From: Brent on
On 2010-04-06, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Of course, are we really being protected? Good thieves know how to
> beat the system. Often such systems end up hurting the honest people.

Good thieves are the system.
The system is where they can operate with little to no fear of
conequences and with much greater rewards.


From: Brent on
On 2010-04-06, Honorable Mention <skycityretail(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> IMHO, the real goal of WWI was to destroy the American way of life.
> Before WWI we were much freer. Afterwards, we had an income tax and a
> central bank...both of which have wreaked havoc on our freedom and
> money.

The 19teens were a real turning point. A list of what comes from
1913-1919:
1) Federal Reserve. (which enables the wars)
2) Income tax.
3) War on drugs.(first drug laws passed)
4) Prohibition of alcohol.
5) Direct election of senators.

> The whole premise of why we were involved in WWI didn't make
> sense, and that was why. It was nothing but a perfect opportunity for
> the socialists to consolidate power.

The progressives... progressing towards total government.

> If not for what happened in WWI,
> the depression would have never happened...and yes, Brent, I am a big
> fan of the site you linked to earlier in this post though I disagree
> with them from time to time.

Over time I find myself disagreeing less and less.

> You must have to be pretty strong willed
> expressing libertarian views there in the furthest left corner of the
> west coast. Funny thing is I have to be just as strong willed here in
> the heart of Republican territory.

I'm not on the west coast, but one-party c(r)ook county IL
..
From: Free Lunch on
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Honorable Mention
<skycityretail(a)gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On Apr 6, 5:24�pm, Otto Yamamoto <o...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:49:12 -0700, Honorable Mention wrote:
>> > It was nothing but a perfect opportunity for the socialists to
>> > consolidate power.
>>
>> What? What 'socialists'? Care to name names?
>>
>> --
>> Otto Yamamoto
>
>They were nicknamed the "progressives" and the "progressive
>movement"...headed by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
>Wilson. Remember it had been over 60 years since Marx wrote his book.

Wilson and TR were very dissimilar. Neither had anything to do with
socialism, however. I realize that today's GOP does not want to be
reminded of this, but Lincoln and TR were Republicans. Wilson was a
racist Southerner of the old style Democrats, the ones that the GOP took
with their Southern Strategy.

From: Brent on
On 2010-04-07, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Honorable Mention
><skycityretail(a)gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>>On Apr 6, 5:24�pm, Otto Yamamoto <o...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:49:12 -0700, Honorable Mention wrote:
>>> > It was nothing but a perfect opportunity for the socialists to
>>> > consolidate power.
>>>
>>> What? What 'socialists'? Care to name names?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Otto Yamamoto
>>
>>They were nicknamed the "progressives" and the "progressive
>>movement"...headed by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
>>Wilson. Remember it had been over 60 years since Marx wrote his book.
>
> Wilson and TR were very dissimilar. Neither had anything to do with
> socialism, however. I realize that today's GOP does not want to be
> reminded of this, but Lincoln and TR were Republicans. Wilson was a
> racist Southerner of the old style Democrats, the ones that the GOP took
> with their Southern Strategy.

Only dissimilar from a two-party frame of reference. From a freedom vs.
the total state frame of reference they aren't all that far part.