History repeats itself

[stanleyg]

President Abraham Lincoln tolerated the Southern Confederate Rebel Soldiers and/or their loyalists et al. to join our Northern Union (i.e. Federal Government).

 

However, these Johnny Reb traitors have gone underground to concoct secret code names (e.g. moral majority or right wing etc. ) to over throw our libertarian form of democracy.

 

Their political coup hinges upon dividing our Christian voters by exploiting morality politics (e.g. abortion, capital punishment or same-sex marriages etc.). As such, their campaign organizers entice preachers to propagate the Ten Commandments to proselyte new members to join their political coup to over throw our government.

 

Their feud begin over the Articles of Confederation (AOC). The AOC was ratified by our Second Continental Congress in 1776. The Philadelphia Convention met in 1787 to repeal their AOC and ratify our United States Constitution (USC) in 1778.

 

Almost one century later the Confederation and/or Democratic Party seceded from the Union to fight the Republican Party over a dispute regarding State sovereignty. The latter lead to our American Civil War . The Republican Party won the war. After the war, loyalists of the Democratci Party pushed through legislation of the Thirteenth Amendment that outlawed slavery for private citizens, yet legalized our Union to operate slavery as punishment for crime.

 

The Democratic Party under the leadership of a lawyer President Woodrow Wilson pushed through the Eighteeth Amendment Prohibition against Alcohol as a shrewd manuver to gain political control of the House and Senate. The Prohibition boost the revenue of criminal lawyers. It created a black market to enslave ethnic groups (e.g. Italian or African American et al.). Their Prohibition escalated gang violence, prison overcrowding and massive deficits in our Union budget.

 

The Republican Party under the leadership of humanitarian President Herbert Hoover pushed through the twenty-first Amendment to abolish the Prohibition.

 

The latter terminated the black market for bootleg liquor. Gangs lost their primary resource of revenue and begin to die out. Public safety was restored. The necessity for police or criminal lawyers diminished. Prison population begin to decline. Our Union rolled back its massive deficits.

 

Under strong political pressure by racial riots of the Civil Rights Movement and libertarians, who were opposed to the Vietnam War, Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson was compelled to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The conservatives of the Democratic and the libertarians of the Republican Parties defected their loyalties.

 

The Diehard Democrats formed the Dixiecrat Party under Senator Strom Thurmond. It grew defunct due to its radical or racial ideologies. It's loyalists merged over into the Republican Party as the Moral Majority.

 

In 1971 Republican President Richard M. Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Thirty five years later the Rebels have our Union back on the run. Gang violence, prison overcrowding and massive deficits have buried our Union. The War in Iraq has become our new Vietnam. History has repeated itself.

[C1ay]

In 1971 Republican President Richard M. Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Thirty five years later the Rebels have our Union back on the run. Gang violence, prison overcrowding and massive deficits have buried our Union. The War in Iraq has become our new Vietnam. History has repeated itself.

One example of your errors:

Harry Anslinger is regarded as the first drug czar, appointed in 1930. This predates Nixon by quite a few years. His legacy is the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Even your own link to the war on drugs claims that it started in 1880 when the U.S. and China signed a trade agreement prohibiting the transfer of opium between the two countries.

 

BTW, the rest of your post looks like troll bait. Much of it looks like unsupported personal opinion, instead of fact, designed to disrupt the forum with partisan mudslinging. One does not report history with such biased, unobjective color so, even if you are trying to pass this off as historical political science, it is not. Take your bait elsewhere.

[stanleyg]

One example of your errors:

Harry Anslinger is regarded as the first drug czar, appointed in 1930. This predates Nixon by quite a few years. His legacy is the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Even your own link to the war on drugs claims that it started in 1880 when the U.S. and China signed a trade agreement prohibiting the transfer of opium between the two countries.

 

BTW, the rest of your post looks like troll bait. Much of it looks like unsupported personal opinion, instead of fact, designed to disrupt the forum with partisan mudslinging. One does not report history with such biased, unobjective color so, even if you are trying to pass this off as historical political science, it is not. Take your bait elsewhere.

You talk very rude to me for exercising my freedom of speech. So, I guess it's fair game that I talk rude back.

 

You are an idiot if you can't see that the history of the Prohibition or Vietnam isn't parallel to the War on Drugs or the War in Iraq et al.

 

Our communities across the United States are suffering from gang violence. A moron should see that outlawing contraband drugs revived the black market for gangs to accrue revenue for expansion.

 

You may be a Confederate and have become pissed off at me for exposing your political party's coup to over throw our government.

 

If you were loyal to the United States Flag, then you would be thankful that I am alerting our nation to expose these traitors.

 

So, I would appreciate it very much if you discontinue bashing and/or inflaming me as a registered member of this forum. If you, can't reply to my thread without attacking me, then don't reply at all.

 

I haven't invaded anyone's thread to attack anyone at anytime. I merely state my opinion and leave others along.

[C1ay]

You talk very rude to me for exercising my freedom of speech. So, I guess it's fair game that I talk rude back.

Let's get something straight here. The U.S. Constitution says.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

There is no protection of or right of free speech here in this private forum. We make and interpret the rules here. This is a science site and we are not going to have trolls passing through sowing their baiting opinions, period.

 

You are an idiot....

Childish juvenile name calling is out of line as well and considering the fact that you have not received one single positive point of reputation for contributing here, you are banished. You are through wasting our bandwidth and our time with your lack of science contributions. Goodbye!

[Boerseun]

Take that, *******!

 

Awww maaaan - I missed all the fun again!

 

C1ay - remind me never to antagonize you... :hihi:

[Freddy]

President Abraham Lincoln tolerated the Southern Confederate Rebel Soldiers and/or their loyalists et al. to join our Northern Union (i.e. Federal Government).

 

However, these Johnny Reb traitors have gone underground to concoct secret code names (e.g. moral majority or right wing etc. ) to over throw our libertarian form of democracy.

 

Their political coup hinges upon dividing our Christian voters by exploiting morality politics (e.g. abortion, capital punishment or same-sex marriages etc.). As such, their campaign organizers entice preachers to propagate the Ten Commandments to proselyte new members to join their political coup to over throw our government.

 

Their feud begin over the Articles of Confederation (AOC). The AOC was ratified by our Second Continental Congress in 1776. The Philadelphia Convention met in 1787 to repeal their AOC and ratify our United States Constitution (USC) in 1778.

 

Almost one century later the Confederation and/or Democratic Party seceded from the Union to fight the Republican Party over a dispute regarding State sovereignty. The latter lead to our American Civil War . The Republican Party won the war. After the war, loyalists of the Democratci Party pushed through legislation of the Thirteenth Amendment that outlawed slavery for private citizens, yet legalized our Union to operate slavery as punishment for crime.

 

The Democratic Party under the leadership of a lawyer President Woodrow Wilson pushed through the Eighteeth Amendment Prohibition against Alcohol as a shrewd manuver to gain political control of the House and Senate. The Prohibition boost the revenue of criminal lawyers. It created a black market to enslave ethnic groups (e.g. Italian or African American et al.). Their Prohibition escalated gang violence, prison overcrowding and massive deficits in our Union budget.

 

The Republican Party under the leadership of humanitarian President Herbert Hoover pushed through the twenty-first Amendment to abolish the Prohibition.

 

The latter terminated the black market for bootleg liquor. Gangs lost their primary resource of revenue and begin to die out. Public safety was restored. The necessity for police or criminal lawyers diminished. Prison population begin to decline. Our Union rolled back its massive deficits.

 

Under strong political pressure by racial riots of the Civil Rights Movement and libertarians, who were opposed to the Vietnam War, Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson was compelled to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The conservatives of the Democratic and the libertarians of the Republican Parties defected their loyalties.

 

The Diehard Democrats formed the Dixiecrat Party under Senator Strom Thurmond. It grew defunct due to its radical or racial ideologies. It's loyalists merged over into the Republican Party as the Moral Majority.

 

In 1971 Republican President Richard M. Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Thirty five years later the Rebels have our Union back on the run. Gang violence, prison overcrowding and massive deficits have buried our Union. The War in Iraq has become our new Vietnam. History has repeated itself.

 

 

First, you need to get your history correct before worrying whether it repeats or not. The Articles of Confederation were "agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781", not in 1776. Look it up on your own link!

 

Race riots occurred in LA in August 1965, Chicago 1966, Detriot and 40 other cities in 1967 long after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Not sure how these race riots after the fact could have caused later Congressional Acts. Now, if you are talking about the Selma civil rights march in March of 1965 it had some influence on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Montgomery civil rights bus boycott of 1955 was a cause for the cited legislation. Also, US ground troops landed in Vietnam in March of 1965 when most Americans supported the war and LBJ.

 

Gangs or the mob did not die out after Prohibition they just got into other businesses, such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, and protection.

[LaurieAG]

Let's get something straight here.

 

Childish juvenile name calling is out of line as well and considering the fact that you have not received one single positive point of reputation for contributing here, you are banished. You are through wasting our bandwidth and our time with your lack of science contributions. Goodbye!

 

Does that go the same for people who use childish juvenile fake html tabs?

[HydrogenBond]

Although some of the dates and data may be a little off, the point remains that history often does repeat itself. People who don't learn from history make the same mistakes again and again One of the first documented lessons of mankind was that prohibition creates temptation and tempation causes loss of innocence. God set the prohibition, this tempted Eve, who then manipulates Adam (her loss of innoscence causes Adam then to lose his innoscence). The lawmaker got pissed and increased the level of violence against his two citizens. Without the prohibition the whole story would not have turned out the way it did. They would still be in paradise (living a normal life).

 

In a free culture, when govenment forces you do something, politically expediment, without good solid logic, it becomes almost patriotic to resist the tyranny. But the resistance of tyranny, often causes one to do things outisde what they would do if the tyranny was not in place. This makes the tyrants even more angry, causing the tyrannts to up the ante and the resistance to resist harder and tougher.

 

With the alcohol prohibition, the tyrannts in their quest for power created a prohibition, i.e, pea brain polititians getting maximum impact. This was resisted by free society patriots who wanted to be treated free just like the constitution promises. The resistance esculated and the violence and crime increased turning many of the patriots into tyrannts. The primary tyrannts then increased their strong arm tactics to defend against the esculating situation they had created, but were too stupid to see.

 

When the tyrannts loss their law, i.e.. repealed, the whole cycle of tyranny and resistance slowly disappeared. The patriots had nothing to fight about and went back to life as usual, But the tyrannt polititians looked for new angles for politcal tyranny. Then came the MJ laws a few years, with the idiot polititians not learning from history. Maybe they did learn that the fastest way to power is tyranny.

 

The modern democrats have created more prohibitions in food, smoke, language, etc. (anti free speak and anti pursuit of happiness). They learned from history that tyranny is a way to power but are blinded to the social cost to its citizens.

[alexander]

Sorry, could not go by this, some of your points, HydrogenBond. I mean don't get me wrong, you are a real cool guy and all, but some of this stuff :beer: made me laugh

 

Although some of the dates and data may be a little off, the point remains that history often does repeat itself.

Is that not just stating the obvious?

 

People who don't learn from history make the same mistakes again and again

Most people generally learn from the past because throughout our evolution it was the skill that made us as a species stay alive, between that and figuring some things out, and we made ourselves a living... there are a few more species that are suspected or known to learn from the past (talking unhuman-like), one that intrigues me lately is the African Cape Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), but there are quite a few more...

 

One of the first documented lessons of mankind was that prohibition creates temptation and tempation causes loss of innocence. God set the prohibition, this tempted Eve, who then manipulates Adam (her loss of innoscence causes Adam then to lose his innoscence). The lawmaker got pissed and increased the level of violence against his two citizens. Without the prohibition the whole story would not have turned out the way it did. They would still be in paradise (living a normal life).

Bible != reliable or trustworthy historical source... Was written by ancient people that wanted a way to control other people, and since has been rewritten, incorrectly translated and modified by the churches to keep their people in order.

 

Think about it, Adam and Eve live in a paradise land, alone, with nobody around, no paper or ink, and who is there to document all this? And then they get kicked out by God because Eve screwed up by eating an apple and talking to a snake, and Adam's fault is in gaving into the provocation of the provider of his nookie? (shrooms, cannabis, wild desert flowers or something... whatever it was, must be real high or tripping pretty hard to write something like this, i would think.)

 

Why don't you then provide a similar excerpt from Gilgamesh, it was written 4000 years before the bible and bears very similar stories..? the earliest documented....

 

How about another viable, historical example?

 

In a free culture, when govenment forces you do something, politically expediment, without good solid logic, it becomes almost patriotic to resist the tyranny. But the resistance of tyranny, often causes one to do things outisde what they would do if the tyranny was not in place. This makes the tyrants even more angry, causing the tyrannts to up the ante and the resistance to resist harder and tougher.

agreed, and not necessarily tyranny... its a big word, how about "exercises a different point of view", because while there have been some tyrannies that had this very similar problem, there have been more countless times when a disagreement lead to the same result... I mean look at Russo-Afghan war in the 1980s and Mujahdeen fighting force or the Anglo-Afghan wars or the Russo-Finnish wars (looking at the overall picture of all of them). I do agree that there are some great examples of tyranny-driven actions too, like the RE expansion into the Europe and Germanic tribes that live there at the time.

 

The modern democrats have created more prohibitions in food, smoke, language, etc. (anti free speak and anti pursuit of happiness). They learned from history that tyranny is a way to power but are blinded to the social cost to its citizens.

Oh come on, this has been going on for ages, not only in the US, with both the Democrats in office, later republicans and now democrats again, all 3 times more and more restriction on people's freedom (if you really want to hear some messed up stuff, go to a Jello Biafra's speech)

[C1ay]

Does that go the same for people who use childish juvenile fake html tabs?

 

Such as?

[HydrogenBond]

I was on a roll and decided to keep going. The American culture was based on the principles of individual freedoms. If one person or group's freedom violates the rights of another, than compromises need to be put in place to maximize freedom for everyone. But there are also victimless crimes than don't violate others in any direct way. Placing such laws in place does not maximize the freedom of everyone but causes one group to lord over another group taking away freedom from one group to increase the power of another. I called such as these tyrannts.

 

Look at the dynamics of political correctness, which takes away freedom of speech. Twenty years ago, the same words had far less impact on the social psyche. That is not to say words don't hurt, but people learned to live in an imperfect world. Parents tried to teach their children to be better for the future. Now one or more groups have lost their ability to practice free speech, while another group has been turned into a bunch of whinie hyper-senstive bullies, who use the prohibition as a weapon to lord over others. The real d@kheads are justified by the law. They are nazi's on patrol, ready to pounce at a slip of the tongue. The patriots need to use free speech to call the nazi's names, to help desensitize them, so the big chip on their shoulders, due to the prohibition, will get smaller.

 

Let me give you an example of a negative outcome caused by tampering with freedom of speech. Say it becomes politically incorrect to call any women on PMS a b@tch. I don't mean to pick on women but this example is easy to see. With the word purged and the description made warm and fuzzy (hormonely venting syndrome), if a PMS woman is acting like a mean b@tch and she is labelled with a warm fuzzy term, then the negative impact on others, although still present, becomes distorted. The poor husband, who has kept his balance, since he knows his bitchy wife is spitting daggers and keeps his guard up, now can't figure out why he is depressed, since his wife is now tossing out hormone flowers.

[LaurieAG]

The American culture was based on the principles of individual freedoms.

 

Hello HydrogenBond,

 

There are several other important structural things that can have a large impact on how these principles operate.

 

'RULE OF LAW' means that the politicians are bound by the limitations outlined in their constitutions and they do not have the capacity to change the constitution (and their own constitutional limitations) without the consent of the people via a majority yes vote at a referendum.

 

'RULE BY LAW', on the other hand, occurs when the politicians can change their constitution without recourse to a majority yes vote of the people.

 

'PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY' is claimed when politicians from a country with a 'RULE OF LAW' type constitutional monarchy legislate below the constitutional level (i.e. not via referendum) to, in effect, 'crown themselves' and change to a 'RULE BY LAW' system.

 

While many people would have difficulty identifying one country per example of the above they can just look at Australia over the past 30 years. From 1977 to 1985 Australia operated as a constitutional monarchy. In 1986 the Australia Act was introduced in federal parliament. It stated 'This act brings constitutional arrangements effecting the commonwealth and the states into conformity with the Commonwealth of Australia being an independent, sovereign and federal nation' and since its introduction there has been no majority yes vote at a referendum to confirm this change of sovereignty status (or for the sale of all our publicly owned assets either).

 

In 1937 Ireland introduced a constitution that had the wording 'Independent, sovereign and democratic state'. In the same year the people of Ireland approved their constitution via a majority yes vote at a referendum.

 

So, HydrogenBond, 'was' was the correct term long before political correctness came onto the scene.

[LaurieAG]

Such as?

 

Hello C1ay,

 

I have had a good response from Buffy and a bad response from Q over this question so you may like to discuss this with them.

 

Regards

[C1ay]

Hello C1ay,

 

I have had a good response from Buffy and a bad response from Q over this question so you may like to discuss this with them.

 

Regards

 

I didn't ask them, I asked you. May I assume you have no examples?

[LaurieAG]

I didn't ask them, I asked you. May I assume you have no examples?

 

Q has already given me 3 penalties and will probably give me another penalty for discussing this with you because, while this is a direct example of history repeating itself (for me anyway), Q will say that it is off topic.

 

p.s. I did receive another penalty from responding to your previous post.

[C1ay]

But, you said "Does that go the same for people who use childish juvenile fake html tabs?" and you've still not provided one example of these supposed people.

[Qfwfq]

Q has already given me 3 penalties and will probably give me another penalty for discussing this with you because, while this is a direct example of history repeating itself (for me anyway), Q will say that it is off topic.

Instead of playing guessing games about the consequences of what you are still insisting on doing, why don't you just behave yourself and get it over with?

 

p. s. and learn to count!