An Appeal to the Intelligentsia

[Smackie Chan]

As most of you know, I’m not too smart. Smart people have lots of answers. Ask a smart person a question, and that person will confidently provide an answer that leaves little doubt about its correctness. The answer will be backed up by logic, facts, figures, and historical data that leave little room for argument (though there seems to plenty of room for it here on this board). Some of these intelligent folks even post here. I envy smart people, and wish I were among them.

But my intelligence is average, at best. This fact manifests itself by virtue of my having far more questions than answers. I sometimes think I don’t have an answer for anything. Just lots of questions. Even when provided with answers to my questions, I’m still confused, because seemingly intelligent folks often have contradictory answers. Who do I believe?

There are a number of reasons why I seldom post here anymore, one of which is my unwillingness to put my ignorance on display. Another is that this has turned primarily into a forum for political discussion, and I’m pretty clueless about such matters. I do read quite a bit of what gets posted here, and occasionally try to read other things so I can get all smart & stuff like most of you. But it just doesn’t seem to take. So I confine my involvement ‘round these parts to playing music for the handful of listeners who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy it.

I try to keep things simple. No sense in making matters more complicated than they already are. Sometimes issues can’t be simplified to the level I’d desire due to their inherent and intrinsic complexity. Physics is complex. Chemistry can be pretty complex. And apparently, so can politics and economics. But I’d like to see if you smart people can make them simple for me if I ask simple enough questions, although I’ll probably jump all over the place and not maintain a linear train of thought.

I’ll start with basic stuff. At the risk of oversimplification, there seems to be two elementary camps here with respect to political views, and I’ll refer to them as conservative & liberal. Before proceeding further with this discussion, I want to ensure the terms are being used correctly. The junior high school explanations for these two terms were, in essence, that conservative meant “resistant to change,” while liberal meant “progressive,” meaning that change is inevitable so it’s better to harness it and use it to societal advantage rather than resist it and suffer the consequences of not planning for what is sure to come. But these “definitions” are not how the terms are popularly used around here. More often, conservative refers to small central government, low taxes, pro-business, high levels of individual and states’ rights (with notable exceptions), and commensurately high levels of individual responsibility. Liberalism, conversely, is typically associated with larger Federal government, higher taxes to pay for more social services, high levels of different types of individual rights than those espoused by conservatives, corporate unfriendliness, robbing the rich to pay for the poor, relieving individuals of personal responsibility at a certain level by having government be responsible for minimizing the effects of poverty, and an emphasis on social equality. I know I’m guilty of oversimplifying and perhaps of being just flat out wrong (in which case I’m sure to be corrected in no uncertain terms), but I’ll continue based on these assumptions anyway.

Taking oversimplification a step further, common terms associated with those discussed above are capitalism and socialism. This gets a little trickier in my simple mind because capitalism is purely an economic philosophy, whereas socialism is more a hybrid of politics and economics. It’s certainly unfair and inaccurate to make the pure and absolute associations of conservative: capitalist and liberal: socialist, but it seems to be done with some degree of regularity here on the board, so I’ll just play along for simplicity’s sake.

An observation (perhaps incorrect) I’ve made is that those who align themselves squarely with the conservatives loathe, detest, and utterly despise anything having to do with liberalism and socialism. Their distaste for those concepts is palpable and unequivocal. Those who believe in these principles are considered mentally ill, terminally stupid, and downright un-American. While the lefties may have similar ill feelings toward those who lean more to the right, they just don’t express them with the same fervor or passion (except for maybe LTS TRN2 & TVO). It’s almost like they wish they could be conservative, but can’t bring themselves around to it. They neither embrace nor take pride in the “liberal” or “socialist” labels the way "conservatives" and "capitalists" do theirs (Marty & Phibes being the exceptions). Maybe there are good reasons for this. Perhaps Terry, Goober, Diego, Felix, Mikey, TVO, LTS TRN2, and other liberals can help me out here. Do you take pride in being liberal, and do you consider yourselves to be socialists?

On the subject of capitalism vs. socialism, I think we can all agree that the US is not a purely capitalist country. If a central aspect of socialism is redistribution of wealth and resources for functions other than national defense, law enforcement, and certain infrastructure-related expenditures, our country is at least in part socialist. Welfare (individual and corporate), food stamps, farm subsidies, public education, and the numerous other government programs funded through collection of taxes for redistribution to those considered to be in “need” are examples of deviations from a pure free-market capitalist society. This brings up a number of questions that I’m hoping our resident historians can answer. Were we ever a purely capitalist nation, and in theory, can a nation of pure capitalism exist for any length of time? If we were ever such a nation, what was the first act of government that sent us careening down the path of socialism? If it’s accepted (and I’m not saying it is) that pure free-market capitalism is unfeasible, impractical, and/or impossible to attain or sustain in a democratic republic, it seems to me that at least a minimal amount of socialism is not only desirable, but necessary. Is this subject to debate? If not, how much socialism is too much, how much is just right, how can it be accurately measured, and who should make the determination? It seems the answer to the last part of the question is that each individual has to decide what he/she believes is the right level, and that in a democracy the voters collectively have the final say. I know there is disagreement regarding whether everyone who currently has voting rights should have them, which invariably will lead to disagreement as to who should make the determination at the national level.

We hold the Constitution and the Founding Fathers who drafted and ratified it to be sacred. The FFs were considered to be some really smart guys who laid out a charter that, if followed, would result in a near-perfect union. To even question whether the men or the document they drafted could have been wrong is considered treasonous. Is it possible that with the benefit of what is now known after more than two centuries of scientific, political, social, and economic advancement, there might be individuals or groups who are smarter and better informed than the Founding Fathers, and who might disagree with what they wrote and be able to back their opinions with better reasoning and information than was available then? I just wonder sometimes if we hold onto ideals that may be outdated or obsolete for no other reason than the people who wrote them down have been deified, and that questioning them is heretical even though they’ve been dead for centuries. Kinda like Jesus. Or Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” that controls the free market. It all sounds good and looks good in print, but it doesn’t always translate well into reality. I realize the FFs and Jesus and Smith never promised that everything would be perfect (well, maybe Jesus did), but could open minds perhaps lead us closer to Utopia than blind faith in admittedly flawed and long-dead humans? (Of course, open minds could also lead us to certain destruction just as easily, I suppose.)

Economics is the study of choices individuals and groups make in an environment of scarce or limited resources. As Steven Wright says, “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” Politics, in large part, flows from economics. It’s kinda the decision-making arm of economics at the macro level. Given that, politics can be considered the art (as opposed to the science) of making tradeoffs. If resources were unlimited, there’d be no need to make tradeoffs. (Sin, MA) It sometimes seems that the choices we make as a nation are between ideals that are largely theoretical, and collective happiness that is based more in day-to-day reality. For instance, is it better to stick to our guns as it relates to abiding by the principles of individualism, freedom, and minimal governmental meddling, or to compromise some of those principles if the end result is that a significantly greater number of people would be “happier,” if this can be quantified? Just pulling arbitrary numbers out of my ass, would it be better for us as a nation if 80% of the population consistently said they were unhappy with the way government was being run, even if that government were strictly abiding by the Constitution, or to deviate from the Constitution if 80% of the population would be happy with the result? Would longer lives, lower infant mortality, free education (through grad school), and miniscule unemployment be worth sacrificing Constitutional principles? If not, why? Simply for the sake of idealism? Is there anything wrong with believing that the primary purpose of government is to foster a society in which the greatest number of people that have to exist within it is “happy” (however that is defined or measured)?

A quote that’s been cited more than once here is Margaret Thatcher’s “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (The actual quote is, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”) This has been applied to the current crisis in Greece, and seldom does anyone take exception to it or try to argue against its catholic truthfulness. But is it necessarily and always true? Can truly socialist economies and governments sustain themselves and in fact thrive? Can entrepreneurialism coexist with socialism, or are they diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive? Greece and other socialist countries can certainly be held up as examples of socialism’s failures, but can others be cited as examples of its success?

If you’ve made it this far into my post, you probably don’t mind doing a little reading, so I’d ask that you take a look at this article. It’s not from some left-wing rag like Mother Jones, but rather from Inc. magazine, a decidedly pro-business, right-leaning publication. Granted, there are significant socioeconomic and political differences between the US and Norway, and I’m not suggesting we’d be better off if we adopted their form of government. But it does give simple minds like mine something to think about, especially their general attitude regarding taxes, as does this. (“Inconceivable!”)

You’d think that after 200+ years of practicing our form of democracy, after ascending to, and remaining at, the apex of the planet‘s food chain economically, politically, scientifically, and militarily, and after creating baseball, jazz, and rock & roll, we’d be happier, more prosperous as individuals, and more unified. Instead, we have massive debt, overwhelming dissatisfaction with government (both major parties), high unemployment, a huge chasm of political and economic divisiveness, and a general sense of unhappiness. Our image of rugged individualism is one that’s more often seen as being puerile. (“I earned it so I deserve to keep it all to myself to do with as I see fit” = a toddler screaming “Mine! Mine! Mine!”) Can we expect things to get any better? I know the economy is cyclic and political winds often change direction, but I just get the sense we’re in a spiral from which it’ll be hard to fully escape. Are our days as a country to be more respected than feared and more envied than loathed numbered, or perhaps already behind us? (I know – who gives a fuck?)

Like I said, many questions, and no answers. Maybe you smart folks can educate me.

[Get fucked]

Get fucked.

[Van]

But my intelligence is average, at best. This fact manifests itself by virtue of my having far more questions than answers.

Quite the opposite is true, as I suspect you well know. The intelligent mind recognizes its lack of answers and always thirsts for more.

One interesting topic you brought up is the deification of the FFs and whether we ought now to look upon their ideas with open circumspection. Part of me says yes, absolutely we should, because we're dealing with a wholly different world than anything they ever could have imagined. Advances in technology have 'shrunk' this planet to a point of near-homogeneity, rendering America's erstwhile dominance obsolete. Another part of me looks upon our modern leadership (local, national, global) and sees nothing but self-serving hegenomy, stripping them of any moral authority. They are solely interested in CYA, not the betterment of, well...anything else. The FFs were much more purely altruistic in their basic desire to create a sustainable platform of correct governance unencumbered by today's multitude of submersive influences, which makes me tend to believe that their model is still the one we should always refer to when in doubt.

When we cannot trust the motivations of those who seek to change the rules, it would seem wise to maintain our faith in the efficacy of those rules.

I think what I'm trying to say is that Thomas Jefferson kicks Ruth Ginsburg's ass eight ways from Sunday, and I'd give Dins my vote for president long before I'd ever waste it on the assclowns we're given as 'options' now.

[Moving Sale]

I'm not a liberal. I do not believe in public education beyond the local level, I support gun rights, I loath the expansion of the Commerce Clause into civil rights and the like (if you want civil rights write them into the Constitution don’t just make them up), I don't believe in 'big' government in most instances (this dovetails into the CC discussion above), I believe in free markets (but also support Sherman anti trust laws), I am for drug legalization and I think hookers should be left alone, all right wing beliefs. I can see how you would think otherwise given the fact that I am usually beating the shit out of the GOP and its minions here on the board but they aren’t conservative which I think is your problem in the first place.

[Goober McTuber]

Smackie,

I don’t believe I’m a cut-and-dried liberal, but I do enjoy stirring up shit with the board’s right wingnuts. I totally agreed with Gov Walkers move to have public sector employees start contributing to their own retirement accounts. It just didn’t belong in the budget bill. I support the right to concealed carry which recently passed in Wisconsin. I believe that the US should strive to make its #1 export be illegal aliens.

I’m all for going after corporations that off-shore their jobs and their profits. I’m in favor of cutting government spending AND increasing taxes on the wealthy (a viewpoint shared by 2/3 of the population in a recent poll). I’m in favor of a woman’s right to choose, as well as capital punishment. I believe in legalizing drugs and prostitution. I’m quite lukewarm on the global warming issue.

Jesus Christ. I’m all over the board.

P.S. At least you’re smarter than Felix.

[Dinsdale]

which makes me tend to believe that their model is still the one we should always refer to when in doubt.

Let's not dally with opinions, and look at some facts:

The big models we have to look at in the socialist/communist realm (the freaks will try to differentiate, but they're essentially the same for this discussion) are the USSR, China, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc.

On the opposite side, we have the USA (although pre-LBJ USA is a better model).

The commies had to pass laws and take actions to keep people in their country, by force.

The USA has enacted laws and taken action to regulate those people from escaping to here unchecked.


Hmmm.... tough call, which system is better.

[Moving Sale]

The big models we have to look at in the socialist/communist realm (the freaks will try to differentiate, but they're essentially the same for this discussion) are the USSR, China, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc.

So western Europe is not full of Socialists? Gotcha.

[Dinsdale]

The big models we have to look at in the socialist/communist realm (the freaks will try to differentiate, but they're essentially the same for this discussion) are the USSR, China, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc.

So western Europe is not full of Socialists? Gotcha.

Where did I say that?

It certainly is full of them, but it's a much more short-term example. Not that even in its infancy, it isn't failing miserably, and should serve as a stark warning to anyone with a brain, but there's some pretty stupid motherfuckers out there.

FWIW, MS -- I've always seen you as pretty conservative, in the non-name-calling, tradition sense of the word.

[smackaholic]

I consider libertarian. Some think of this as anti-religious. I don't. The christers as a bunch really don't bother me because they really have very little effect over me. Hard core Socialist type tend to loathe religion, because they don't like the competition. They think they are smarter than you and they want to run your life for your own fukking good.

The social libs like JSC go after christers over abortion, birth control, and gay marriage. And it is fukking ridiculous.

Abortion-still legal

birf control-still legal

gay marriage-not legal, but who really gives a fukk? they do have civil union in most states and they certainly can have wills written up naming each other as executors. so, basically, they have marriage in every sense other than the word.

why don't liberals just do like hippies did back in the 60s. they can organize in communes all they want. trouble is, as magie thatcher pointed out, they'd run out of other's money right quick. in fact, they'd never have others money to begin with.

[BSmack]

gay marriage-not legal, but who really gives a fukk? they do have civil union in most states and they certainly can have wills written up naming each other as executors. so, basically, they have marriage in every sense other than the word.

Then what is the point in denying marriage to them?

[BSmack]

which makes me tend to believe that their model is still the one we should always refer to when in doubt.

Let's not dally with opinions, and look at some facts:

The big models we have to look at in the socialist/communist realm (the freaks will try to differentiate, but they're essentially the same for this discussion) are the USSR, China, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc.

On the opposite side, we have the USA (although pre-LBJ USA is a better model).

The commies had to pass laws and take actions to keep people in their country, by force.

The USA has enacted laws and taken action to regulate those people from escaping to here unchecked.

Hmmm.... tough call, which system is better.

You are comparing political systems not economic systems. People were not fleeing Soviet Bloc countries because they hated full employment and universal health care, they were fleeing because they hated living in a society where one could be thrown in a labor camp for 20 years because their neighbor denounced them. Tell me you knew?

[Derron]

which makes me tend to believe that their model is still the one we should always refer to when in doubt.

Let's not dally with opinions, and look at some facts:

The big models we have to look at in the socialist/communist realm (the freaks will try to differentiate, but they're essentially the same for this discussion) are the USSR, China, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc.

On the opposite side, we have the USA (although pre-LBJ USA is a better model).

The commies had to pass laws and take actions to keep people in their country, by force.

The USA has enacted laws and taken action to regulate those people from escaping to here unchecked.

Hmmm.... tough call, which system is better.

You are comparing political systems not economic systems. People were not fleeing Soviet Bloc countries because they hated full employment and universal health care, they were fleeing because they hated living in a society where one could be thrown in a labor camp for 20 years because their neighbor denounced them. Tell me you knew?

I am guessing that sub standard housing, lack of food, no personal transportation, dead end factory jobs, lack of access to consumer goods played no role in the downfall of the socialism you libs all seem to embrace so much.

[BSmack]

I am guessing that sub standard housing, lack of food, no personal transportation, dead end factory jobs, lack of access to consumer goods played no role in the downfall of the socialism you libs all seem to embrace so much.

Again, all symptoms of the totalitarian political system. We see the same thing in the DPRK. I don't embrace totalitarian control of anything. I do embrace the idea of the state acting in the best interest of ALL citizens and stepping in to provide essential services outside the traditional "invisible hand" of the market.

[Bizzarofelice]

I believe in free markets

do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

[smackaholic]

Again, all symptoms of the totalitarian political system. We see the same thing in the DPRK. I don't embrace totalitarian control of anything. I do embrace the idea of the state acting in the best interest of ALL citizens and stepping in to provide essential services outside the traditional "invisible hand" of the market.

I will never understand why libs have some fantasy that "the state" will act in the best interest of all citizens.

First off, even if it actually did, how could it possibly know the best interest of all?

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

It's not.

It is a collection of asswipes that will inevitably end up taking care of themselves and their cohorts. It is just simple human nature.

The whole commie socialist idea sounds good till you accept the fact that humans, like all other creatures look out for number one. Which is why it fails every time it's tried. How many Stalins or Maos do you need to see before you get this?

[DC Smackmaster]

First of all, Mr. Chan, I am pm'ing you my address with which you will promptly send me a generously sized tube of Preparation H to treat the 'roid that is surely to follow the reading of your lengthy post while on the shitter.

Now, I would like to respond to your questions succinctly utilizing a quote I believe to be attributed to Thomas Jefferson. "USA! USA! THESE COLORS DONT RUNNNN!"

Thanks for reminding me how fucking uneducated I am Smackie. No, really! I'll be over here smelling my toenail clippings if you guys need me.

DC OUT!

[BSmack]

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

The state is as benevolent or malevolent as the people allow it to be.

[smackaholic]

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

The state is as benevolent or malevolent as the people allow it to be.

Bullfukkingshit.

[Diego in Seattle]

Corporations are much more benevolent.

Sin,
Wal-Fart employees

[Derron]

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

The state is as benevolent or malevolent as the people allow it to be.

Your kidding right ?

The state has taken over in too many forms. The people will not allow it to be this way too much longer..

Viva la Revolution !

[mvscal]

This brings up a number of questions that I’m hoping our resident historians can answer. Were we ever a purely capitalist nation, and in theory, can a nation of pure capitalism exist for any length of time? If we were ever such a nation, what was the first act of government that sent us careening down the path of socialism? If it’s accepted (and I’m not saying it is) that pure free-market capitalism is unfeasible, impractical, and/or impossible to attain or sustain in a democratic republic, it seems to me that at least a minimal amount of socialism is not only desirable, but necessary. Is this subject to debate?

That would depend on what you mean by "purely capitalist." If you equate pure capitalism with free market capitalism, then the answer is no. Free market capitalism is a mirage. It does not exist and never has existed. It is a theoretical ideal nothing more. When there are no more tariffs and subsidies and there are standardized labor laws on a global basis, we can revisit the topic of free markets.

[Smackie Chan]

That would depend on what you mean by "purely capitalist." If you equate pure capitalism with free market capitalism, then the answer is no.

If I don't equate the two, what would be an alternate definition?

Free market capitalism is a mirage. It does not exist and never has existed. It is a theoretical ideal nothing more. When there are no more tariffs and subsidies and there are standardized labor laws on a global basis, we can revisit the topic of free markets.

So a true free market can only exist through global cooperation - a global economy? Maybe my spreadsheet is in need of updating, but haven't you railed against such a notion? It sounds like you're not necessarily in favor of it now, but rather saying that it can never exist so there's no sense in discussing it. Is that a fair assessment?

I'm more interested in your take on socialism, which in general I know you vehemently oppose. Does every government necessarily have to include some elements of socialism, and is your position that we as a nation have incorporated too much of it? What would constitute a desirable level? Can a democratic capitalist country be completely devoid of any traces of socialism?

[War Wagon]

So I confine my involvement ‘round these parts to playing music for the handful of listeners who, for whatever reason, seem to enjoy it.

And for that, this listener thanks you and puts you on his "guys I would buy shitty beers for until they puke" list.

It's a short list.
.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I just come here for the late-breaking news. And SCAT pics.

[mvscal]

That would depend on what you mean by "purely capitalist." If you equate pure capitalism with free market capitalism, then the answer is no.

If I don't equate the two, what would be an alternate definition?

You could define it by the degree of economic freedom in a political system.

Free market capitalism is a mirage. It does not exist and never has existed. It is a theoretical ideal nothing more. When there are no more tariffs and subsidies and there are standardized labor laws on a global basis, we can revisit the topic of free markets.

So a true free market can only exist through global cooperation - a global economy?

In effect, yes. Free market trading only works when everyone is playing by the same set of rules. Our nation was created with free markets in mind in our internal commerce and even then it isn't a perfectly free market. The only proper function of the commerce clause is to ensure the maximum freedom of markets in commerce between the states.

Maybe my spreadsheet is in need of updating, but haven't you railed against such a notion? It sounds like you're not necessarily in favor of it now, but rather saying that it can never exist so there's no sense in discussing it. Is that a fair assessment?

No, it isn't a fair assement. I do not and have never supported free trade on an international basis. My philosophy would be more accurately described as mercantilist. I believe the most direct path to prosperity lies in protecting American markets in favor of American business and American labor. International trade is best negotiated between sovereign nations not consortiums of global corporations.

I'm more interested in your take on socialism, which in general I know you vehemently oppose. Does every government necessarily have to include some elements of socialism,

At the bottom line, socialism represents a drag on economic growth. You are redirecting revenue from productive sectors of the economy to unproductive sectors. The question isn't whether or not it is necessary but whether or not it can be afforded. At best, socialism is an indulgence that can be afforded by only the wealthiest of nations and even then not indefinitely.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

The state is as benevolent or malevolent as the people allow it to be.

State power is by it's very nature coercive. Whether it's the twist-you-arm coercion or the Leninist* barrel-of-a-gun coercion is irrelevant.


* That's right, Phibes. Suck on that.

[BSmack]

And you use the term "the state" as if it is some sort of benevolent entity.

The state is as benevolent or malevolent as the people allow it to be.

State power is by it's very nature coercive. Whether it's the twist-you-arm coercion or the Leninist* barrel-of-a-gun coercion is irrelevant.

* That's right, Phibes. Suck on that.

It is of course coercive. But only to a point. Witness the Governor of Virginia caving on the point of trans-vaginal ultrasounds. The problem is that the people are too slow to anger.

[Goober McTuber]

Marty,

I don't know if you noticed, but the thread topic is "An Appeal to the Intelligentsia". suckaholic has already weighed in. Your participation is no longer necessary.

[Dr_Phibes]

If we were ever such a nation, what was the first act of government that sent us careening down the path of socialism?

Probably Alexander Hamilton realising that he couldn't compete with the British Army, without the funds to maintain an effective force of regulars. The ideals of the 'Founders' were instantly jettisoned for practical reality.

I've read your post twice and it's funny, H.G. Wells had a brief debate with Stalin in 1934 and touched on every subject you just have, it's eerie (you're in good company). There's nothing new under the sun, it might well have been last week.

[mvscal]

Probably Alexander Hamilton realising that he couldn't compete with the British Army, without the funds to maintain an effective force of regulars.

Of course. That explains why, in 1939, the United States had a smaller army than Romania. Oh wait, it doesn't. However, it does explain that you're a clueless idiot.

[Dr_Phibes]

truth hurts

[mvscal]

Or that time during WW1 when we were instantly able to hurl an enormous, fully equipped and highly trained expeditionary force to the aid of our allies in Europe...oh, wait. That didn't happen either. It was a huge clusterfuck.

Of course those who know anything at all about US history understand that the only time in US history that we have maintained a standing army that was worth even half of a fuck has been during the post WW2 era.

[Dr_Phibes]

Well I was thinking more of the first example of socialism in the US. Taxation, stealing other people's money, big government, nanny state gone crazy. British troops performed because they actually got paid, Britain's credit was impeccable. Bearded bums vs grenadiers didn't work out very well, you learned quick.

[mvscal]

National defense isn't an example of socialism. Try again.

[BSmack]

Well I was thinking more of the first example of socialism in the US. Taxation, stealing other people's money, big government, nanny state gone crazy. British troops performed because they actually got paid, Britain's credit was impeccable. Bearded bums vs grenadiers didn't work out very well, you learned quick.

Do they teach the American Revolution in Canada?

The Continental Congress floated the revolution on a sea of debt that would make our current regime green with envy. To the very end soldiers were paid in worthless script that was only backed by a promise of land ownership should the Americans win. Of course when they did win that promise was promptly reneged on. The troops were so pissed off that a man named Daniel Shays led a full on rebellion to try to get back pay. And the grievance was so obvious that Shays was allowed by the authorities to live the rest of his days in a little town called Sparta in Western NY as opposed to be hung by the neck until dead. As for the debt incurred by the Continental Congress and bought up by speculators at pennies on the dollar? Of course that was paid in full.

[Dr_Phibes]

Do they teach the American Revolution in Canada?

Hence the introduction of taxation?

This is a loaded topic, all Smackie's definitions are opened to debate, no one can agree on a starting point. And yes we are taught the revolution, but it falls under British history. Franklin was a lying cunt who could have had representation if he wanted it and you're treacherous, self-serving, assholes who wouldn't pay your fucking bills and dressed it up in high-minded language.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

If yer a Bible believing person, it took exactly 4 people on the planet, before one could not stand the other, and Cain slew Able. Now,with 7 billion?????????

Being satisfied with one's self leads to peace. But........

We want what the other one has, and then, making sure only 'you' has power. Not nice, but true.

And I seriously doubt Smackie wrote the first post.

He sold missile systems to the US govt. And NOW is whining?

Doubtful.

PS - Try copying just a few lines of the first post, and you will see where it all came from. Some of "us" are smart.

[R-Jack]

You want someone else to check Smakie's post to prove what you are claiming?

Do it yourself asshole. Are you 1/16th lazy fuck too?

[Smackie Chan]

And I seriously doubt Smackie wrote the first post.

He sold missile systems to the US govt.

I did? (Assuming this is REALLY me) When? How much did I make off the deal?

And NOW is whining?

Asking questions is considered whining? That wasn't really where I was going with what I (allegedly) posted, but if that's how you interpreted it, I guess I'm a whiner.

Try copying just a few lines of the first post, and you will see where it all came from.

You're saying I plagiarized? Link me up to the source where I stole the material.

Some of "us" are smart.

I know. You're the first poster I thought of when I mentioned smart people.

[Goober McTuber]

If yer a Bible believing person, it took exactly 4 people on the planet, before one could not stand the other, and Cain slew Able.

Bullshit. There were at least six, maybe seven. Cain and Abel each had twin sisters. They were supposed to marry each other’s twin, but Cain wanted to marry his own twin because she was the hotter of the two. Their sacrifices to God were to determine who was right. When God decided that Abel’s sacrifice rocked and Cain’s sucked, Cain saw the writing on the wall and whacked Abel, thinking he would get all of Abel’s stuff, including the hot sister. Didn’t work out that way.