- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Tennessee Tea Party Wants to Erase "Slavery" From U.S. Textbooks
Tennessee Tea Party members are trying to eliminate references to slavery in American history textbooks.
Salon.com reports that Tea Partiers, who idolize America’s Founding Fathers, do not want students to learn that many of them owned slaves:
For a bunch of people who worship the Founders and like to play dress-up American Revolutionary War, Tea Partyers sure hate knowing anything remotely reality-based about the Founding Fathers. Tennessee Tea Party groups have introduced a proposal to take what few minorities there are in American history textbooks out of American history textbooks, along with any negative portrayals of the wealthy white men who led this young nation in its infancy.
At a press conference, two dozen activists presented their proposals — I’m sorry, their “demands” — for the new state legislative session. Among them are sweeping changes to school materials that they probably have not actually read.
Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”
In reality, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings and James Madison brought a slave with him to the White House when he became president.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, founder of the congressional Tea Party caucus, once claimed that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly” to end slavery.
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I said that changing history
I said that changing history books is about as rediculous as the Obama Health care bill. That is saying that I don't support changing History books.
Airdale
Well... some of your friends
Well... some of your friends want to change the history books.
You're right about changing
You're right about changing history books. What's ridiculous about the health care bill is it wasn't very good to start with. After congress finished with it, a disaster is a better term.
Basically it was a version of the Romney plan as implemented in Massachusetts. Not one other health care plan in the world was examined. Brazil, for example, has an excellent plan that works well for those with or without private insurance. In fact, every country in the world with a freely-elected government has a health care plan that covers all of it's legal residents. Every country except the USA, that is.
See the video at: http://vimeo.com/6799683 or: http://vimeo.com/26215039
Tell you what, you arrogant
Tell you what, you arrogant moron. Tell me exactly what I have said that is not correct and true. Otherwise, admit you're a pompous ass. But everyone else can already see that.
James, it would be helpful if
James, it would be helpful if you used your freedom to think and then to tell people something useful. I am sure you know something people want to know. Now think real hard and get back to me!
Airdale
You can tell a person
You can tell a person anything. That's freedom of speech. It's so free that what you say doesn't even have to be true or make sense. You have amply demonstrated that.
Is that getting back to you enough?
Sorry... but you are
Sorry... but you are instantly discredited with the statement "slavery was initiated by the Liberian (Africa) slave traders who captured and shipped their own people to the USA "
Liberia was not a country until it was colonized by freed American slaves. Wow! 2 minutes on Wikipedia for a bite sized piece of history, and you would save endless internet ridicule. Starting in 1820 freed american slaves landed in Liberia. In 1847 it became a country modeled after the US, and naming its capitol after the American president James Monroe. D'oh!
Sorry... dude... Many members of the tea party uses racist coded language often in public speeches, and some are overt. They might not like it that slavery was part of our nation's founding, but there it is. The Tea Party is jingoism at its worst.
So... since you don't even know our nation's history or what happened to our slaves... I think we know how to classify the rest of your meaningless statements.
@CRW There you go again,
@CRW There you go again, using facts. Can't you understand that little things like facts don't matter to people like the Tea Party? Why do you think they want to change the history books? They too often contain facts and, even worse, ones that don't match up with their own ideas of "how things ought to be".
Other than that, good job! :D
LOL! Sarcasm at its
LOL! Sarcasm at its *finest*. Thanks for a morning chuckle.
You are correct. The current
You are correct. The current country of Liberia was established in the 1820s and is one of the areas on the West African coast along with Sierra Leone where many of the tribal leaders sold their people to traders for tansport to the West. That area of West Africa was chosen for re-patiation because so many had come from West Africa. I should have simply said West Africa. Thanks.
Airdale
Two things: 1.I won't be
Two things: 1.I won't be surprised if it turned out to be a liberal group trying to make the Tea Party look bad. 2.If this IS a group that considers themselves conservative, stop it-only childish liberals run away from history, and you are giving Conservatism a bad name!
A liberal group trying to
A liberal group trying to make the Tea Party look bad? The idea is ludicrous. The Tea Party needs no help in looking foolish and ignorant. The do quite well at that with no help from anyone.
Liberals run away from history? When? How? Remember, it's the Rethugnicans and the Tea Party that want to re-write history.
Show some proof of either statement.
The Tea Party simply wants
The Tea Party simply wants smaller, less Marxist government, and the thugs are the Democrats. The Dems want bigger, more intrusive government-for example, to take away our guns, which cases like McDonald v. Maryland struck down, and to remove our Ministerial Exemption from certain laws, in the recently-decided Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. Also, aren't History teachers mostly Democrats?! History is one of our worst subjects!
Let's see... and the socially
Let's see... and the socially conservative Tea baggers want to:
1. End abortion 2. Allow discrimination against homosexuals 3. End civil rights legislation 4. End all forms of "wealth transfer," that is eliminate publicly funded eduction and social services of any kind.
I could go on... but I think we see which party wants to do more to control people's behavior...
First off, Tea BAGGERS?! That
First off, Tea BAGGERS?! That is a DISGUSTING homosexual act- and you're calling Tea Partiers that?! You make me angry! Also, you imply you want to PROTECT homosexual people, yet you use that term?! Hypocrite! Now, on to your list: 1.True, but not because, as you imply, we want "to do more to control people's behavior", rather it's because we consider human life to begin at conception. 2. Untrue, we just believe, as the Bible (and for the Catholic and Orthodox, Tradition) say(s) marriage is between one man and one woman-and don't say civil unions aren't good enough and you want marriage, as then you're going against the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Religion. 3. Also untrue, as more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Amendments. Show me an instance where a Republican voted against Civil Rights and the social conservatives rallied around him or her. 4. Half true, we want to end FEDERAL control of education and other social services, and return them to the STATES, COUNTIES or MUNICIPALITIES.
@goodone121 Thanks for
@goodone121 Thanks for proving my points about tea baggers.
Hypocrite? Hmmm.... Tagging a bunch of social conservatives with a homosexual label is not insulting homosexuals - it is teasing an overly sensitive homophobic group. Make you angry? Ha! I think the tea baggers are one of the most regressive and idiotic grass roots movements ever to make the national news. You people don't know history except through your narrow revisionist perspective, which is not only wrong but unamerican.
In response to your remarks:
1. Reproductive freedom is a freedom under the general category of privacy. If you want to restrict that freedom, you are making a choice to control behavior based on your religious opinions that the life of a fetus matters more than the decision making of the woman carrying the fetus. I am personally pro-life since my wife and I have a large family, but I am unwilling to make that decision for anyone else.
2. You are violating the freedoms of people you disagree with, which completely flies in the face of the founding fathers concepts of freedom. You are imposing a religious perspective in contradiction to the live and let live philosophy behind the first amendment.
3. Southern dixiecrats (southern conservative democrats) who opposed the 1964 civil rights acts have or had long since converted to the GOP, where they feel much more comfortable. When you look at the *CURRENT* make up of the GOP and democratic parties, the democrats have much greater support for civil rights than the *CURRENT* GOP. For example, Strom Thurmond was one of the most vocal opponents to the 1964 civil rights act. He left the democratic party and joined the GOP after its passage. Strom Thurmond is the ultimate hypocrite since he fathered a child with underage black maid, violating his racist views and his public moral values.
4. Right... given the disparity of funding and tax bases between states, eliminating a general federal role will guarantee horrible inequities, which violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Your approach will ensure huge lawsuits and more federal control in particular states where these inequities will be at their worst.
The authority of the federal government has long since been established through supreme court cases. Every so often a federal agency is slapped for overreaching, and that is the injunctive relief open to any US citizen. If you think the feds have overstepped, then sue and prove your case. Otherwise, your group's claim of wanting to build a "constitutional" government is an empty threat. The tea baggers are trying to impose their interpretation of the constitution in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Good thing your group is already starting to loose its luster. Just like the christian conservatives in the 1990s you will get a few more headlines and then fade from view as people realize how worthless and wrong your perspective truly is. In November, all people will vote, not just the minority known as the tea bagger union.
I don't vote in a particular party, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate regardless of party. One party voters are why the parties have too much influence and why gridlock is the order of the day. The tea baggers would only make this worse if they got their way.
So, we're "homophobic" just
So, we're "homophobic" just because we don't want special rights and protections (like this: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/ )?! Now, on to your list: 1. Yes. What if someone decided to murder you- would your life matter more than "the decision making" of the murderer? 2. I meant RELIGIOUS marriages. 3.All true, as far as it goes, but you IGNORED my challenge. WHEN did conservatives support the removal of Civil Rights?(and don't say, "Affirmative Action," as that's simply discrimination against whites.)4. Ha, ha, you fell right into my trap! If "eliminating a general federal role will guarantee horrible inequities", then why not nationalize, say, power plants? After all, they're creating inequalities in power generation! The problem stems from a misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment- it doesn't guarantee equal SERVICES for all, but equal protection of Federal, State and Local LAWS.
@goodone121 With respect to
@goodone121 With respect to point #4, read the Butler case from 1936 and the cases that followed.
The general welfare clause of the *CONSTITUTION* empowers the government to tax and spend for the general welfare. This is why things like education funding and human services are provided as contingent funding, meaning "Do x and you get money. Don't do Y and we withhold money." The federal government is not providing these services directly.
The application of the 14th amendment would be applied to state and local governments who implement policies that introduce inequities. Go back and read the federal cases of forced integration of schools as an example.
Nationalizing something like power industry would require a constitutional amendment.
Again... you don't even know our history... just your revisionist mythical version.
@goodone121 With respect to
@goodone121 With respect to Civil rights, tea baggers Ron and Rand Paul have both said they oppose the 1964 civil rights act. Ron said he would have voted against it, and Rand claimed he would repeal pieces of it that violate "freedom of association."
Adam Kinsinger (R-Ill. has said he wants to eliminate the Civil Rights act.
Reagan almost blocked the voting rights act, but gave in eventually.
In 2007 republicans in congress almost derailed an extension of the voting rights act.
If not for fear of a populist uprising, republicans would have at least partially repealed many pieces of civil rights legislation.
Tell us, exactly how does gay
Tell us, exactly how does gay marriage threaten you or anyone? Are you afraid if it becomes common, it will show what bigoted, intolerant, raving lunatics you religious reich are?
Show me exactly where it says in the bible that marriage is between one man and one woman. Then account for all of the plural marriages and concubines mentioned in the bible.
Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. That is, arrogant theists like you cannot pass your sick, twisted beliefs into the law of the land for everyone. When you do that, you give everyone else the right to do the same. Do you want muslims making sharia law the law for everyone?
Just because you believe life begins at conception, that doesn't make it a fact. "Beliefs, no matter how sincerely held do not alter facts."
How is marriage between gays going against the 1st amendment and freedom of religion? To you freedom of religion means the freedom to force your delusional beliefs on everyone.
Answer the questions with proof and not just your opinion and lectures. If you ignore the questions, then you're admitting you do not have answer and are nothing more than a liar.
What I meant is RELIGIOUS
What I meant is RELIGIOUS marriages- I should have made that clear. Now, on to your challenge: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."(Gen 2:24 NRSV). Also, the Bible just REPORTS what is in the past- don't shoot the messenger just because you dislike the message!
Every time I think you have
Every time I think you have shown the ultimate in ignorance and intolerance, you show me that I was wrong. You can be a LOT more ignorant and intolerant than I thought.
First, your babble quote doesn't say what you want it to say. But you religious reich people always interpret anything to mean only what you want it to. In most people's eyes, that's called "lying".
The babble doesn't report anything. It is a badly translated, politically edited collection of myths and lies Yes, it might contain some historically accurate description of a few events and places. That doesn't make any of the rest of it true. For example:
On the 11th of September, 2001, two commercial aircraft flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands.
Some people believe that this was an act of terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist organization.
It was really the power of my god (he who must not be named) directing those planes to warn the people of the USA and the world to abandon their wicked ways and praise the only true god.
The first sentence is unquestionable historic fact. The last sentence is a delusional lie but is impossible to prove to be false. The “truth” of all “holy books” is based upon this same technique.
Then tell me again, how does gay marriage threaten anyone? Religious marriages? How? Civil marriages? How?
You will have to pretend the question was never asked. Then you can tell more lies and declare "Victory through the power of christ!"
BTW, please look up Krishna, Horus, Attis, and Mithra. Learn how your religion was founded with lies and has continued to lie ever since.
Ignorant?! Intolerant?1 Look,
Ignorant?! Intolerant?1 Look, I've been nothing but CIVIL with you, yet you call me names, and generally engage in argumentum ad hominem. I also dislike you call the Holy Scriptures "babble". Is that loving your enemies, or MOCKING them?! Also, give me PROOF it is "a badly translated, politically edited collection of myths and lies." Thirdly, I only listen to the interpretive authority (Magisterium) of the Roman Catholic Church, which Christ founded. If He didn't found her, riddle me this: why has she survived WITHOUT changing her dogma, except to proclaim MORE dogma? Fourthly, forced "Religious Gay Marriage" is an attack on my belief system.Finally, If YOU would look up "Krishna, Horus, Attis, and Mithra," you would find it was THEIR cults, NOT the RCC,that stole material FROM Christianity, NOT the other way around!
When I say you are ignorant
When I say you are ignorant and intolerant, it's because of the things you say on here. I could not care less that you don;t like it when I state that the bible is "babble" and a collection of myths and lies. I prove it. What do you do? Whine and complain.
If you don;t like being mocked, then stop spouting ridiculous nonsense. YOu want proof? OK, you'll be sorry you asked. First, there is not a single contemporary account of any jesus. The first mention is in the gospel of Mark, written decades after the alleged events. The Romans, never mentioned him. You'd think that someone that had so much influence, socially, politically, and religiously, performed miracles, and then was publicly tried and executed would have had some mention, but no, not a word.
Do you know what language the babble was originally written in? DO you know the difficulty of making an accurate translation of even modern day languages? Do you think no one ever "adjusted anything, "for a good cause" or made an error in understanding obscure slang, idioms, and references no longer in use?
The church has survived by brainwashing children and forbidding criticism or questions. Your "authority" is self-appointed. That you listen to them without independent verification doesn't make them right, it makes you gullible.
How is religious gay marriage an attack on your belief system? If the Catholic church authorized it, wouldn't that automatically make it right? No one can force anyone to perform any marriage ceremony. How can anyone force a priest to marry someone if the church forbids it?
I have looked up Krishna, Horus, Attis, and Mithra. The all precede christianity by hundreds of years, if not a thousand or more. Clearly, you were afraid to look them up. If you believe otherwise, you are accepting the word of the church without questioning. That makes you a fool or a liar or both.
You have not answered a single question nor have you provided a grain of proof. You have not been civil, you have spouted inanities, dodged honest questions, and tried to preach the outrageous dogma of your religion. Here's a definition of Dogma. You should look that up, too.
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.
Note the use of "opinion", "without reason or evidence" "decrees" and "decisions". Not a word about proof or substantiation.
Next time, try to say something that you can back up and that doesn't make you look like a moron.
Are you unaware of Tacitus
Are you unaware of Tacitus referring to "Chrestus"? Also, I DO know of the language the original autographs were written in-Hebrew for the OT, and Koine Greek for the NT. "The church has survived by brainwashing children and forbidding criticism or questions." Liar! We rely, mostly, on the FREE questioning of inquirers! "That you listen to them without independent verification doesn't make them right, it makes you gullible." How do you KNOW I didn't require independent verification?! I was, once, ALSO an atheist. By STUDYING the case, I made my decision. You might like "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ", by another ex-atheist, Lee Strobel. You might also want to look up those supposed deities' cults' forms immediately AFTER Christianity was formed.You are also being a hypocrite, DODGING challenges and excoriating me for DODGING questions!Lastly, argumentum ad hominem, again?!
Apparently I am far more
Apparently I am far more aware of it than you. Perhaps if you looked it up and learned when it was actually written you realize that your reference supports my statement, not yours.
I am a liar? Are you saying the church has not suppressed criticism and free speech? If you knew anything about brainwashing, you'd realize that's exactly the methods used by all religions. The victim is subjected to great pressure to repeat the same statements by rote (like the catechism) and surrounded by peer pressure and authority figures to conform. Questioning and criticism are condemned, and everything is reinforced by a system of reward and threats. (heaven/hell)
Free questioning of enquirers? (spelling lesson is free) Like Galileo being forced to recant his observation of planetary motion?
I know you do not require independent verification because you said that you don't. Now who's lying?
You were never an atheist, I've been told that lie so many times, I'm sick of it. If you had truly studied religion and looked at facts, you would never say anything as stupid as you do.
What challenge have I dodged? I have looked up those deities. That's why I know so much about them. You do nothing but deny anything that doesn't agree with your delusions.
Look at this video:http://www.tubewatcher.tv/17212 It shows the dates of the myths stolen to create the jesus myth.
Here's another offer. Let's take this to email so I can send you lots of proof of everything I say. Leave me a PM and I'll do it. Do you have the courage to face facts?
You're an intellectual. ethical and physical coward.
1.Yes, as the Church has no
1.Yes, as the Church has no power, short of declaring dogma, to shut off debate-and even then, only on matters of faith and morals (such as whether Adam and Eve were real,or not). 2."Inquirers" is the AMERICAN spelling, while "enquirers" is BRITISH. Don't be a snob. Now, Galileo Galilei wasn't stopped from declaring a new hypothesis, but from DISHONESTLY treating it as FACT. 3.I NEVER said that, so stop compounding your lies. 4.Now, you're judging whether someone you DON'T even know PERSONALLY was once an atheist?! Just ask my mother, at sandtiger900@aol.com , or HER mother, at salraineri3@earthlink.net ,whether I was or was not once an atheist. 5.You just did, by NOT reading what I challenged you to read! You also didn't compare the forms of the cults from JUST BEFORE to JUST AFTER Christianity was formed. You also asked for my email address. I will NEVER give out my addy to people who haven't EARNED my trust, as that could just be a way to sneak malware onto my computer! Lastly, YET ANOTHER argumentum ad hominem?! WHEN will you grow up?!
@goodone121 As a former
@goodone121 As a former catholic school boy, I can say my BS o'meter has pegged with your propaganda.
I spent years repeating the words of the Baltimore catechism, reciting catholic dogma that we were instructed to accept without question and without reservation. In high school, I was repeatedly sent to the principal's office for questioning things like transubstantiation and other components of catholic and christian mythology.
Have you seen documentaries like "Jesus Camp?" How about the most recent "Relugulous?"
Of course groups within the various christian denominations make use of indoctrination and brainwashing. It is the only way any cult survives.
Christianity is based on faith, which is belief without proof. This is an unnatural act for most people unless they have been habituated from birth.
1.I am sorry you were sent to
1.I am sorry you were sent to the principal's office. That is NOT how ANY school should behave. 2.I HADN'T heard of "Jesus Camp" (I'm only 20), but I will NEVER see "Religulous", as it's by Maher, a noted anti-christian.BTW, one person in that movie, the "Raving Atheist", is now the "Raving Theist", a CATHOLIC. 3.I can see how you can believe that, but you're painting with a broad brush. 4.Your definition of Faith is not the Church's, which is, "Both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed. It is this revelation of God which the Church proposes for our belief, and which we profess in the Creed, celebrate in the sacraments, live by right conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity (as specified in the ten commandments), and respond to in our prayer of faith. Faith is both a theological virtue given by God as grace, and an obligation which flows from the first commandment of God" (CCC). An addition is it goes BEYOND, but NOT AGAINST, reason.
@ James Smith -> Amen
@ James Smith -> Amen Brother!! :-)
The part that makes me laugh
The part that makes me laugh the most is when I point out all the things that were branded as "socialist" when they were first proposed and ask which ones they want to give up, no one responds or even admits the question was asked.
Deafening silence is an answer, too. It only means they lack the ethical backbone to admit they might be wrong about one or two of them.
You'll also notice when I pointed out the the government has grown more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones (except for WW II) no one responded to that, either.
This would be more fun if it were not so easy. :D
The facts are, the government
The facts are, the government has gown more under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. But those are facts. So please feel free to ignore or deny them. They will still be facts.
By the Time Obama leaves
By the Time Obama leaves office in January 2013, he will have spent 6.2 Trillion dollars. This is more than all the presidents in history combined have spent. What did we get for it? Larger more inept and inane Government and Americans who have lost the desire to work since Government is now taking care of them. OMG - Obama Must Go. Daffy Duck could have done better, at least we would have had an honest Quack in the White House.
Airdale
You said "By the Time Obama
You said "By the Time Obama leaves office in January 2013, he will have spent 6.2 Trillion dollars. This is more than all the presidents in history combined have spent."
Actually, you are completely wrong here. Where do you get your data? 6.2 trillion is the current budget. The total spent each year has been over a trillion dollars a year by every president and every congress since 1987. Accumulated spending by Reagan was more than $6.2T.
Once again, you are full of bovine excrement and fake tea party financial mythology.
Also, the president authorizes no spending. The budget is the *SOLE* responsibility of congress. The president can make recommendations and veto budgets, but he cannot pass a budget or authorize spending.
There's plenty of reasons to trash Obama, but when you can't even post useful information, I have to wonder about anything else you post.
This is strike 2.
You've pointed out the great
You've pointed out the great weakness of Obama haters They waste their resources whining about his birth, trying to brand him with labels like "socialist" and "Kenyan" while ignoring real issues. What about his failure to stop the Republican bail out plan? What about not withdrawing from two counter-productive wars? What about the Guantanamo Bay prison?
There are many things he could have changed and did nothing. They should be bringing up the real issues, but maybe they just are not that smart or maybe they are so happy with his performance for them, they want to lose the election? That might be why they have only presented a crop of hopeless morons as candidates?
@James For me, BHO went from
@James For me, BHO went from the great hope to the great disappointment for many of the reasons you just cited and many others I won't bother to list. However, I will most likely vote for him again as the lesser of two evils given the crop of GOP candidates currently in the race.
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to decide who we can live with as president rather than who we really want in office...
Sadly, you are right again.
Sadly, you are right again. We are in the position of voting for religious reich morons or for someone that has failed to follow through on promises and has turned out to be no more than another ineffective political hack.
Will you please stop being right so often?
You are expecting that BHO
You are expecting that BHO will not be re-elected. Given the current crop of losers vying for the Republican nomination, that's an unwarranted assumption. As I said earlier, Obama is doing such a fine job for them, why should they bother spending the money to win?
You also ignore the fact that a large part of the spending was a result of the bailout and other programs of the Bush years. Really, exactly what has Obama done? You right-wing nuts always make lost of accusation and toss around stress words like "socialist" and Marxist" without having any idea what they mean.
All your comments have been nonsensical, totally unproven, and easily discredited. Daffy Duck could post better than you have.
It is perhaps because I know
It is perhaps because I know the meaning of socialism and Marxism that I have a clearer view of the problem. I have visited and Lectured in Northern Europe and Russia and have seen the blank stares of repressed and dejected people. People who look through you instead of in your eye because they are too afraid of what you might see in them and then tell others. People who must do what the Government says and believe what they spew to just stay alive. Perhaps you want to put Russia on your travel schedule and go and see for yourself the depravity of the Marxist state. It is easy to sit here in your dotage and pontificate but try validating and confirming your beliefs with real life experiences. Then let us all know your informed opinion. The problem with America is too many of its people speak without having learned how to listen. As Robert Benson wrote in "Intellectual Slavery", "Ignorance may be bliss, but it certainly is not freedom, except in the minds of those who prefer darkness to light and chains to liberty." Freedom removes the restraints but burdens the free with responsibility. To be free you must be responsible and that is all the "Tea Baggers" are saying.
Airdale
If you actually read anything
If you actually read anything by Marx, you would realize there never has been a Marxist state. Read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and you will get a completely different picture. Marx envisioned communism emerging from developed industrialized nations from organized labor. Also, the governments were to be pure democracies as well.
Russia was a totalitarian regime with a puppet electorate. The "revolution" was just an attempt to replace the monarchy. Russia was an underdeveloped agrarian nation in complete opposition to what Marx envisioned, and the resulting government was nowhere near what should have been called marxism.
So... we know you don't know the meanings of the words socialist or marxist except as slurs against anyone left of your politics.
Strike 3... you are without qualification, full of crap.
Again, you make excellent
Again, you make excellent points. To the right-wing reich, socialism, Marxism, and communism all all the same.
Yes, all of it has been nothing more than a way to replace whatever government was in place with a totalitarian regime disguised by slogans, rhetoric and wishful thinking.
FYI, there have always been
FYI, there have always been totalitarian states. Repressed peoples have always had the same blank stare. I don't believe you have done any of what you say. If you really understood socialism or Marxism you would know that there has not been a true Marxist or communist country anywhere in the world except for a few months after the 1917 Russian revolution. All the rest have been totalitarian dictatorships masquerading under the name of communism.
I have lived in Holland, Quebec, and now Brazil. In addition, I have traveled to many places around the world. Most recently on an extended tour of Europe, including northern areas such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Eastern European countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. You make many assumptions without proof and statements that belie your premise.
Furthermore, the most socialist countries in the world are Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. They also happen to have the highest standard of living, education, and most contented populations.
Furthermore, most of the things people like about the USA were branded as "socialist" when first proposed. Which of these are you willing to give up to "stamp out socialism"? Public schools, fire departments, police protection, paved roads, air traffic control, street signs, public parks, national wildlife preserves, government-mandated working hours, clean water and food, child labor laws, or maybe regulated airwaves and communications? Take your pick.
I make no assumptions and
I make no assumptions and offer no quater to ignorance or intellectual folly. Good-Bye.
Airdale
Yes, you did make assumption
Yes, you did make assumption about the election, of which you could have no possible foreknowledge and about me.
I knew you'd run with a set of feeble excuses. You've had your intellectual ass handed to you here so often I'm not surprised that you're running.
I've dealt with you mental and moral cowards so often your actions hold no surprises for me.
I challenged you to find one thing I have said that is not true. You can pretend that never happened, but you're only deluding yourself.
"Good-bye" Please! Other
"Good-bye" Please! Other than as target practice, you really haven't done anything but confirm that the Tea Party is full of idiots and pseudo-intellectuals.
Bachmann is a putz! We need
Bachmann is a putz! We need to keep slavery in the textbooks. Keep is as a grim reminder of how we were before. IT's certainly not a proud point in US history, but it is there nonetheless. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and whatnot.
Buzzword Bachmann really does seem to live in her own little fantasy world....
Why should anyone be
Why should anyone be surprised? Truth and reality have no place in the world of the Tea Party minds. I'm sure they will also want to amend all books to reflect that all of the founding fathers were christian fundamentalists, too.
That means they will somehow have to eradicate every instance of quotations from them showing that they were not. I think that task is far too big for such small minds.