Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

History Cllass Lies

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:06:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is perhaps evident that our indoctrination institutions bend the truth a little bit.

This has all been mentioned a bit in other threads, but here's a place to put them all.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"The New Deal was a success."

"The system of checks and balances ensures limited government."

"The Bill of Rights protects people's rights."

"Police are people who protect the peace."

"You are free."
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:18:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Correcting History Books, part I.
Abraham Lincoln:
http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.

In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."

http://www.mises.org...'s+Tariff+War <--Broken link
Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln's invasion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln wanted a bloody war and the reason he wanted it had little or nothing to do with slavery. As he stated over and over again, his overriding objective was to destroy once and for all the system of federalism and states' rights that the founding fathers had created as a check on the centralizing tendencies of the state. He didn't put it this way, of course, but instead used the deceptive language of "saving the Union." But holding any union together at gunpoint destroys it by destroying its voluntary and consensual nature.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:18:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Correcting History Books, part I.
Abraham Lincoln:
http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.

In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."

http://www.mises.org...'s+Tariff+War <--Broken link
Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln's invasion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Lincoln wanted a bloody war and the reason he wanted it had little or nothing to do with slavery. As he stated over and over again, his overriding objective was to destroy once and for all the system of federalism and states' rights that the founding fathers had created as a check on the centralizing tendencies of the state. He didn't put it this way, of course, but instead used the deceptive language of "saving the Union." But holding any union together at gunpoint destroys it by destroying its voluntary and consensual nature.

Indeed.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:21:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:14:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
"The New Deal was a success."

It was an epic fail. http://www.academia.org...

"The system of checks and balances ensures limited government."

Lol. It isn't enforced. See new "czar" program, for example.

"The Bill of Rights protects people's rights."

That isn't enforced either. See Schnekk vs. U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Police are people who protect the peace."

They enforce tyranny.

"You are free."

lol.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:21:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:14:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
"The New Deal was a success."

It was an epic fail. http://www.academia.org...

"The system of checks and balances ensures limited government."

Lol. It isn't enforced. See new "czar" program, for example.

"The Bill of Rights protects people's rights."

That isn't enforced either. See Schnekk vs. U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Police are people who protect the peace."

They enforce tyranny.

"You are free."

lol.

You're a moron.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:38:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
You're a moron.

What an intelligent reply. Namecalling is for the weak and intellectually defeated.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:39:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Still Lincoln:
http://dixieoutfitters.com...
The war was unconstitutional and the closing of over 300 Northern newspapers and suspension of habeas corpus that jailed 13,000 Northern civilians (including elected officials) is without parallel in our entire history! The Lincoln Administration repeatedly violated amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. By contrast Jefferson Davis closed not one paper nor jailed one citizen.

The Confederacy/Secession/The Civil War
Secession as a doctrine was asserted by both North and South (Massachusetts threatened to secede on three separate occasions). The abolitionists had also advocated secession. It was only after 1830 when the control of national politics by the North became permanent that secession became associated exclusively with the South. As a nation conceived in secession and built upon the principle that government is contingent on the consent of the governed the South, or any other section of the country for that matter was completely within principle to assert the right.

Had the South prevailed Robt. E. Lee would have undoubtedly been elected president (the Confederate Constitution limited the President to one six year term) and just as undoubtedly have taken immediate steps to free the slaves. This single act, proposed as it would have been by President Lee would have been accepted by the South and would have advanced race-relations light years.

While the war is now represented as an altruistic crusade by the North to free the slaves the historical facts could not be more contradictory. The 1860 Republican Convention contained a platform plank promising protection for slavery everywhere it currently existed. Lincoln at his first inaugural address offered a constitutional amendment forever protecting slavery. A Congressional Resolution in 1862 reaffirmed the war's aim was to "preserve the Union, not free the slave".

http://dixieoutfitters.com...
By the latter part of 1864 the CSA was moving toward ending slavery. In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would have ended slavery even if it had survived the war

Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face of imminent defeat. If so, this proves that Southern independence was more important to Confederate leaders than was the continuation of slavery, that when push came to shove they were willing to abandon slavery in order to achieve independence.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:39:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
You're a moron.

Your existence is an insult to mankind.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:41:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The New Deal didn't fail because of your Austrian School of Economics, broken window garbage.

Unemployment dropped in every year of FDR's first two terms, except for 1937 and 1938. FDR listened to conservatives and balanced the budget in 1937. The recession began in May of 1937. Roosevelt increased spending again in 1938. Unemployment proceeded to fall again. Also, the economy experienced an annual average growth of 5.2% under Roosevelt, the highest under any President. New Deal initiatives like the Glass-Steagall Act saved banks and protected them for many years to come. Immaturely calling the New Deal an "epic fail", does not make it so. Few economists back that claim. It's unfounded. You can downplay the benefits of the New Deal, but acting as if it failed entirely is a joke. The claim that it prolonged the Depression has been negated on numerous occasions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:48:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:45:06 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
Conservative revisionist history gets tiring.

Hold on. It took you ten minutes to recall something the Institution instilled in your mind.

Listen to the words of FDR's economic advisor:
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

He increased the national debt by over 1000% and prolonged the depression 7 years longer than it would have been without the New Deal.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:49:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:38:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
You're a moron.

What an intelligent reply. Namecalling is for the weak and intellectually defeated.

Yes, such wisdom. I was intellectually defeated by someone who said the New Deal was an "epic fail" and cited some free market hack to back him up. Your analysis was just overflowing with intelligence.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:49:17 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:38:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
You're a moron.

What an intelligent reply. Namecalling is for the weak and intellectually defeated.

Yes, such wisdom. I was intellectually defeated by someone who said the New Deal was an "epic fail" and cited some free market hack to back him up. Your analysis was just overflowing with intelligence.

Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:51:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Basically, you guys are looking at opinions and/or beliefs, then calling them "lies," then backing that up with someone *else's* opinions.

Great.

Also, who is enough of a fool to cite Schenck v. United States and then argue that the Bill of Rights is completely unregulated? We all know that the US effed up... oh, 80 years ago. Find something relevant.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:53:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.

That wasn't his only response.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:54:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let's get some economics into your head.

1. Jobs are the result of the investment of stock into people.
2. Stock is only invested into people if more stock will result.
3. Stock, a.k.a. money, is owned by the richest americans.
4. When you take stock away from these richest americans, then they have less stock to reinvest.
5. The result is a decrease in growth.

That's why you can't put a 90% tax on the top marginal bracket. That's why progressivism weakens the economy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:53:17 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.

That wasn't his only response.

That was the only response at the time of my reply, yes.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 6:57:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:54:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:53:17 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.

That wasn't his only response.

That was the only response at the time of my reply, yes.

...No? You quoted a post that was directly above yours; he explained his position in the last post of the first page.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:01:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:51:30 PM, iamadragon wrote:
Basically, you guys are looking at opinions and/or beliefs, then calling them "lies," then backing that up with someone *else's* opinions.

Great.

Pretty much. However, history is much more objective.

Also, who is enough of a fool to cite Schenck v. United States and then argue that the Bill of Rights is completely unregulated? We all know that the US effed up... oh, 80 years ago. Find something relevant.

That was just the first ammendment. The second ammendment is limited by regulations (we all know that).
Ammendment III is perhaps one of the few and the proud.
IV (search and seizure): A police officer can search your vehicle without consent.
V: Property is often siezed by local governments in the name of infrastructure and just compensation is never given.
VI: There is no such thing as an impartial jury.
VII: This has been followed, though the $20 is outdated.
VIII: Cruel and Unusual Punishment: See Douglas and his family after the Civil War.
IX: What a joke.
X: See loose interpretation.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:03:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:55:06 PM, iamadragon wrote:
I don't claim to know much about economics, but you left out where the "taken away stock" in step 4 goes.

It goes to jobs that do not create stock. This is why unemployment went down for a few years. The government had to keep taking a higher and higher percentage. It didn't work in the long run, as even this yielded a deficit. When the budget was balanced, the entire public employment system fell through.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:04:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:57:07 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:54:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:53:17 PM, iamadragon wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.

That wasn't his only response.

That was the only response at the time of my reply, yes.

...No? You quoted a post that was directly above yours; he explained his position in the last post of the first page.

Note the past tense in my statement.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:07:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Another lie: Global Warming will lead to Pacific Islands being flooded.

At least our teacher had the decency to add, "If Global Warming is true..."
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:08:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:48:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:45:06 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
Conservative revisionist history gets tiring.

Hold on. It took you ten minutes to recall something the Institution instilled in your mind.

Listen to the words of FDR's economic advisor:
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

He increased the national debt by over 1000% and prolonged the depression 7 years longer than it would have been without the New Deal.

The institution? I love your conspiratorial thinking. But no, the "institution" would tell me that Reagan was actually a good President, when he was truly awful. That is revisionist history. Sorry to break it to you.

Nice appeal to authority, but that's not true. The unemployment rate was 24.75% in 1933. It was 14.45% in 1940. Unemployment wasn't close. Try appealing to someone who actually has his facts right.

FDR actually had a lower annual deficit than both Reagan and Bush, both Presidents who didn't have to deal with an economic crisis anywhere close to the size of the crisis FDR dealt with. What's your source for the 1000% figure? And how much of that that debt was caused by WWII?

Saying it prolonged the Depression is an unfounded claim. You can point to a study a few years ago by two UCLA economists, who no one paid any attention to. It really doesn't prove much at all. Real GDP grew under FDR in his first term at about 9 percent annually. After the recession of 1937-1938, it grew at about 11 percent. Unemployment drastically dropped.

http://www.slate.com...
I don't know of any educational institutions that claim the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression. It didn't, entirely. But it helped spur growth and provide jobs for millions and millions of people while the economy was suffering.
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:08:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 7:01:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
IV (search and seizure): A police officer can search your vehicle without consent.

Is that unreasonable?

I also want to add that times have obviously changed. You can't expect, in today's day and age, policing forces to have to obtain some kind of warrant for everything.

Also, a side, personal note–who cares if your car is searched, unless you have something illegal, in which case I think the ends justify the means (though, I am, for the record, pro-marijuana legalization.)

VI: There is no such thing as an impartial jury.

OK... should it have not been mentioned then? Should we not work towards an ideal?

VIII: Cruel and Unusual Punishment: See Douglas and his family after the Civil War.

Nice job, answering a claim about an argument revolving around an event 80 years ago with an argument revolving around an event 150 years ago.

IX: What a joke.
X: See loose interpretation.

Thanks for that great argument. It's about on par with "you're a moron." Heck, probably worse.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:08:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:14:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
"The New Deal was a success."

It seemed to do well considering the circumstances the world was in at the time, at least in my opinion. It is just how you look at it, I suppose.

"The system of checks and balances ensures limited government."

I think you're using the term "limited" in the libertarian sense, not the sense in which most people infer from it, which is what the system of checks and balances ensures a justified government, as each sector is kept watch over by another in order to keep powers from flying out of control.

"The Bill of Rights protects people's rights."

It does protect people's rights, but some governments choose not to enforce what the Bill of Rights say.

"Police are people who protect the peace."

Anarchists always say this. It is actually very sad. You're off robbing someone, and the police stop you, and you cry "tyranny!" Give me a break.

Police can be used to enforce tyranny, but their main purpose is to enforce laws among the general populace, so citizens are safe from those that commit illegal activity, and think they can do whatever the f*ck they want.

"You are free."

One I can agree with, in a way. No one is "free" in the anarchist or libertarian sense of the word, but citizens of a country are "free" based on what freedoms they've fought for from the government.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:08:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:49:17 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:38:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/25/2009 6:35:00 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
You're a moron.

What an intelligent reply. Namecalling is for the weak and intellectually defeated.

Yes, such wisdom. I was intellectually defeated by someone who said the New Deal was an "epic fail" and cited some free market hack to back him up. Your analysis was just overflowing with intelligence.

Considering your only response was "You're a moron", you can't claim yours was any better.

I wasn't trying to sound intelligent with that response, obviously. And it was hyperbolic because I doubt I would actually waste time to talk to you if you were truly a moron.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:09:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:45:06 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
Conservative

Rezz is an anarchist, and I'm a neoliberal. You've got to be joking.

Conservatives get behind Lincoln. For example, Mark Levin.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2009 7:10:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/25/2009 6:54:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Let's get some economics into your head.

1. Jobs are the result of the investment of stock into people.
2. Stock is only invested into people if more stock will result.
3. Stock, a.k.a. money, is owned by the richest americans.
4. When you take stock away from these richest americans, then they have less stock to reinvest.
5. The result is a decrease in growth.

That's why you can't put a 90% tax on the top marginal bracket. That's why progressivism weakens the economy.

Jobs are the result of demand...