PDA

View Full Version : Slaying leftist myths 101.



LWW
08-05-2011, 06:27 AM
Today we will shred the myth of one of the left's earliest godking, yes folks ... the left's "GREAT EMANCIPATOR" Abraham "THE TERRIBLE" Lincoln.

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:32 AM
EXHIBIT A:

"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.</span>"
-Abraham Lincoln-
"Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate
September 18, 1858

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:34 AM
EXHIBIT B:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:35 AM
EXHIBIT C:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-
Springfield, Illinois
July 17th, 1858

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:36 AM
EXHIBIT D:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Negro equality? Fudge!"</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-
Sept. 1859

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:37 AM
EXHIBIT E:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"If I could save The Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it"</span>
-Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley-

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:38 AM
EXHIBIT F:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-
October 16, 1854

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:39 AM
EXHIBIT G:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln, 1862-

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:41 AM
EXHIBIT H:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-
Springfield, Illinois
July 17th, 1858

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:44 AM
EXHIBIT I:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States, not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:45 AM
EXHIBIT J:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."</span>
-Abraham Lincoln-
Inaugural Address
Capitol steps, 1861

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:48 AM
EXHIBIT K:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of."</span>
-ABRAHAM LINCOLN-

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:53 AM
EXHIBIT L, THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION ... WHICH EMANCIPATED ZERO PEOPLE:

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Stretch
08-05-2011, 06:54 AM
What myth did you slay? St.

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What myth did you slay? St. </div></div>

You just slew the one that you have a brain.

LWW
08-05-2011, 06:59 AM
EXHIBIT M:

Lincoln ordered several ships to resupply Fort Sumter while negotiations were ongoing to resolve the dispute.

Lincoln had not the votes in congress for war, but his wealthy industrial backers believed that a quick war would lift the nation out of depression.

The CSA had authorized shipments of food and humanitarian aid to go to Fort Sumter under the promise that no arms would be sent. The US broke the promise, and received the desired result ... the CSA fired upon Sumter and Lincoln had his "PROVOCATION" for war.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:00 AM
EXHIBIT N:

Lincoln's war of northern aggression led to more US dead than Hitler's and Tojo's wars combined.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:02 AM
EXHIBIT O:

General Benjamin “Beast” Butler issued an order requiring all women in occupied New Orleans to be prostitutes, and even facing international condemnation Lincoln refused to rescind the order.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:03 AM
EXHIBIT P:

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:04 AM
EXHIBIT Q:

Lincoln shuttered nearly 300 northern newspapers solely because they opposed the war of northern aggression.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:07 AM
EXHIBIT R:

Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade the northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and ordered them to take over the state's legislatures because these states refused to participate in Lincoln's war of northern aggression because these states had deemed the war against their state constitutions.

LWW
08-05-2011, 07:08 AM
EXHIBIT S:

Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS because they had ruled against Lincoln's power grabs.

Stretch
08-05-2011, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What myth did you slay? St. </div></div>

You just slew the one that you have a brain. </div></div>

you just slew the one that you have a clue. i ask again, What myth did you slay? St.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 09:12 AM
These are NATIONAL myths, not LEFTIST myths.

These facts have long been in evidence, only suppressed by entirely mainstream folks who think it is unpatriotic to deal with our great leaders accurately.

Charles Beard, the Marxist historian, has a comparable takedown of the founding fathers and the start of this whole American experiment, for which he was roundly denounced as unpatriotic, not to mention, rabidly left. Although his critique is as valid as this one.

LWW
08-05-2011, 09:29 AM
So you are now denying that the myth of Lincoln is not a creation of the state?

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 06:27 PM
Some twisted syntax, there, with the double negative.

Hard to say, given the question as framed.

But generally, nationalist myths are not created by the left, but by mythologists supporting the state, which is not a coterminous group to them.

Leftists, like Beard I reference, are more myth-busters, when those myths support a nation like ours (capitalist). They may do myth-building of the Soviet Union, for instance.

See the difference?

I guess in your taxonomy, anyone supporting the state is a leftist. That's not actually so, in my view-- ultra-patriotic, ultra-jingoist, ultra-militarist, and ultra-traditionalists (all of whom promote the state) are more found on the right, even if you think that isn't so.

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:23 AM
Fair enough ... if I were on a losing streak like yourself, I might seek even a tiny victory also.

To reword so that even a deflectionist such as yourself can follow along:

So you are now denying that the myth of Lincoln was a creation of the state?

LWW
08-06-2011, 04:02 AM
In today's lesson we shall slay the myth that corporations pay taxes.

The truth is that corporations are forced by the state to collect taxes. Although politically this is far more palatable to the naive than direct taxation of the citizen ... but it is also far more expensive.

Not only does the citizen, in the end, pay the tax collected by the business ... they also pay the additional costs incurred by the business to collect the tax, account for the tax, file the forms associated with the tax, and the costs involved in paying the tax and enduring audits from the gubmint.

To understand this, one must break it down into it's simplest forms ... and the corporation is made intentionally mystifying by the wealthy, the attorneys, and by the gubmint.

First off ... the "CORPORATION" does not exist as a physical entity. It is an imaginary construct which first off allows one or more individuals to pool assets in a common project that the individual would often be either unable or unwilling to undertake on their own.

These slivers of corporate ownership are called shares. The first benefit to shareholders is that in almost all cases ... their downside risk is the loss of their capital as the corporation, being a fictitious smoke and mirrors legal entity, shields them from other liability.

Shareholder investment is used in the effort to found and expand the business, revenue form the business can also be reinvested in said expansion once basic operating expenses have been covered. Remaining revenue will be repaid to the shareholders in what is called a dividend.

Now, all operating expenses of the corporation must be covered either by debt or from corporate revenue. Put simply ... when you go into the well lit WALMART, WALMART isn't paying the light bill. You and I are. A small amount from each sale covers the store being lit. If consumers were willing to shop in the dark for a small savings, WALMART would operate only on sunlight and shopper provided flashlights.

Now, taxes are simply another expense to the business just as a light or phone bill is.

If the corporation is taxed one of a few things MUST happen:

1 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via higher prices.

2 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via lesser service such as fewer lights or fewer checkout lines available.

3 - The tax is passed on to the stockholder via reduced dividends and thereby reduced share price and thereby decreased wealth ... and, contrary to the class warfare myth, the "SHAREHOLDER" isn't some guy in a tuxedo and tophat smoking an imported cigarette in a silver cig holder. The shareholder and the consumer are one and the same as most of us either own stock, or have assets in a 401K/.IRA/pension plan that id a stockholder ... so, again the cost is passed on to the consumer.

4 - The business contracts or goes under meaning the costs are passed on to the employees via lower wages, reduced hour, benefit cuts, or loss of employment ... which in the end means the cost is passed on to the consumer via a depressed economy and gubmint benefit costs for the aforementioned employees.

5 - Reduced research/development/expansion. Again, if the business tries to incorporate the costs of the taxation into it's business model then a corresponding amount must be removed elsewhere. If this is R & D then the cost is again ultimately borne by the citizen in a less superior future product than would otherwise have been developed. If the cut comes from planned expansion, the citizen is still bearing the cost in less convenience and more travel expense.

In short, only someone completely bereft of economic sense actually can believe that a corporation can actually be taxed.

Qtec
08-06-2011, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In today's lesson we shall slay the myth that corporations pay taxes. </div></div>

As a very well respected member here once said, [ paraphrasing ]

"If you are here to lecture, you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.



Something like that.


Q

LWW
08-06-2011, 04:38 AM
And as a college professor once said in a class of mine:

"If you aren't here to participate, why are you here?"

Qtec
08-06-2011, 04:43 AM
'participating' doesn't mean lecturing.

Q

LWW
08-06-2011, 04:54 AM
If you wish to participate, please post your argument as to why a single point made is inaccurate.

Stretch
08-06-2011, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In today's lesson we shall slay the myth that corporations pay taxes. </div></div>

As a very well respected member here once said, [ paraphrasing ]

"If you are here to lecture, you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.





Something like that.


Q </div></div>

His ears are just for decoration. St.

LWW
08-07-2011, 05:09 AM
Nobody actually expected either of you to understand the course material, much less participate.

Stretch
08-07-2011, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody actually expected either of you to understand the course material, much less participate. </div></div>

We felt sorry for seeing all the empty seats in your daily "lecture" room. st.

LWW
08-07-2011, 08:33 AM
Yet you are so afraid of it that you incessantly troll it.

I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think.

Stretch
08-07-2011, 09:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you are so afraid of it that you incessantly troll it.

I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think. </div></div>

Wrong as usuall. You couldn't lead a Monkey to a banana raffle. St.

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:53 AM
Obviously you aren't as smart then as the monkey.

Stretch
08-08-2011, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obviously you aren't as smart then as the monkey. </div></div>

All hail the Monkey Man! For he will lead you too bananas! Good luck with your simian surrogates. St.

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:12 PM
The average monkey can use to, too, and two properly.

Soflasnapper
08-09-2011, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In today's lesson we shall slay the myth that corporations pay taxes.

The truth is that corporations are forced by the state to collect taxes. Although politically this is far more palatable to the naive than direct taxation of the citizen ... but it is also far more expensive.

Not only does the citizen, in the end, pay the tax collected by the business ... they also pay the additional costs incurred by the business to collect the tax, account for the tax, file the forms associated with the tax, and the costs involved in paying the tax and enduring audits from the gubmint.

To understand this, one must break it down into it's simplest forms ... and the corporation is made intentionally mystifying by the wealthy, the attorneys, and by the gubmint.

First off ... the "CORPORATION" does not exist as a physical entity. It is an imaginary construct which first off allows one or more individuals to pool assets in a common project that the individual would often be either unable or unwilling to undertake on their own.

These slivers of corporate ownership are called shares. The first benefit to shareholders is that in almost all cases ... their downside risk is the loss of their capital as the corporation, being a fictitious smoke and mirrors legal entity, shields them from other liability.

Shareholder investment is used in the effort to found and expand the business, revenue form the business can also be reinvested in said expansion once basic operating expenses have been covered. Remaining revenue will be repaid to the shareholders in what is called a dividend.

Now, all operating expenses of the corporation must be covered either by debt or from corporate revenue. Put simply ... when you go into the well lit WALMART, WALMART isn't paying the light bill. You and I are. A small amount from each sale covers the store being lit. If consumers were willing to shop in the dark for a small savings, WALMART would operate only on sunlight and shopper provided flashlights.

Now, taxes are simply another expense to the business just as a light or phone bill is.

If the corporation is taxed one of a few things MUST happen:

1 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via higher prices.

2 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via lesser service such as fewer lights or fewer checkout lines available.

3 - The tax is passed on to the stockholder via reduced dividends and thereby reduced share price and thereby decreased wealth ... and, contrary to the class warfare myth, the "SHAREHOLDER" isn't some guy in a tuxedo and tophat smoking an imported cigarette in a silver cig holder. The shareholder and the consumer are one and the same as most of us either own stock, or have assets in a 401K/.IRA/pension plan that id a stockholder ... so, again the cost is passed on to the consumer.

4 - The business contracts or goes under meaning the costs are passed on to the employees via lower wages, reduced hour, benefit cuts, or loss of employment ... which in the end means the cost is passed on to the consumer via a depressed economy and gubmint benefit costs for the aforementioned employees.

5 - Reduced research/development/expansion. Again, if the business tries to incorporate the costs of the taxation into it's business model then a corresponding amount must be removed elsewhere. If this is R & D then the cost is again ultimately borne by the citizen in a less superior future product than would otherwise have been developed. If the cut comes from planned expansion, the citizen is still bearing the cost in less convenience and more travel expense.

In short, only someone completely bereft of economic sense actually can believe that a corporation can actually be taxed. </div></div>

I think this simplistic version of reality is false.

Companies may sometimes not even pass through actual increased costs of production to their end user purchasers, and take a lower profit level or even a (temporary) loss instead of doing that.

One example of that was newspaper chains when paper or ink costs went up dramatically back when (late '80s, I think it was). Something spiked up those key component costs of any company whose business was selling newspapers, but the companies decided NOT to raise the price at the stand or to subscribers. They figured even a nickel or a dime more, and they'd lose enough newspaper purchases that they'd end up with even less profit than if they just ate the increased cost.

Companies sell items below their cost, in a well known strategy called loss leaders (or in the case of other countries exporting goods to 3rd countries, dumping). Why? Loss leaders are designed to get people in the store, where they'll buy other things (and increase the store's market share. Dumping allows a country to undersell, and drive out of business, their competition (for future profit-making opportunities, after they gain a dominant market share).

Heck, some companies intentionally, as a marketing strategy and business model, lose money for years. Fox News was like that, originally. Fox Business News is like that now. The Washington Times has been like that forever (at least several billions in losses to date). USA Today took maybe 10 years to turn a profit that next year, which operating profit for the year certainly did not repay the expense of all the years of running in the red.

I know you allow for this, slightly, when you admit that one thing that can happen is that the company can take it out of their profit margin, to the detriment of the shareholders. This is correct. What you then err in saying is that taking it out of the shareholders' hide (in less profits) takes it out of all of us, because we all are shareholders. This isn't really the case, and to the degree that it is, for the vast numbers of middle- and upper-middle classes holding corporate shares (i.e., not the really rich), these are retirement vehicles like 401ks and IRAs that hold the shares, which remain untouched and untouchable until retirement age is achieved, so having no usable cash flow difference to any of them.

LWW
08-09-2011, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In today's lesson we shall slay the myth that corporations pay taxes.

The truth is that corporations are forced by the state to collect taxes. Although politically this is far more palatable to the naive than direct taxation of the citizen ... but it is also far more expensive.

Not only does the citizen, in the end, pay the tax collected by the business ... they also pay the additional costs incurred by the business to collect the tax, account for the tax, file the forms associated with the tax, and the costs involved in paying the tax and enduring audits from the gubmint.

To understand this, one must break it down into it's simplest forms ... and the corporation is made intentionally mystifying by the wealthy, the attorneys, and by the gubmint.

First off ... the "CORPORATION" does not exist as a physical entity. It is an imaginary construct which first off allows one or more individuals to pool assets in a common project that the individual would often be either unable or unwilling to undertake on their own.

These slivers of corporate ownership are called shares. The first benefit to shareholders is that in almost all cases ... their downside risk is the loss of their capital as the corporation, being a fictitious smoke and mirrors legal entity, shields them from other liability.

Shareholder investment is used in the effort to found and expand the business, revenue form the business can also be reinvested in said expansion once basic operating expenses have been covered. Remaining revenue will be repaid to the shareholders in what is called a dividend.

Now, all operating expenses of the corporation must be covered either by debt or from corporate revenue. Put simply ... when you go into the well lit WALMART, WALMART isn't paying the light bill. You and I are. A small amount from each sale covers the store being lit. If consumers were willing to shop in the dark for a small savings, WALMART would operate only on sunlight and shopper provided flashlights.

Now, taxes are simply another expense to the business just as a light or phone bill is.

If the corporation is taxed one of a few things MUST happen:

1 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via higher prices.

2 - The tax is passed on to the consumer via lesser service such as fewer lights or fewer checkout lines available.

3 - The tax is passed on to the stockholder via reduced dividends and thereby reduced share price and thereby decreased wealth ... and, contrary to the class warfare myth, the "SHAREHOLDER" isn't some guy in a tuxedo and tophat smoking an imported cigarette in a silver cig holder. The shareholder and the consumer are one and the same as most of us either own stock, or have assets in a 401K/.IRA/pension plan that id a stockholder ... so, again the cost is passed on to the consumer.

4 - The business contracts or goes under meaning the costs are passed on to the employees via lower wages, reduced hour, benefit cuts, or loss of employment ... which in the end means the cost is passed on to the consumer via a depressed economy and gubmint benefit costs for the aforementioned employees.

5 - Reduced research/development/expansion. Again, if the business tries to incorporate the costs of the taxation into it's business model then a corresponding amount must be removed elsewhere. If this is R & D then the cost is again ultimately borne by the citizen in a less superior future product than would otherwise have been developed. If the cut comes from planned expansion, the citizen is still bearing the cost in less convenience and more travel expense.

In short, only someone completely bereft of economic sense actually can believe that a corporation can actually be taxed. </div></div>

I think this simplistic version of reality is false.

Companies may sometimes not even pass through actual increased costs of production to their end user purchasers, and take a lower profit level or even a (temporary) loss instead of doing that. </div></div>

That would fall under 3, 4, and 5.