Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the vibe you want it to give off, you continue to tell lies like this because it's what you are desperate for other people to believe. You, like many others are desperate to continue the lie that the GOP is 100% old white men who are inherently evil... well because they're old white men and according to people like you old white men have to be evil.
Seriously, it's pathetic. The only people who believe your lies believed them long before you told them and they already support your agendas so save your breath.
Again save it. Your "side" paints democrats are takers, un American and various other negative terms so both sides work pretty hard to cast each other negatively. You and democrats are the same coin, different side, nothing more.
Yes they act like a european royal family all they way down to their inbred incestreous ways.
WASP circles both north, south, west, etc.. all over the USA at that time tended to know and marry each other. This included cousins long as they were removed enough from prohibited degrees of affinity but not always as first cousins did often marry.
One must remember the world of these persons was very small, you were either one of *THEM* or you were not. Thus chances for meeting, dating and finding suitable marriage partners was limited. For females especially this was very true for several reasons. So yes on balance the American "royalty" or nobility acted like the Europeans.
However just as with Great Britain and Europe money talks. At first the Carnegies and other "new" money families whose fortunes were fresh from industry were shunned by the likes of the Astors and Roosevelts however the vast and often substantial dowries these daughters of the "nouveau riche" brought with them often made up for any social short comings. This became more true as the United States and European economies began to go through the industrial revolution and vast fortunes rose up from the "lower orders" often at time when those once on top saw theirs declining.
The other reason for cousins marrying was purely economic; it kept not just the name but wealth in the family. No small thing when at the time all a girl/woman had (or was to receive in future) became her husband's upon marriage.
Huh? "Regressives?" Who is regressing but the so-called "progressives," who are trying to revive the failed Marxist/socialist ideology of the last century. We defeated those people in WWII, didn't we? They were slaughtering millions to further their ideology.
There is nothing new about "progressivism," and in terms of the history of man and government, it is certainly not "progress," but the exact opposite.
Freedom, liberty, and self government are still the newest idea under the sun, and it works very well, if we maintain the limited government that our Founders established under our Constitution. It is the so-called "progressives" that are destroying Liberty. How is that "progress?" Please tell me.
Hitler and the Japanese weren't socialists... You're thinking of the Korean War and the Cold War.
You and your ilk paint progressivism in a vacuum. The Gilded Age wasn't just an American phenomenon, but a global one in which the capitalism of the time was producing great inequality. Modern progressivism was a result of this rising inequality and social disorder. Much like our founding fathers progressivism was a consequence from the enlightenment in Europe over monarchies and religion.
Welfare is the result of capitalism's consequences, we no longer live in a rural, agrarian age where the poor could feed and produce for themselves by living off the land and bartering.
FDR was a total jerk for imprisoning the Japanese Americans during the War.
Agreed. But Americans of German and Italian family were NOT locked up. It was def "racism" by FDR since even the "1 drop rule" applied to White or Black people with 1/4 or more Japanese or was it 1/8 in their heritage?
The redistributionists don't see it as theft, because they think that those who are rich have gotten their wealth by exploiting others, or through illegal means. (Which makes me wonder what they think of the many wealthy in their own camp?)
"Progressives" seek to make everyone equal. It's an old idea that has been tried over and over again throughout the history of man and governments. It has always failed, usually ending in war.
Making all people and all things equal sounds like a good idea until you realize that in order for it to work (and it doesn't really work) you must give up your individualism, your Liberty. You must become subservient to the elites, the so-called "experts" in high places, who will determine the needs of not only the nation, but of individuals.
But the know nothings, excuse me, "experts," have no way of responding adequately to changing needs of an economy in the way a free market capitalist system does, which automatically adjusts to real world situations, because the market is what determines needs. And the "experts" have no regard for your individual needs at all. Just look what's happening in medicine and medical care already, under Obamacare:
No, the constitution was never intended to be a living document open for interpretation as times changed. That is merely the liberals' justification for not following it.
It doesn't even make rational sense to hold that view. That view essentially says that the constitution was written with the intention that it not be followed. It's flat out illogical.
It's like saying the speed limit isn't really 55. That's just a suggestion of how fast you can go, so I'm interpreting the sign saying 55 to mean 75 at this time.
The constitution has an amendment process built in. If you want to do something other than what the constitution says, then you amend it. You don't call it a "living document open for interpretation".
Sure it was, or it wouldn't be so vague. Plus a rigid constitution is a stupid idea anyways, this is an adapt or die world. The Founders lived in an agrarian, rural times where America had very little power, why would anyone want to stick to those ideals in a changing world.
Agreed. But Americans of German and Italian family were NOT locked up. It was def "racism" by FDR since even the "1 drop rule" applied to White or Black people with 1/4 or more Japanese or was it 1/8 in their heritage?
Lets not forget the Japanese actually attacked us and dealt a major blow to our navy.... That probably fueled a lot of anger and suspicion, more so than the Germans and Italians, towards the Japanese. Not to mention, much of the German war atrocities weren't found out until late in the war.
Hitler and the Japanese weren't socialists... You're thinking of the Korean War and the Cold War.
You and your ilk paint progressivism in a vacuum. The Gilded Age wasn't just an American phenomenon, but a global one in which the capitalism of the time was producing great inequality. Modern progressivism was a result of this rising inequality and social disorder. Much like our founding fathers progressivism was a consequence from the enlightenment in Europe over monarchies and religion.
Welfare is the result of capitalism's consequences, we no longer live in a rural, agrarian age where the poor could feed and produce for themselves by living off the land and bartering.
Those unleashed forces of capitalism are still being grappled with today and given the recent financial and economic upheavals worldwide the matter is far from settled.
The Industrial Revolution let loose a process that is still on going; that is technology continues to advance and change not only the labour market, but by extension society over all as well.
Back then it was the fate of farmers, manual laborers, and others who saw their means of earning a living vanish as they were made redundant by machines. More still economies moved into two main camps of labour markets; skilled and or highly educated and unskilled and or not. The latter continues to see declines in their standard of living while greater shares of the economic pie are going to the former. The question is what or even should governments do to address the situation.
In a radical departure for his time from his class TR believed government ought to work for everyone and not just those at the top, what we would call the "one percent" today. This concept was simply alien and even considered dangerous to many in a nation spoon fed the beliefs of the Protestant Work Ethic since birth. A person's lot in life was a direct result of their own efforts and on no account except under dire circumstances should government interfere. Even when it did such actions should be limited and not overly generous. TR and the progressives believed if someone was willing to work give them a hand and not use it to slap them down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
