Yet again, the right wants to tell us how to live. The racing industry must've contributed heavily to Republicans re-election campaigns.

WASHINGTON --Gamblers who prefer their laptops to blackjack tables won't like what Congress is doing. On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Some opponents of the legislation say policing the Internet is impossible, that it would be better to regulate the $12 billion industry and collect taxes from it. The online gambling industry is based almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.

Other critics complain that the bill doesn't cover all forms of gambling. They point to exemptions they say would allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.

"If you're going to support legislation that is supposed to 'prohibit gambling,' you should not have carve-outs," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition.

Other conservative and antigambling groups are supporting the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa.

John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling.

"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said.

Congress has considered similar bills several times before. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Ambramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company.

Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues.

Pro-sports leagues also like the bill, arguing that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.

The horse racing industry also supports the bill because of the exemption it would get. Betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing. It was updated a few years ago to clarify that betting on horse racing over the Internet is allowed.

Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is "a recognition of existing federal law," not a new carve-out.

He said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and acknowledged the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites. "They'd return to the one place they can bet legally," Avioli said.

That's what some critics say is unfair.

"Somehow we find ourselves in a situation where Congress has gotten in the business of cherry-picking types of gambling," complained Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. Wexler had tried unsuccessfully to include exemptions for dog racing and jai alai, both popular in Florida.

The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed Interstate Horseracing Act.

The department hasn't actively enforced its stance, but observers say it is possible the agency and the racing industry could face off in court in the future.

Regarding the House bill, Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort said Monday, "I'm very surprised and quite disappointed that the U.S. Congress would be pushing full force ahead."

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has so far not been debated in that chamber this year.

I am Jacks complete lack of suprize.

They probably want to ban online gambling for the same reason that they want to ban online cigarette sales....that is, because every state in the union has it's own laws on the issue. Unless you are a online gambling junkie, who gives a shit. And if you are, go play Keno with the other voluntary tax payers.
I'm more concerned with Islamo facists who want to cut our throats and enslave our women as if they were live stock.

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

mtv has debauched the children into thinking gay was normal and that you're only successful in life if your rollin' on dubs while countin' thousand stacks. The children are lost.

Hungtableed said:

Good point, but they compromised on that interstate horse racing shit, why not this?


Hungtableed said:

Because it sets a bad precedent; hypocrisy and selectivism when it comes to rights are the first signs of fascism. Even if it concerns an issue I couldn't give two shits about, that's how that kind of thing always starts.


Hungtableed said:

I would agree, but I always find it puzzling when the goal is only to oppose fascists, but not fascism. Surely you agree that since fascists are so evil, any move towards fascism, even if benign and subtle, is a step in the wrong direction.

This isn't the party of Reagan anymore.

And I'll have to disagree with Hungtableed, since you could pretty much apply the "if you're not doing x, don't worry" argument to anything, including being gay, smoking, playing metal/punk/hardcore, watching porn on the internet, etc.

Hungtableed said:

They're helping sell the culture of stupidity, superficiality, and entitlement; I won't argue with you there. Fortunately, not everyone buys, and some people grow out of it. The rest are screwed.

ShadowSD said:

I can't disagree with you here because I recently found that I actually agreed with the ACLU on a particular issue even though I would have before hand vowed a strong opposition to any such action or position by them red commie bastards.

Hungtableed said:

ShadowSD said:

agreed

Hungtableed said:

What was it?

Something gay about high school administrators being able to confiscate cell phones of students who they believe "used the phones for illegal activities". The ACLU was vehemently apposed to this and even though it kills me, I can't help but agree with them despite my hatred for their organization and how they also protect the 'rights' of child molesters and islamo jihadists.

Hungtableed said:

I'm not. I'm more concerned with our freedoms right here at home. If some muslim 5000 miles away wants to kill me, well, good luck with that, sandnigger.

ShadowSD said:

It still amazes me that this bit of common sense is not obvious to some people.

Hungtableed said:

You really missed the point on that one.

ELEEEECTRIC EYE!!!!

Hungtableed said:

I don't watch MTV but I would think anyone dumb enough to believe that is fucked in life anyway

Josh Martin NLI said:
That's where our opinions differ. We would have been able to stop 9/11 if the FBI and CIA had the authority to look at them fucking sand nigger's computers (who were not U.S. citizens and had no constitutional rights to begin with) to see that they were communicating with them Al Qeada assholes who'd cut off you're head just as fast as any other American infidel.

Josh Martin NLI said:

It concerns me more that some of those who do find it obvious have an initial knee-jerk reaction to ignore it in the absence of someone pointing it out.

Hungtableed said:

It's a tough pill to swallow, but the bargain of liberty is that only when the most reprehensible scum has all their rights can you be sure that everyone does.

To trade freedom for security is an insult to all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom.

ShadowSD said:

But, surely you agree that since totalitarian leftists are so evil, any move towards totalitarianistic leftism, even if benign and subtle, is a step in the wrong direction.

Now, are we really going to have an entire argument over what everyone's definition of a "step" in either direction is? No matter what anyone feels is reasonable, there'll always be a HailTheLeaf or Pat Robertson to piss all over it.

Josh Martin NLI said:

So what happens when a tradeoff becomes necessary for the survival of the very freedoms you cherish so much? What if the uncompromising desire for freedom is the cause of a longterm loss of freedom that will never be recovered? It hurts me to say this, but we cannot let the constitution become a deathpact.

How is keeping something legal a move towards totalitarian leftism?

Or are we just waaaay off topic now?

Josh Martin NLI said:
the pussies that want to kill us exploit the vulnerabilities that are a given in a free society. The only to stop them is to scale back (or deny to particular individuals) certain freedoms that make it possible to them to plot in secrecy.

PatMeebles said:

If the founding fathers thought that way we'd still be a british colony.

Live free or die.

Hungtableed said:

I disagree.
But how does the freedom to be stupid enough to gamble away my money help terrorists?

THEY LIVE!

Josh Martin NLI said:

You obviously have no idea what the Founding Fathers thought

Ben Franklin favored keeping secrets from Congress because they'd never keep vital operations from the Public and, therefore, would compromise national security.

John Adams vehemently opposed Shay's rebellion because, even though rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy was ok, rebellion against a free democratic republic had to be put down harshly.

etc.

Josh Martin NLI said:
definitely off topic. Going back, I think that it has everything to do with the elastic clause and the 10th Amendment that grants and assures the sovereignty of each state's authority. Online gambling allows for one to act in a way that completely disregards the laws of their state just like how people buy cigarettes online to avoid their state's grotesquely unfair taxes on the addicted.

PatMeebles said:

I've made it clear what I think of political correctness; beyond that, I don't know what you might be referring to as totalitarian leftism (unless you're referring to the idealogy of dictatorships that behave like right-wing fascists in every way, but prefer the label of communist; associating those clearly reactionary despots with the left is an illusion whose usefulness died along with the Cold War).

PatMeebles said:

Ok, but my point was, if they had been willing to trade away their personal freedoms to decrease the chances of losing their lives, the USA would not exist.

Your examples do not negate that.

("Founding fathers" was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant the average citizen who fought in the Revolution. I am very tired and not thinking straight.)

This law isn't a bad idea in terms of allowing state legislation of online gambling. It leaves a lot of room for ID fraud/underage gambling/online robbery. Granted it appears to remove personal freedoms but it does so according to written law that already exists, although not covering all forms of gambling is a whole new bag of cats and I don't understand why those who are proposing this bill would exempt those few forms(unless they are closely tied in said business or addicts themselves)

Josh Martin NLI said:

I'm just trying to prove ShadowSD's point moot by injecting the opposite, yet equally truthful, side of that equation. Sorry for getting off topic.

And for the record, this law is a step in the WRONG direction. Even though Hungtableed's right about the interstate commerce aspect, this is just stupid.

ShadowSD said:

Just because there's state control doesn't take away the leftist label. Right-Wing fascists set the precedent, but totalitarianism acts in a different way, as it's goal is a "utopia" of same-class collectives working for the greater good. Right-Wing fascism operates in a control freak manner, but does not have the goal of creating a "utopia of equality." So don't try to brush away Stalin under us Right-wingers' rug. Our ideology wasn't warped to create Stalinism; it was your ideology that bred it. Not to blame you for the USSR, but to blame my ideology on the USSR is actually more ridiculous.

And, in your response, you've also proved my point. What are all these qualifiers that you're so certain have been agreed on as a step in either direction, left or right? What is the line that everyone agrees on shouldn't be crossed? Do people believe that spying on international calls of terrorists is a step in the direction towards facism? Do people think that a progressive tax system is a step towards totalitarian leftism?

My point is don't throw out labels and terms that don't have a dictionary-set meaning and then draw from people's responses the conclusion that you wanted all along, since chances are that the people you questioned didn't have that specific conclusion in mind.

As a political and history major (hahahaha where is that going to get me in life????) I have come to learn that 'founding fathers' is not p.c. They are now referred to as the 'framers'

Josh Martin NLI said:

You know, the Puritans fought in the revolution. I'm sure they believed in a socially libertarian states, right? What about everyone that fought in the revolution and then kept slaves? Sodomy laws, anyone? Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus?

PatMeebles said:

let's do it again. Only, and I stress the fucking word ONLY, to stop them fucking curry smelling jihad hajjis. Kill em' all and let allah sort em' out.

PatMeebles said:

This sounds like a case of realism triumphing over idealism at first glance, which is a good thing, particularly in a crisis. Certainly, if presented with a bargain where you agree to give up some freedoms in exchange for not losing them all, the only wise choice is to take it.

But we will never get such a bargain in honest terms, if history is any indication. When freedoms disappear, they don't come back - not without a lot of bloodshed; you can't store them in a bank and take them out later. The more likely bargain we'll be presented with is a sliding one, not to be trusted, that asks more in return each time, until those freedoms are gone permanently.

Historically speaking, it is far greater danger to us that we will let our freedoms erode ourselves than that we will lose them trying to protect them.

By the way, what was Franklin's understanding of the word freedom? Are you willing to throw that phrase around without knowing if that includes gun rights?

ShadowSD said:

Because Habeus Corpus was never reinstated, and because the Japanese were never freed from the internment camps.

And I never said I was a strict idealist. That's why I'm a Neo-Libertarian. Or Republitarian. Or... whatever.

PatMeebles said:

Idealogy can be twisted and used to start anything; fascists have used every political angle in the book to position themselves for their eventual rise to power. But the political angles mean nothing, it's the laws that go into effect and their enforcement that matter. Everyone in Stalin's USSR was not equal, in fact, there was just as much oppression and suffering as in any other dictatorship. So the idealogy that spawned it was meaningless, because the realities were identical: reactionary (far right) authoratarianism. Come on, do you think Stalin really believed in the equality that Karl Marx preached? If Hitler, in a different political climate, had preached the same shit for political purposes, would he automatically have reverted from far right to far left on your political spectrum just because of his language. What kind of reasoning is that?

Reality trumps idealogy in defining any political system. The idealogy that spawned the Iranian Revolution was initially just anti-monarchy, but the laws that eventually took hold were more authoritarian than the king's. We don't give their goverment a pass and call them anti-monarchy in our own tradition simply because that's the idealogy they started with, so why the Soviets? Almost all revolutions go through these stages, they begin with lofty ideas, but often power gets seized by the most ruthless. Seizing that power, in addition to violence, also often involves pandering to the political climate to cement their position, which means embracing the popular idealogy at the time in promises that will never be kept. The question is, how many extra years of mileage are you going to let the Soviet fascists get out of their bullshit promises? Their attempt to achieve a state of communism was a failure, and existed in name only. For us to validate them as leftist glosses over this failure, which is ridiculous to me considering we won the Cold War. The fact is that true communism cannot be put into practice on a large scale and still function, that inherant failure is why democracy is a better form of government; that is why we win. Why gloss over that?

PatMeebles said:

Well, as I said, I'm not sure I prescribe to this same dichotomy of extremes that you do, because there hasn't been a practical manifestation of totalitarian leftism, as I pointed out above -- only fascists who rose to power, some who began by pandering to the left, some by pandering to the right. They may have stuck to their language to keep their slogans, but they all oppressed their people with the iron hand of fascist authoritarianism.

By the way, if you look above you'll see I never mentioned the words "right-wing" or "conservative" when the discussion about fascism in this thread began. It was not my goal to make this a right vs. left issue.

I'm sorry, reactionary is not a far right symptom. It's a non partisan symptom.

And we don't call Iranians anti-monarchy because that wouldn't illustrate what they are when it comes to current affairs. "A group of anti-monarchists has resumed nuclear testing" doesn't really ring any bells, as opposed to "A group of theocratic despots are trying to pave the way for the 12th imam, with the nuclear destruction of America as part of the plan." However, they are still anti-monarchs, just like Soviets were still anti-private property, anti-fiscal freedom, and pro-collectivist even after the ideology was twisted. Facism, by it's very definition and historical context, is pro-private property and corporation, and anti-collectivist (not that it meant that fascists were pro-liberty and individualism, but they weren't talking about sacrificing your thoughts for the greater good).

And no, Stalin did not believe in Marx like it was originally intended. But LENIN did, and he was still prone to the same reactionary massacres that you claim are only the result of fascism.



Hello John Kerry



Actually, no it doesn't. By pointing these things out as leftist, we know that the failure of the Soviet Union was caused by the failure that is ingrained in leftist policy. By calling Soviets fascist, you group them with the people who believe in extreme corporatism and private property. If anything, you're trying to gloss over the fact that evil despots can be progressive.

ShadowSD said:

ShadowSD said:

Care to take back that last comment?

And, as stated above, yes there have been manifestations of totalitarian leftism, namely Leninist Soviet Union. The Vietnemese during the Vietnam war were also a good example.

Also, you don't seem to know the term Communism if you believe that socialists only believe in faux-anarchism without centralized authority.

PatMeebles said:

Look at the bigger picture, and you're actually proving my point. The Japanese Internment camps set the standard for Guantanamo. Except now, we have a war with no forseeable end, so holding people for a few years without trial becomes precedent for holding them forever without trial. (I have no intention to debate Gitmo with you all over again, my point here is the slippery slope argument.)


PatMeebles said:

I didn't say you were, actually I was commending the realism of that argument on its surface, I only questioned its application given historical context.

ShadowSD said:

Gitmo has nothing to do with Japinterment (short-hand for "I'm fucking tired"). Japinternment came about when the government couldn't find the perceived spies on the west coast and decided to round every one of them up. Gitmo is the result of capturing non-traditional soldiers on a battlefield. We didn't round up all of Saudi Arabia.

ShadowSD said:

ok

PatMeebles said:

Not what I learned in school. Junior Year World Civ class the political spectrum was radical - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary; I can still see it on the blackboard.




Right, and despite that, we still identify Iran by the reality, not the idealogy. What makes communism any different?


PatMeebles said:

But fascist states are usually dominated by state owned businesses, that's hardly pro-private property. How many major private corporations do you know from fascist states?

Fascists exert their control over society to make it as profitable for them as possible while still being able to maintain power. Whatever the slogan, the average person is inevitably fucked. You want me to believe that pro-private and anti-private has real meaning in a society with no privacy, and no possessions or rights that cannot be overruled by the state?


PatMeebles said:

You're still not getting my point, which is that Lenin only rose to power on Marxist ideals. He did nothing to realize them once in power, proven by the fact that the USSR was an oppressive dictatorship under him for many years before Stalin took power. The USSR never realized communism, not under Lenin, not under anyone; why must I argue that communism failed for the country's entire history?


PatMeebles said:

I've criticized him for this myself, I don't see why you bring this up.


PatMeebles said:

Not at all, I said that idealogy can start anything, so the idealogy is IRRELEVANT in fascism, the laws that go into effect and how they're enforced is what defines a goverment. So any idealogy, even a progressive idealogy, can be harnessed by a despot to seize power - but once they have power, they turn into the same authoritarian oppressor regardless of the political nature of the slogans that make the people get out of bed everyday.

So bottom line, any idealogy being discussed in the abstract can lead to something terrible, but that's no reason to fear ideaology or debate because they're not the difference maker; it's the laws that are the real barrier between us and fascism.

PatMeebles said:


No, I meant what I said, that comment was made well into the discussion. When the discussion about fascism in this thread began and I was talking to hungtableed, I never used the words right or conservative. It was only after you introduced "totalitarian leftism" to the conversation that I started to use those words, you can check for yourself.

Until we got into that language, I was trying to take the inclusive approach that we all have an equal stake in opposing fascism, it's so far behind our democracy that it goes way beyond the comparitively nuanced differences between left and right in this country.



PatMeebles said:

You really think the Soviet Union under Lenin actually achieved the ideals of communism?

I hesitate to give him that credit, I think it never succeeded in practice in that large a country from the beginning. I also think that once in power, Lenin's idealism went out the window; his focus was not the people of Russia sharing wealth equally under his rule, but fortifying the power of his office, power which Stalin took advantage of.



PatMeebles said:

Of course I know there is centralized authority, however democracies have centralized authority but don't inevitably become oppressive dictatorships. Communists are supposed to have an oligarchy that runs things, but in terms of wealth and property, EVERYONE is supposed to be equal. That has NEVER happened in the USSR, under Lenin or anybody.

ShadowSD said:

Both of you hit this issue on the head.

There's only one thing I really have to say on this topic. There is no need for a vote from congress. Gambling/casino operation was always up to the state to decide. If a state doesn't want gambling, it didn't have it. Leave the power where it should be.

ShadowSD said:

But then isn't a centralized authority a step in the direction that you don't want to go in, even though it's really subtle (which is the point I've been trying to make all along)?

I was watching C-SPAN today and the republican leaders were wasting their time on this issue. Two other members of the House interrupted and protested that the leaders had decided to end work today at 2PM as opposed to 5-6. They were basically begging for the minumum wage issue, a bi-partisan concern in many regards, to be discussed instead of this internet gaming nonsense. Of course it didn't work, a few of the next speakers even wasted some of their time saying, "huhuh...just wanna remind everybody that minumum wage don't got nuttin to do wit online video pokah!" derrrrrrr.

oh...the point about the getting out of work early part was because they were saying that they might not be able to get the minumum wage issue in before the end of this Congressional Session and they're cutting out early while minumum wage workers are working their asses off 40hrs+ a week.

brian_dc said:

One of the things I always hated about Congress was that they seem to work so little compared to everyone else. Even the President gets less vacation time than they do.

it's also pretty funny how only a small fraction shows up on a given day.

PatMeebles said:

No, because centralized authority applies to democracy as well; in fact, it applies to every form of goverment but anarchy, as you pointed out yourself. Since those forms of goverment already include centralized authority, they don't need to step in any direction to simply achieve that status. What makes us different is that we have laws and checks and balances built into our system that protect us. Without those laws, we could have any idealogy in the world and still have it seized by the power hungry, who might pay lip service to that ideaology but will never waste the bulk of their resources to make it a reality.

Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention.

Man_of_the_Century said:

I pretty much said the same thing about how it's all about online gambling clashing with the state's soverignty and power to decide on laws/authorities that are not entrusted to the Federal government nor denied to the states. That's what the 10th Amendment and the Elastic clause is all about.

Hungtableed said:

Right, although I think if a lawmaker takes that point of view then they shouldn't turn around and say that horse racing is an interstate issue; those laws should be repealed.

The lack of consistency involving rights here is what concerns me (and was the catalyst for what mutated into that epic debate)

ShadowSD said:

you're very afraid?

hungtableed said:

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry for stealing your thunder.

ShadowSD said:

Then what's the line that you're going to draw? My whole point is that you can't get away with saying "don't take steps towards a fascist state," and then expect everyone to agree with you on what constitutes a step in that direction to begin with. And then when you make that argument, people like me are going to come along and say don't take any steps, no matter how subtle, in the opposite direction to totalitarianism, and then we're stuck in a perpetual state of trying to figure out what makes a step in either direction.

PatMeebles said:

We've traded freedom for a false sense of security since we're actually less safe, but more in debt, and hated more than ever the world over than we were before 9/11.

HailTheLeaf said:

Less safe and more hated huh...

PatMeebles said:

John Adams opposed Shay's rebellion because John Adams was one of the rich white men who wanted a system of goverment where only wealthy men like himself could vote and own land, whereas the men in Shay's rebellion wanted equality and representation in their government.

PatMeebles said:


Well, only if you ignore a couple pages of what I said; I said I don't believe in that dichotomy, because although history is full of examples of fascism, I have yet to a see practical application of totalitarian leftism. Keep in mind, I HAVE seen that ideaology twisted to create a fascist state, but those are two different things.

The interesting thing, though, is that we actually agree that leftist ideaology can lead to dictatorships. I just don't think that translates to assuming that those dictators are applying those principles, that's a very nieve assumption. Dictators are all more or less the same, and they should be regarded as such, not put on opposite ends of the spectrum as if there's an actual diversity.

So going to your original question, there is no line to draw, only a direction to avoid. Laws that inhibit the freedom of the individual, whether justified by left or right dogma, must be challenged. Therefore, worrying about left or right ideaology in the absence of any legislation is pointless in resisting fascism. There is a uniform quality to oppressive law that we can all stand against, regardless of the source or the idealogy they use to justify it.

HailTheLeaf said:

That had nothing to do with it. He opposed it because it was a rebellion. After it had ended, Washington and the other leaders at the time found out what it was all about. They then (mainly Washington and Sam Adams) went to great lengths to fix the tax situation.

It had everything to do with it, the farmers were having their land taken, they couldn't hold office in the government because they weren't rich and weren't being represented. John Adams and others like him did not want these people to be equal and took measures to ensure that a proper democracy was never formed. It was the rich vs. the poor, just as it continues to be to this day.

HailTheLeaf said:

You really need to get yourself to a community college and take a history class. Shays' Rebellion was a bunch of farmers from western mass (mostly) that had to sell thier land to ivestors in eastern mass because they could not afford to pay off thier debts (which was thier fault) or taxes (which was the governments fault). Now, at the time, you had to own land to vote or to run for office, so none of these people could. You seemed to get that, but where does John Adams come in? Seeing how he was a foriegn minister in europe (I believe England) at the time?

You really need to pull your head out of your ass and read more than one accepted view of history. Shays left the army because they weren't paying him, went home and found himself in debt, then he saw what the government was doing to others and he a problem with things like taking the bed right out from under a sick woman who couldn't pay taxes. The Boston legislature was refusing to issue paper money which would've made it easier for the farmers to pay their debts, so the farmers petitioned to redress their grievances in the General Court. They court wanted to hold proceedings to take away the farmer's cattle and land before they could get a word into the court, so the farmers got pissed off and organized. Shays got several hundred farmers to go parade around Springfield and let the government know that they weren't running things right. So the government started arresting them and hanging people. The farmers were never represented in a government which was supposed to be theirs. Where does John Adams come in? You brought him up first in his opposition to Shay's rebellion, if he was in Europe at the time then why bring him up before Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Lincoln? Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time but he got a few words in about it. "I hold in it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" "It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government" Too bad he didn't feel that way about the natives and black people.

I know about Shay's rebellion, and I would've supported it. I'm just saying the founding father's weren't a bunch of social libertarians, and John Adams is a good example of that because of his opposition to Shay's Rebellion.

ShadowSD said:

You're just trying to muddy up definitions. I know what you don't support. The fact is, by lumping totalitarianism and fascism together, you're avoiding which direction each style of government went in to achieve those results. The fact is, totalitarianism goes further and further to the left and brutally imposes these leftist ideals. Now, once again, what is the line you're going to draw? If any move, NO MATTER HOW SUBTLE, in any direction to totalitarianism or fascism has to be avoided, then are we really supposed to avoid all steps that create programs that happen to also exist in either system of government, fascist or totalitarianism?

HailTheLeaf said:

No, PatMeebles brought him up first. Then you said, as usual, an ignorant statement about him opposing the rebellion because he was rich and white. If you're rich and white you are automatically evil. Once people like Washington (who was rich and white)found out what was going on (cause the people in charge misinformed them of the situation), they fixed it. All the people that helped to fix it, you guessed it, were rich and white.

My whole arguement was that he did not oppose the rebellion because he was rich and white. He opposed it because he saw people revolting against a government body that he helped to set up. You suceeded in only dancing around the arguement and proving no proof to anything you've said.

Man_of_the_Century said:

no hard feelings bro