixed economy, anarcho-capitalism, mercantilism, or corporate capitalism.
Try it some time, not everything is so black and white as you would believe.
You can do what you want. I call 'em as I see 'em. I cannot help hubs is full of Leftists. And "Leant Leftists" or "Leftists", are a wide array of a catagory. You seem to assume I call them all Socialists because of that term, but your wrong on that... just like alot of other things you say are wrong, along with your leant Leftist pals.
Thats okay though... the truth is a strong lil critter, and though is has been crushed into the ground under the boots and heel of the leftists and progressives, it is not dead, and it is being sought and learnt everyday now by average Americans who are sick and tired of the lies and betrayal..
The person I see mostly crushing the truth under foot is your self.
It is not so simple, you can't cherry pick and then use that to sum up a whole diverse group of people. I'm sure you'd agree that not every conservative shared all your views.
And what does leant mean?
Bush was a socialist - look around at all the bailouts he gave.
I think he likes Bachmann..the welfare Mama. 23 welfare kids, and a farm subsidy.
Whoooo--that's a WHOLE lotta tax money for ONE family!
oh--not to mention the great healthcare plan she and her family have as she being a member of the gvt. Um--Does that make her a gangster?
Of course, when women do what Bachmann and Mason think is morally right--and have babies they can't afford, why then the tax money suddenly becomes off limits.
It's quite the quagmire...Entitled vs rotten bum.
I guess if they like your politics, you're entitled.
She is not Consevative enough for me, Chris. Nor is she Conservative enough for all my friends. But she may move further to the Right as time goes by, she will need the Conservative Right to over-come the progressive Old Guard of the RNC.
And we Conservatives know how you Leant leftists want to hide your progressive buddies, as if we haven't seen you all and the games you have been playing among yourselves with our country.
Why is everything a label? Everyone has to be a progressive, or a liberal or a communist, but why? You have two constants in your posts, 1) labeling and 2) Making absurdly incorrect statements.
Let's go with this question, who is an ideal candidate to you? Why? It doesn't even have to be someone from modern time. I really would like to hear your reasoning. I am guessing that you won't answer this post because it actually asks you to come out of the bubble and think for 20 seconds.
He is my avatar. Why... because he called the left on their treason and did not back down. And as I have stated on here numorous times... many in this country today are re-discovering our true history, and part and parcel of that is the Leftist/Democrat Progressive treason of the early 1900s... and lets not forget the man who saw them and called them out... McCarthy.
And unfortunately in American politics, as everywhere else in the world, we know ones ideology by their label, which they aquire through their voting record.
We have Communists, fanatic Leftists,(such as Chris) and fellow travellers, Socialists, Liberals, Democrats, Centrists, Progressives, Conservatives, and Libertarians and Anarchists.
I simply refer to them all as, "Leant Leftists".
And the only people right of me are the Libertarians and Anarchists.
Anarchists to the right of you! Boy, are you confused.
Anarchists may run with the Left, but they are for no Govt. What does that sound like to you?
You really do not understand the American Political Spectrum. Do you? Centralized Govt is far left, and no Govt at all is far Right, America was founded just to the left of the Libertarians. We know we need limited govt, but we know we do not want centralized, or total Govt. control.
It is a simple concept.
We are not Europe... where the Commies are Left and Socialists are Right... not at all.
"You really do not understand the American Political Spectrum. Do you?"
Nor do you, seemingly. Wow, the stuff you make up.
Anarchists believe iin no law and no Govt. and no organized Society. That is very similar to Libertarians, who are to their Right, so call it what you want Jeff. I do not care.
And my understandings are good enough to keep you all occupied for days on end yelling about how wrong I am and a moron, even as post definitions and facts to prove my point, as you all just insult and cry.
Those who look at what I say and rdo the research see the truth of my words, and that is all that matters. You Leftists are spewing your mis-information and revisionism is all and I won't agrer to it because I know better. i am not one of your, (generally speaking), lil students in Uni who has to agree with your revisionism.
Wow, super ego!
All your research is good and if we look at it we'll see the error of our ways, but any research we post is revisionist rubbish and misinformation, you know better!
Anarchy = no rulers, not no order. (It doesn't really work in practice, but that's what it means.)
Libertarians are only to the right when it comes to government programs (they prefer none at all). They're very much to the left when it comes to individual liberties (pro- gay marriage, pro drug legalization, pro pretty much do-what-you-like unless it hurts someone else or someone else's property).
But if you can call the Nazis "leftists" with a straight face, you really don't get the whole left-right thing anyway.
And there you go again with that "revisionism" baloney. You can shout revisionist whenever someone corrects your version of history*, but that doesn't really work as an argument. It's just contradiction.
*As in our recent exchange where you claimed that the US 'led the world' in abolishing slavery, and I corrected you, saying that actually, rather a lot of countries abolished slavery before the US did, and listing many of them.
Well of course - all the big socialism is for the rich, and cut-throat capitalism for everyone else.
"And the only people right of me are the Libertarians and Anarchists." Common only
'Attila the Hun' could be right of you.
And you can just call me communist, socialist, left-wing, liberal scum, although I am actually conservative.
I'm conservative too. I hate the waste that is allowed to flourish by giving rich people so much.
They do not put it back into America, and the working classes, who make the country flow, are blocked up for lack of money.
It's a disgusting Oligarchy or Plutochracy or whatever Label you want, but it's NOT Christian, and it's NOT Representative Democracy....It's thievery of the highest order.
And it is wasteful and unneccessary.
People suffer unneccessarily, while excess and gluttony thrive at the top.
Way too many liberal tax-cuts for my conservative taste.
A million given out in a million hands is worth much more than a million given out to one.
America is a Constitutional Republic, Chris. Not a Democracy.
"McCarthy was originally a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. However, after failing to become the Democratic Party candidate for district attorney, he switched parties and became the Republican Party candidate in an election to become a circuit court judge. McCarthy shocked local officials by fighting a dirty campaign. This included publishing campaign literature that falsely claimed that his opponent, Edgar Werner, was 73 (he was actually 66). As well as suggesting that Werner was senile, McCarthy implied that he was guilty of financial corruption.
When the United States entered the Second Word War McCarthy resigned as a circuit judge and joined the U.S. Marines. After the war McCarthy ran against Robert La Follette to become Republican candidate for the senate. As one of his biographers has pointed out, his campaign posters pictured him in "full fighting gear, with an aviator's cap, and belt upon belt of machine gun ammunition wrapped around his bulky torso." He claimed he had completed thirty-two missions when in fact he had a desk job and only flew in training exercises.
In his campaign, McCarthy attacked La Follette for not enlisting during the war. He had been forty-six when Pearl Harbor had been bombed, and was in fact too old to join the armed services. McCarthy also claimed that La Follette had made huge profits from his investments while he had been away fighting for his country. The suggestion that La Follette had been guilty of war profiteering (his investments had in fact been in a radio station), was deeply damaging and McCarthy won by 207,935 to 202,557. La Follette, deeply hurt by the false claims made against him, retired from politics, and later committed suicide.
On his first day in the Senate, McCarthy called a press conference where he proposed a solution to a coal-strike that was taking place at the time. McCarthy called for John L. Lewis and the striking miners to be drafted into the Army. If the men still refused to mine the coal, McCarthy suggested they should be court-martialed for insubordination and shot."
Oh that takes a whole hub to reply to... I'll post it in the coming days. The Leftist have piled so many lies on McCarthy, that I will be shoveling for days... but thats okay.
And my facts come from the Senate records themselves. Why would you use a uk site... go to the US Senate... scared of what you'll find there?
Why don't you go read the truth about the hearings, Chris, my new Hubs puts it out there very clearly and in truth.
And he never said Lafollette should have joined the Army for WWII, that is a lie he won the seat fair and square. Along with the rest of that BS about the strike.
I will show that to be BS.
Also I will show that the Progressives in the US Senate knew about the treason and helped to cover it up. I will also show the truth about the Dems and HUAC, and how they destroyed live and careers. i will show how Mccarthy had the evidence from the FBI, DOJ, the OSS, the State Dept, and KGB, GRU, and so many other records. Also how the Anmerican Leftists treason is diectly responsible for China being a super-power, thus the reason for Bill Clintons treason in arming china with Inter-Continental Missle tech, and so many more acts of treason by the American Left and Progressives.
I am sure all you Leftists will fall down in a fit... but oh well.
No, we'l just sit around and watch you fitting.
Clinton is hardly a leftist.He went along with so much righty-ness, it's pathetic...but he had to. He was president of us all.
And we are currently arming Israel...is that treason too?
We armed Bin Laden and Saddam at one time as well....treason?
TM has not actually answered my question about whether there is any US politician he does support.
You don't actually expect the Meister to answer questions do you? Except maybe when he can answer "it's all the fault of the socialists" then you might get an answer.
Fully, not as of yet.
But we are getting there, and I am sure one will be on the stage soon enough.
As a socialist, I have not seen any mainstream American politician whom I respect.
How interesting that you have the same problem from the other end of the spectrum!
What to you are the key issues and what do you want your person to say on them?
TM What is the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?
Broadly speaking the UK is a democracy, but it is not a constitutional republic. You say the USA is a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.
I am trying to understand your thinking. Can you be clearer please - especially for us foreigners.
Mob rule (Democracy), -vs-, securing the Rights of the Minority against tyrany by the Majority (U.S.A. Constitutional Republic), is the greatest difference.
Of course we are not a full republic. If you want to know what a Republic is go to school and learn. I am tired of writing out the definitions of social systems for you all who never answer a ?, but ask them over and over and expect them answered becasue you want an answer.
I went through that all day yesterdday and never got one answer to my question from any of you.
Oh the hell with it, here you go.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
I have pasted it for you, I am tired of writing the definitions out to have you all ignore the work I produce.
But the summary at the top of the page is mine and the easiest way to explain it.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverme … ubblic.htm
I must say I am sorry Charles if you are not one of those who have been doing that game. I am just so tired of writiing out lengthy essays to answer a question only to have the answer ignored. So as I say I am sorry I should not have snapped at you. PLease accept my apology.
If you want answers to questions try asking them in a less hectoring, badgering style, miss out on the heavy sighs and comments about having to educate us and come down off your high horse.
BTW, still waiting for an answer to a question I asked several times yesterday, and the day before!
All you do is play games john, and then never answer a question. So yours will be ignored from now on.
When you answer the ones I posed then I will talk about Capitalism and how many it has suppossedly killed. Untill then, you questions will not be answered. I am sure one of your Unionist, Socialist, or Communist buddies can tell you. God knows your all Anti-Capitalist and Anti-American Leant leftists so you should know all the lil anti American facts.
The founding fathers (or Founding Fathers?) discussed whether there should be a property qualification for voting. They decided on "one man one vote", in other words for democracy.
Was that a mistake?
You did not answer my other query about what you would want to hear from a true Conservative candidate. In a Forum "Clarity Please Conservatives", to which over 30 hubbers contributed (but not you alas), I formulated what I thought was the "Conservative" case. Would you agree I got it right?
"They seem to boil down to:
(1) The government is spending much more than it raises in taxation. It is borrowing huge amounts of money, but not for capital spending - just to keep up with spending committments. This is already weakening government credit, raising interest rates not just for the government but also for the rest of us. The rising interest rates increase the cost of past government borrowing and current and future government borrowing, exacerbating the financial crisis the government is in, and which is impacting on us all.
(2) The only practical ways to deal with imbalance of this nature is to cut government expenditure drastically. Raising taxes significantly is not an option because (1) it is politically unpopular and (2) it is likely to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs as people are deincentivised and have even greater incentive to avoid/evade taxes.
(3)The world super power is always going to have a huge military budget, and so even if it is possible to reduce Defence spend, the savings will not be significant in relation to the annual budget deficit and National Debt. Cuts have to be made in other areas, which realistically means Welfare of all descriptions.
(4) Cuts in Welfare of all descriptions will impact hugely on the poor of course. People who are not poor may also be affected and they will have to look after themselves.
(5) One of the difficulties in the economy is the inflexibility of the labour force and the very high expectations they have of employer benefits. The cost of employing a US worker these days is so high that outsourcing to the far east or upgrading the technology involved are both very attractive.
(6) The crash cannot be far off, whereupon all the poor will suffer hugely and the rest of us will also suffer. It is better to avert the crash now by cutting government spending hugely as stated above, and getting the poor to understand that there is now no unearned income. And that wages and conditions in the jobs they may get will be significantly reduced from current expectations.
(7) Trade Unions are essentially reactive, seeking to protect the terms and conditions of existing employees. They have forced jobs abroad. While it is understandable that trade unions will react to these cuts there frankly is nothing the unions can do that will not make matters worse.
(8) Part of the problem is that the US Government has taken on responsibilities that are not appropriate for Federal Government. Either Government should not be involved at all, or state governments should take on these responsibilities in place of - not in addition to - Federal activity.
(9) Some conservatives say the governments have been unwise and some say governments have been unconstitutional.
(10) This problem goes back a long way, a very long way, or even right back to Washington's administration. But the problem has built up to the point whare something must be done."
Over to you TM
We are not a Democracy, simply a fact, we are a Constitutional Republic, period. Yes we have a democratic process to choose our representation, but we are not a Democracy. And I posted my response to your question ealier... did you get it?
http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverme … ubblic.htm
And I didn't see that topic yesterday, I was in another one writing essays for people who don't want to answer questions. Right now I am in the middle of finishing a hub and will get to your questions when I am done.
But I expect mine answered also, Charles. If I have any. I spent all day yesterday answering questions, and not once did any of mine get answered by anyone, Charles. I will not do that again.
And yes, those are good starting places for any canidate in the Conservative ring. As far as # 10, the extent of how far back it goes is debatable, I say the early 1900s or turn of century.
You still haven't answered the question I first asked you two days ago and you can't ave missed it as you told me you never miss anything
I never said I missed yours, I answered enough of your questions for a while. Do you remember mine? I would like an answer to that. I am also busy writing the rest of my hub, so... no time now for long winded conversations, john.
"What lies in store for Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and, in short order, the United States, is the wholesale sell-off of public property to private corporations at bargain basement prices. What the despots who gather in their secretive lairs at Davos, Cernobbio, Bilderberg, and G8/G20 are bringing about is a world where no property is owned by the state, which by default means the people. Total corporate control over every facet of life equals extreme fascism."
TM - If you have asked me a question I have not seen it.
Come to think of it, I don't remember him asking anybody anything. I see a lot of challenges, hectoring, talking down, but nowhere do I recall a simple question.
Nor do I ever see any willingness to take any account of differing opinions, mind you, we have opinions, he has "facts".
It has taken me a while to understand your distinction between a republic and a democracy. This is because I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, and got hung upon my understanding of "Republic", which is simply that there is no monarch.
I think you are distinguishing between pure democracy where any adult "the mob" may take part in any process and the democratic process which chooses representatives who then constitute and operate the Republic until the next elections.
In the UK the Members of Parliament are elected in a democratic manner, and are then in office until the following election.
So the USA is a Constitutional Republic rather than a pure democracy. Agreed, but so what?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
If you don't know what it is, consult your local Tea Party.I think it's a crazy conspiracy theory.I may live to regret living with my head in the sand on this.I will take my chances.You?
by phion4 years ago
Do you know what it is?
by TMMason6 years ago
How could something that includes the words ‘pledge of allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States’ be considered divisive? Believe it or not, the mayor and city council of Eugene, Oregon just voted on this very...
by Sophia Angelique6 years ago
If you do not stop fighting over the small things now (religion, party politics, etc), this real fight will be over before you've thought about it.The freedom gained by generations fighting on your behalf for the last...
by TMMason6 years ago
It is BS like this that is driving America to the Right. So I say.. "Go Howard and the rest of you Leant Leftists, GO GO GO! Keep running your mouths with all the hate... you are helping me to collect more partners...
by AnnCee7 years ago
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SO LITTLE DIVERSITY WITHIN AMERICA'S UPPER CRUST. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.