An honest discussion about Racism?

You'd lose that bet. The only thing that changed is that a civil war was won and we don't put people in chains anymore. That attitude that put them there hasn't changed. The attitude that segregated schools hasn't changed, or the attitude that bombed a church in Birmingham hasn't changed. Laws don't change peoples attitudes. They simply prevent you from acting on them.
View attachment 23161

 

Do you really want to know? What do you even know about conservatism? What's the ideological position of the conservative? Can you tell us?

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. The entire ideology is based on maintaining existing institutions. The Status-quo. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

 

In the system you had it was only a matter of time before the Federal government and the states seriously conflicted on something - that something was slavery. It could have been eugenics, torture as punishment, whatever. Basically, it needed to be something that the states and the Fed seriously disagreed on.

The question then becomes: what now? The slavery states wanted to leave - a not-outrageous proposal considering that the Fed was given the power to suppress insurrections (defn: a violent uprising against legitimate government) - but not to prevent the states from peacefully leaving. All powers not expressly delegated rest with the states and the people.

So no, the problem isn't as simple as conservatives covering their desire for slavery with states rights - there are many, myself included, who would have supported secession regardless of the catalyst issue. Don't assume the intent of others.

 

Such a definition presupposes your conclusion. Let's say that we enacted your idea of a just society - presumably others would disagree and try to change the society. Now you're the conservative.

Conservatism is the correct position if you're already at your end game. Hence, it's silly to try to make it an undesirable term in itself. We're just back to arguing over what a just society looks like.

 

I'm white. Can you tell me why I don't feel any "cheese grater' being applied to my forehead? Why is it that no African/American has ever accused me of racism? EVER!. There is not one thing that comes out of me in words or actions that reveal any degree of racism toward people. I don't have any feeling of displeasure from that because no black person has every seen anything like that coming from me. Have you considered that some of your words or actions may reveal more than you're willing to acknowledge or are even aware of? I can also tell you that being white, I'm fully aware of all the dog whistles aimed at whites BY whites designed to portray blacks in a stereotypical way. Not just blacks, but just about every minority. Of course with blacks we whites do have a "special" history don't we? Owning up to the mistakes is the quickest way of ridding yourself of repeating them.

 

What kind of school would believe that diversity was detrimental to their objectives which is identified as a broad education? It would be contradictory to their aims. Give me an example of what you're suggesting. What you are suggesting is antithetical to what I wrote. Your question makes no sense.

How could you possibly derive that from what I wrote. Diversity is not seen by a college as detrimental. Lack of it is. And when that diversity is denied based on race it's most certainly malicious.

Unfortunately with people like you around, it's necessary to promote it. You'd never agree with it as you're making it clear right now. Perhaps you long for the good ole day's of segregation. The University of Alabama was opposed to it for a long time, until they finally realized it was good for their football team.

Who says they aren't?

Those that don't, probably are. Most companies are seeking the best talent they can find, and obviously the more diverse the selection pool you have to draw from, the greater the odds of getting superior people. The more narrow the pool, the less talent to draw from. Why would any company want to deny itself the opportunity to get the best people that bring something new to their business? That's not even good business sense.

Your position is rooted in tribalism. And isn't demonstrably true. It's pretty clear that you don't like the additional competition that diversity brings to the fray. Somebody just might have something that you lack.

Then you should be able to demonstrate why it isn't. Go ahead.

 

I think this sums things up.

 

Come on, let's try to keep the discussion rational. If you have to go around calling people non-patriots to make your point then it's probably not a point worth making.

That aside, not sure why you'd post this in response to me, as I'm an Australian. Of course I'm not an American patriot.

 

By taking away rights? By moving backward? We certainly have established institutions in place, but the objective in this country is not to dismantle the entire structure and removing rights, but to expand them.

Whatever made you think that America is in the "end game"? We're an ongoing experiment in self governance. It's in the preamble of the constitution. "In order to form a MORE perfect union". Not a perfect one. That's not possible. We can always do better. What your voicing is what I've been saying. It's the challenge to the status quo that you don't like. To suggest that we are at the end game of anything assumes that we have no place else to go. That's completely false as history has proven.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then, you can hardly speak to secession over here can you? We've been around that block.

 

You haven't addressed the issue. The question isn't "should we move forward or backward", the question is "what is forward and what is backward?".

I'm an anarchist myself, so I don't think America is at the end game. I was pointing out that everyone's a conservative in their own utopia, so it's silly to attack conservatism as an inherently fallacious position. Rather, you should attack their conception of the status quo as being supposedly utopian.

I'm a polisci major, I am not restricted to my own country in my opinions. I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm just providing my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine - don't pay attention to it.

 

So, am I to take it you won't at least watch the documentary? Too bad. If you think black men like Rev. C.L. Bryant, and Marvin Rogers are far right extremists, then you really have catching up to do.

 

Just ignore the bigots, it works for me.

There will always be bigots, all kinds of bigot. but why focus on racial bigotry? We have ideological bigots, liberals who despise anyone who claims to be a conservative, and this crosses racial boundaries. If you are a black man, and you are a conservative, liberals hate you, no matter what race they are.

 

You think that I'm assuming the intent of others? I don't think so.

The articles of secession coming from Mississippi are very clear.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
Mississippi from the Federal Union.

“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

The intentions were very well stated. They've never gotten over this. After losing the Civil War, they instituted Jim Crow Laws in order to continue denying rights to the people they had enslaved. After that was done away with, the conservatism that inspired all of this has remained to this day. Voting rights suppression under the guise of voter fraud that doesn't exist. Birtherism that tries to deny the legitimacy of the President. Confederate Flags in front of the White House. Calls for secession. The Republican Party of Lincoln has become the party of Jefferson Davis along with the blatant racism and White supremacist attitudes that are part of it.

 

Being from Australia, perhaps you aren't familiar with the "Birther" argument made here that the president isn't a citizen, not an American, he hates America, he's not one of us. So would you accept that if a persons patriotism should not be questioned, then neither should non-stop attacks of this president being UnAmerican? Besides, when we have a group of people waving that obscenity (the confederate flag) and questioning the Patriotism of others, it seems quite fitting to point out that this rag is a symbol of insurrection and treason against this country and hardly a fitting symbol of anybody's patriotism.

 

That is the typical leftist mindset and this is why liberals and their philosophies are racist. Black men and women who vote for republicans are too stupid in your mind to know what is best for them. Only liberals know what is best for dumb minorities. The Tea Party is voting for and getting exactly what they want and that is more politicians who believe in individual freedom, something democrats never talk about unless it concerns abortion. I can't figure out if democrats really believe the crap the spew or if it is just a conscience ploy to keep African Americans on the democrat plantation.

You question the democrat culpability and then in the next sentence you take credit for republican moves. You are confusing racism with conservatism and liberalism with pro-civil rights. Perhaps that is the way your liberal teacher taught history to you. But if you love what the republican party did for pro-civil rights, why aren't you a republican?

If you think the Dixiecrats, a breakaway of the democrat party switched to republicans, you need to review your history, because that is not the case at all. In fact it is a complete fabrication. They all returned to the democrat party with one or two exceptions. I take offence to you calling me ignorant and I won't lower myself to your level. I have covered all of these issue in detail and annihilated liberal mythology and historical rewrites on all of this in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=222393

Again with the personal insults? Try having a conversation without personal attacks for a change. Again you are confusing racism/slavery with the word conservatism. Liberals are always trying to rewrite history in this way, saying the democrat were republicans and the republicans were democrats. It's a specious and vacuous argument. It is a conservative idea that people have individual rights to freedom and the fruits of their labor, and it is liberalism that wants to profit from the labor of others. It was true then and it is true today. Again, you attempt to take credit of the republican party and give it to the democrat party, they are the ones who fought for slavery, they WERE DEMOCRATS!

Again posting abuses of the democrat party and trying to blame republicans for pro-slavery democrats is very disingenuous and counterintuitive.

If you want to label Southern democrats Conservative it is complete erroneous. Try calling them Southern Democrat racists.

I think it was the KKK which is the terrorist wing of the democrat party and all the individuals involved were democrats. Are you trying to prove my point?

Governor/Senator Tillman was a Democrat as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman

See, now you aren't even trying to hide your re-write of history. Look if you love the republicans so much, you should join us.

Lincoln - Republican
Jefferson Davis - Democrat
I have never seen the republican party using the confederate flag in anyway. Now you are just playing the race card. Seems to have backfired on you though.

 

Well, one rabbit trail leads to another yet I can already smell some rotten liberal complaining to their favorite mod that this thread is getting off topic and we can soon see posts moved and perhaps even the entire thread............anyhow I will post a little comment on the so called 'Birther Problem' and and make a few comments in general.


For the Record: I am no birther, but:

• Obammy violated federal election law, by filing to run under (both for the U.S. Senate and the Presidency) a false name. Unless he legally changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama II, his legal name is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Dunham;

• He was ineligible to run, due to having failed to legally repudiate his citizenship in nations besides America. He was and remains a citizen of at least three different countries: Kenya, Indonesia, and America; and

• He violated the natural born citizen clause, Article II, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. In order to run for president, both of the candidate’s parents must have been American citizens at the time of his birth. “Obama’s” father never became an American citizen.

Now whether anyone agrees with the above or not .....(which is not the problem)...........the real problem was that nether the Congress or the SCOTUS had the moral courage to deal with this controversy....instead what happened was that a 'political fix' was imposed on the American People with much assistance from the major media.....and that is why this controversy still exists...the Supreme Ct. could have settled it quickly.....yet they didn't have the moral courage to do so....instead lamely saying that it was a political issue--not a legal one. What utter B.S.

Now of course the liberals having no real interest in the unity of the American People and being committed to the utter destruction of anything that will hold America together were and are more than happy to keep the controversy going...understanding they could not lose with the media behind them and congress and the supreme ct. refusing to get involved.

Irregardless..........on to the issue of racism. The most decisive issue in America and in reality the most important issue in America ....yet it will never be resolved under our present form of government.....our government is totally incapable of dealing with this issue for a number of reasons.

All of these arguments on racism, equality etc. never really are allowed to get real.......people will dance around the issue but due to several things....their ignorance, lack of experience, lack of education, lack of a analytical mind and the biggest problems of all 'personal prejudice' and media censorship......people simply cannot get a grip-- regarding any possible solution to America's racial dilemma.

 

Perhaps I've not made my point clear enough.

I never said it's not alright to make the case for someone not being a patriot (although I disagree with the birthers, obviously) - but if you want to you should at least try justifying it. Calling all who fly the confederate flag non-patriots is ridiculous and unjustified. Patriotism is more than blind devotion to the state, it includes some level of dedication to the ideas behind that state.

Again, you're back at having to argue that the ideas they're dedicated to are opposed to those held up by the US.

[hr][/hr]

ie: you can't make blanket statements like that.

 

I don't care what the seceding states were seceding over, that's irrelevant. The question here was whether or not they had that power. Now, you would probably argue that they didn't - fair enough, but the fact that others disagree with you on that doesn't mean that they support slavery. It means that they disagree with you on the right of states to secede. That's all you can necessarily draw from someone's use of the Confederate flag.

If you want to make the case that someone is pro-slavery then fine, I have no doubt that many who hold up the Confederate flag are indeed massive racists. But that doesn't necessarily follow simply from the use of the flag. Symbols mean different things to different people. Should I go around campus calling out people who wear Che Guevara shirts? Who cares, they clearly don't support guerrilla warfare and mass murder - that symbol means something different to them.

 

In my view, those things that expand our experience and knowledge, move us forward. Those things that inhibit experience and knowledge deny us the ability to realize our potential more fully. Orthodoxy is the enemy of knowledge. Reactionaries actually want to take us back to a time that preceded the gains that we enjoy today.

I don't think that's true. You are assuming that everyone has an idealized concept of a perfect society. I don't. I have no idea of what "perfect" means. I'm a fallibalist. I know that I could be wrong about a host of things. I have no monopoly on perfection. Nobody does. What seems to be the difference here is that I'm aware of the fact that an infallible idea cannot come from a fallible source. Everything that we do is an experiment. What I find really obnoxious is the conservative predisposition for predicting outcomes. They're track record is abysmal. But they do it anyway, because they reject progress. So they demagogue programs by telling the less informed, "This program will bring about Armageddon', or "This is the worst program since Slavery", or "Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell". And the hypocrisy is breathtaking. I recently watched Sara Palin standing with a group of Veterans telling us how Obama should not be using our Vets as props...while standing in front of a group of veterans, and using them as props.

But I do that all the time. For a conservative to want to stay in the same place is to assume that things are as good as they can possibly get, and anything else will likely be for the worse is a common thread amongst them. The status quo is their Utopia. There are some Reactionary's that would turn back the clock, and they're among the most extreme.

As am I. I'm fully aware of the historical background of conservatism dating back to Edmund Burke and the more recent adoption of his views by Russell Kirk in his 1953 book, The Conservative Mind. He cited his 6 Canon's of Conservatism. Canon's?? How ecclesiastical of him. That's about as dogmatically ideological as you can get. And Kirk was the guy that influenced Ronald Reagan, and William F. Buckley, and Barry Goldwater. What we have today is way more extreme than even those views.

I have no use for Burke. He was an aristocrat and the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is where modern doctrines of individual rights come from. We saw how that played out with the workmanship ideal, Mill's harm principle all the way down through Nozick and Rawls.

In Burkes view, rights are inherited. It's inheritance, what we have been born into as a system of rights and obligations that we reproduce into the future.

And those rights, above all, are limited. Again, just as our knowledge of the world is limited so our rights, in the normative sense, are limited. "Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." We have a right to be restrained, a very different notion than a right to create things over which we have authority, a right to be restrained.

Burke said this; ""Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

So we have a right to be restrained. We have a right, most importantly, that others are going to be restrained, and that our passion should be controlled is something that he insists is an important part of what we should think of under the general heading of what it is that people have rights to. And this is the guy that Conservative Radio talking head, Mark Levin loves to quote as a conservative icon to follow.

Burke says that we have no right to alter or reject the governance of what we inherited from our ancestors since it represents the collective wisdom through the ages, and we have no right to deprive future generations of that wisdom. So...we must accept the idea of being ruled forever by dead men.

I don't buy that, and I'm more inclined to agree with Thomas Paine.

"There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered." Thomas Paine -The Rights of Man

 

Take a real long and hard look at what you just wrote. You write this as though Democrats and African/Americans are two separate things. Are you suggesting that African/Americans have a desire to be kept "on the democrat plantation"? African/Americans ARE Democrats. 95% of them identify as Democrats and voted for Obama, who also happens to be an African/American. Who exactly do you think Democrats are?? This is really brilliant. You actually project the notion that it's a bunch of white crackers that are the Democratic Party and the African/Americans are this...group that is being pandered to because that's exactly how you go about doing things as Teabagging Republicans. African/Americans ARE the Democratic Party today. Have you ever heard of the Congressional Black Caucus? They're all Democrats. Who exactly do you think heads up the party today? I'll give you a clue....he lives in the White House.

What I questioned was you assertion of a history of Liberal Democrat Racism. There isn't one. I asked you to provide examples of it. Which you cannot do, since it doesn't exist.

No. Actually you are confusing Democrat with Liberal. And Republican with Conservative. The parties had no bearing on whether their members were conservative or liberal. They existed in both parties back then, unlike what you see today. So the party affiliation tells us nothing of the ideology that was in play that opposed civil rights. It was conservatism that opposed it in every case. NOT liberalism. Some of those conservatives were Democrats, and some were Republicans. Barry Goldwater opposed it and he was a Republican and the most conservative guy in the party. Likewise Strom Thurmond opposed it and he was a Democrat and a southern Conservative. There were Zero liberals that opposed it. No racist is going to vote for civil rights. They oppose it totally. As did conservatives. They have much in common.

I didn't need a "liberal teacher" for this. I saw it with my own eyes first hand. I'm probably a bit older then you.

Because I'm not a conservative. I loved what my Republican Senator Dirkson did. But then he wasn't a conservative either. Nor was Nelson Rockefeller or Bill Scranton, or Chuck Percy, or Jacob Javits. Conservatives have taken over the party and none of those men could possibly exist in the Republican Party today. I reject conservatism because of it's inherent racism. The conservatives that were in the Democratic Party all left to join the Republicans. That's what you've got today. Solid Conservatives including the entire conservative South that opposed civil rights and employed Jim Crow for years with segregation and a whole lot worse. The Democrats embraced Civil Rights and purged that racists from the party. They found a home with the Republicans.

No it isn't. What I said was this: "I'm sure you can find a history of conservative democrats, or DixieCrats, who became Conservative Republicans, but that simply proves my point." My statement was not exclusive to the DixieCrats but inclusive to the conservative democrat which may or may not have included former Dixiecrats. They were actually the States Rights Democratic Party and segregationists. Strom Thurmond ran against Truman. That was a long time before the CRA, even though that cretin was still polluting the air in the Senate Chambers. Many of them may have died off or left politics but the conservatism that they held is in full display today. Strom Thurmond was a DixieCrat and later switched parties. Surely you know that. The southern Democrats have all become Republicans. The south is all Red States today. You are aware of that right??

Then don't make ignorant statements like a history of liberal democratic racism.

Cool. Thanks for providing the link. I'll enjoy dismantling your case. Based on what you've posted so far, it should help to clarify things.

Being ignorant of something is being uninformed. When you become informed you lose your ignorance. I haven't called you stupid have I? There is no help for stupidity. Ignorance can be cured.

Nope. I'm sorry but you'd be wrong about that. But here's a clue to how to argue your point. Don't tell me I'm confused about something. Show me how I'm confused. Demonstrate the truth of what you say. That's how it works.

No. Once again, I'm afraid that you have your history a bit confused, which is not surprising given the crazies on the radio filling your head with this nonsense. You are conflating Republican with Conservative And you are also claiming that Democrats are Conservatives which of course they are not today. And that's where you are going wrong. Republican did NOT mean Conservative since it was Liberal Republicans that pushed through the civil rights Act. Goldwater was NOT a liberal Republican and he opposed it. Lincoln was the first Republican President and he fought to keep the Union together against the secessionists in the south, all of whom were conservatives and defenders of slavery. Today your party is totally conservative and contains members such as Rick Perry that advocate secession. The very thing that Lincoln fought against. You've become the party of Jefferson Davis.

And this: "It is a conservative idea that people have individual rights to freedom and the fruits of their labor,"
Is completely false and tells me that you've never had a political science course in your life. If you've at least studied history you'd know that the concept of individual rights to freedom and the fruits of your labor is from the social contract of John Locke. It's the most fundamental construct of liberalism. Locke's ideas were in direct conflict with the concept of Monarchy which was totally conservative. The King certainly had an interest in preserving the institution of the monarchy and the aristocracy that it supported. Locke's social contract was the beginning of modern liberalism. That's where it started. And Locke's philosophy of the social contract spread and was adopted here by our founders. Locke said; "No legitimate government can violate our natural rights. However…what counts as life and liberty and respect for property…is defined by government. That there be property, that there be respect for life and liberty is what limits government, but what counts as respecting my life or my property…that is for government to decide and define."

Locke also said this: Locke: Government by Consent.
"A democratically elected government has the right to tax people. It involves taxation with consent. It requires consent of the governed, but not the consent of each individual. It requires a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligations. Once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority"

John Locke was no espousing conservatism. This was the beginning of liberalism which rejected conservatism and the divine right of kings.

 

American "conservatives" are so totally deracinated they have no idea what a REAL conservative looks like.

Real Americans look back to Europe, the heimat.

 

I have no problem with change. I am a radical myself. The question is in which direction we should change. That's the question behind all politics. Even those who want to maintain what is vaguely thought of as the status quo do not want to maintain it exactly - just to a greater degree than the rest of us.

My point is - saying that change is desirable doesn't justify change in your particular direction. That's what political discussion is for.

I wasn't using utopia to refer to some ideal society where it rains money and we all live forever - imagine a world in which your whim became reality. Such a world would be "utopian" for you, because your desires all come true: you cease to desire change because that change has already been enacted. I used this example to point out the fact that all the conservatism/progressivism spectrum shows you is how far away you are from realizing your view for the world, it doesn't speak at all for the rationality of that view.

If you think the current system of state/corporation collusion at the expense of the common man is an undesirable state of affairs, then go ahead and chuck me some reasons. I agree with you on this. We both want radical change. I am, in a literal sense, a progressive. However, the statement "change is good in itself" is really just saying "I dislike the current state of affairs". That's fine, and I agree with you, but you're yet to justify that claim, in my opinion.

My apologies, I meant that you should argue this (as you do), but arguing that the "right wing ideology" (as in the conservative ideology, from a time-independent perspective) is wrong because it's the status quo is faulty logic. That seems to me to be your primary fallacy, no disrespect intended. Conservative ideology =/= Status quo ideology. They don't mindlessly worship the status quo - if the status quo was liberalism then they'd cease to be 'conservatives' in the status quo sense. Their political ideology is separate from the position that the status quo should be preserved.

Reading back through my posts, I may have seemed to be saying "I'm a polisci major, therefore my opinion is right" - that's not what I meant. You said "well you can hardly speak for secession over here can you?", I said I was a polisci major to explain my interest in the United States in addition to that in my own nation.

Anyway, yeah nice summary - I have no objection to it. This is the sort of thing that's useful in discussion.

As am I.

My view is built up solely from the individual - it involves no constitution because it involves no state. Others have no right to consent for the individual. That said, this discussion isn't really about what I think, although I'd be happy to discuss it with you in an on-topic thread.

I judge that the conservative ideology as it's commonly referred to today does conflict with Paine's statement, but so does the progressive ideology. Not only do generations not have the ability to consent for other generations, individuals do not have the ability to consent for other individuals. Consent can only come from the indivisible unit of decision making, collectives can consent in a sense, but only through the initial consent of the individual. The state breaks this chain by pulling the rug out from under it. Individual consent is not required, only the consent of the majority or some political manipulation of it (electoral college, etc).

 

Is that why women benefit the most from it, which in turn means white men benefit from it also.

Hmmm, funny how no one at that polling place claimed to be intimidated.

If they were telling folks they better not go in and vote.

Actually that was in Oklahoma and it was 2 black teens and one white teen, so do you think the white teen should be charged with a Hate Crime also?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/2-okla...rder-in-death-of-australian-athlete-1.1406529

So are you saying that no one black has ever been charged with a Hate Crime?

Wouldn't that be double-jeopardy. Why didn't they retry Zimmerman if that is the case. I missed the part where the AG said that black folks wouldn't be tried for any Hate Crimes.

Wasn't that murder called a drug deal gone bad. Also I thought someone had been arrested in that case or isn't that murder still under investigation. Now if this was a drug deal gone bad why would it be considered as a Hate Crime.

So are you saying that some groups having been discriminated against when it comes to housing among other things.

What % of the contracts was set-aside for them? 5 or 10%. So who are the other 90% going to? I am an Electrical Contractor so let me show you how the game is played. Anyone can be a Electrical, Plumbing or HVAC Contractor all you have to do is hire one person who holds a license. Now what white men do is put the business under their wife, she goes and gets the minority contract but who do you think the actual owner is?

So in other words you are pissed that the white male doesn't get all the contracts.

Would it be because they were discriminated against for years and years and years. Right, that doesn't count.

Not according to the DOJ.

 

Was FDR a liberal or a conservative? Did he send Japanese Americans to Concentration Camps?
View attachment 23180
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.
FDR also selected as his running mate in 1944 Harry Truman, the only American president who has been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

How about JFK? Was he a liberal? He has long been praised as a great civil rights leader. But what is the truth?

And if you look at most of his senate and presidential career, he was either indifferent or against civil rights legislation. Only in 1963, with the advent of television, with the sight of democrat controlled state and local governments hosing down blacks and attacking them with dogs, violence and riots, murders did he feel pressured to do something about it. However, he was assassinated and never signed any civil rights legislation into law the entire time he was president.
How about Harry Truman? Well as I already mentioned, he was the only US president who was once a member of the KKK.

I could write a book about this, and many books have been written about this.

Here is a great website that talks about politics and history of racism:

http://www.nbra.info/

How many more examples would you like me to provide? Want some on Clinton?
http://www.politicalforum.com/showt...e=27&p=4919733&highlight=Arkansas#post4919733

How about President Obama and his support for racism against Blacks?
Here is Obama at the funeral of a former member of the KKK:

Can you imagine if George W Bush had gone to the funeral of a former KKK member, the press would have a field day.
You can go to this link for some of the many racist quotes Obama put into writing in his own books:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=222393&page=17&p=4859178&highlight=Obama#post4859178

- - - Updated - - -

Are you white or black? Because if you are white, what you say must be very offensive to blacks. You talk like you (democrats) own all African Americans. Well you don't own them. Stop talking as if they are your slaves, it's very offensive. Whatever race you are, your language is racist and offensive and you should stop it. Using that word in that context is just as offensive as using the "N-word".

In 2010, republicans had some 50 to 60 women and minorities running for office. In a year when republicans gained seats across the country, most of them lost because they were targeted by the democrats because of their race.

I have heard of the Congressional Black Caucus. Had the democrat ever targeted one of it's members? Yes, because he was a republican, Allen West was targeted by the democrat party because of the color of his skin. That's how absolutely racist democrats are today. And the media never made any issue of the fact that he was targeted for his race even though it was obvious. They had special interests and well as the DNC and the DNCC and unions spend millions to defeat him. And of course, all the racist white democrats in that congressional district voted against the black man. Here's Allen West explaining why racist democrat policies are harmful to blacks:
[video=youtube;uJNNsL8gn3s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJNNsL8gn3s[/video]

And again with the insults. Fine, I can play too.

You are a teabagging democrat.

FDR - No civil rights legislation. (Huge democrat majorities in both houses) Did not integrate the military LIBERAL
Truman - No civil rights legislation (Huge democrat majorities in both houses) Did not integrate the military LIBERAL
Eisenhower - 1957 Civil Rights Act (Huge democrat majorities in both houses) Did integrate the military CONSERVATIVE
JFK - No civil rights legislation (Huge democrat majorities in both houses) LIBERAL
Are we seeing a pattern here?

Strom Thurmond did oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act because he was a DEMOCRAT. That was before he switched his views "starting in the 1970s, he moderated his position on race" and joined the republican party. Strom Thurmond had a half sister who was black and he paid for her college education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Barry Goldwater was a racist in my view so I won't defend him. But that is why he lost in one of the biggest landslides in history. In fact I think it was the worst loss for a republican ever. LBJ was extremely unpopular, but even republicans wouldn't support Goldwater and his racist views.

Did you see this?:
[video=youtube;o54n7HXwOhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o54n7HXwOhc[/video]
Even federal troops and federal law enforcement that Kennedy sent to quell protests ended up siding with local law enforcement agencies assaulting the rioters instead of protecting them. Local law enforcement on orders of democrat politicians would turn fire hoses on protesters, beat them, send police dogs to attack protesters, all of this would show up on the nightly news. Did you see that? Well after three years of incarcerating black civil rights leaders, and violence on TV, Kennedy had to relent and ask congress to pass a civil rights bill that Kennedy himself had stripped the teeth out from the 1957 Civil Rights Act that Eisenhower had signed into law.

 

That whole paragraph is filled with so many lies I don't know where to start. Let me begin by once again pointing out that you are trying to take credit for republican moves by claiming ownership of things republican politicians did. And again you are using the word "conservative" as if it were synonymous with racism. If anything, the word that is synonymous with racism would be "democrat".
What racist did the democrats purge from the party?

All the democrat senators and congressmen who joined the Dixiecrats? Name them.
All the democrat senators and congressmen who voted against the '64 Civil Rights Act & '65 Voting rights Act? Name them.
Governors like Orval Faubus or George Wallace? I could go on and on naming the democrat politicians and the democrat politicians they mentored all day long. Like say Al Gore, Sr. who voted against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, his son became the Vice President of the United State in the Democrat Party. Such a proud heritage. And Bill Clinton, who's mentor was William J. Fulbright. Clinton gave him the presidential medal of freedom for a lifetime of voting against African American's rights. (and they called him the first black president!)

I know what you said and it is still a complete fabrication. If you have examples, other than Thurmond who only switched to REPUBLICAN AFTER changing his racist views as I have provided proof of in earlier posts.
You are only digging yourself deeper in fact because even after Thurmond was a Dixiecrat he went back to being a democrat.

So which is it, democrats became republicans (I am so sick of hearing this claim which is again made with no factual evidence) or did they all "died off or left politics"? If their "conservatism" (which again you mistakenly use in place of the word "racism") is in full display, name one politician or republican party platform that you find racist.

Why don't you stop making ignorant statements denying the history of democrat racism, and even on the part of liberal democrats, that I have provided ample proof of.

Stupid people can also be taught. So, no, I don't accept your explanation for insulting me.
So it's a polite way of insulting me? Well I have informed you of the history of liberal democrat racism so now you have no excuse to be ignorant on the issue - I HAVE CURED YOU.

I have made a great case in point...you are just playing ignorant. Have you not read all my posts? But here's a clue for you, try reading the posts I have written.

I have the history confused? I said, "the democrat party, they are the ones who fought for slavery, they WERE DEMOCRATS!". If you can't get that right, then it is you who is confused and I can't help you any further.

I never once claimed, "that Democrats are Conservatives". That is a flat out lie. Show me the quote were I said that. Once again you are doing the same thing, taking credit for republican moves. Lincoln was a republican, if you want to take credit for what he did, become a republican, don't try and make him a democrat.

It is again insulting and the height of arrogance to assume you know anything about what I know or what my level of education is. I would have gone into this discussion further, but I am so put off by you condescending tone that I really am losing interest in this debate. To act as though you are my teacher and I your student and give me lessons on John Locke. Try sticking to the topic at hand instead of diverting it to a philosophical debate on John Locke, because he was not a republican or a democrat.