Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Page 2 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,400
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2013, 12:24 pm

But change has been needed throughout American history, whether that pertained to slavery, racism, sex discrimination, oppression of labor, or homophobia, etc.
And as far as living in a stale, sterile country - it must be remembered that at the country's beginnings, not only were women and non-whites excluded from the political system and treated as second class citizens, but so were a sizable percentage of non-property owning white men. Change is not only exciting, but can be good.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 12:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
But change has been needed throughout American history, whether that pertained to slavery, racism, sex discrimination, oppression of labor, or homophobia, etc.
And as far as living in a stale, sterile country - it must be remembered that at the country's beginnings, not only were women and non-whites excluded from the political system and treated as second class citizens, but so were a sizable percentage of non-property owning white men. Change is not only exciting, but can be good.


That's just it. Liberalism made every one of the problems you mention WORSE. Yes, they did free the slaves, but the way they did it meant that the life expectancy of blacks was lower in 1940 than it was in 1860, along with all other Southerners.

It is the same with every single one of the issues you mention.

As far as disenfranchisement goes, you should remember that in the rest of the world EVERYBODY was disenfranchised with the exception of the ruling class. But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

03 Dec 2013, 1:51 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
That's just it. Liberalism made every one of the problems you mention WORSE. Yes, they did free the slaves, but the way they did it meant that the life expectancy of blacks was lower in 1940 than it was in 1860, along with all other Southerners.

Source?

Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.

The so-called "Liberals" (oh, how I hate US political terminology) achieved the following:

- Equal rights for African Americans
- Equal rights for Women
- Equal rights for Homosexuals (still needs a proper SCOTUS ruling about State laws, though)
- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights due to dual incorporation of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment (likely the greatest restriction on US government power since The Bill of Rights)
- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights by establishing a constitutional right of privacy due to Roe vs. Wade (affecting up to half of the US population)


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,400
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2013, 2:01 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But change has been needed throughout American history, whether that pertained to slavery, racism, sex discrimination, oppression of labor, or homophobia, etc.
And as far as living in a stale, sterile country - it must be remembered that at the country's beginnings, not only were women and non-whites excluded from the political system and treated as second class citizens, but so were a sizable percentage of non-property owning white men. Change is not only exciting, but can be good.


That's just it. Liberalism made every one of the problems you mention WORSE. Yes, they did free the slaves, but the way they did it meant that the life expectancy of blacks was lower in 1940 than it was in 1860, along with all other Southerners.

It is the same with every single one of the issues you mention.

As far as disenfranchisement goes, you should remember that in the rest of the world EVERYBODY was disenfranchised with the exception of the ruling class. But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.


Ask black people if they'd rather be property or live longer, and I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd pick being free over getting older. I know I certainly would.
And as far as disenfranchisement around the world is concerned - not so much anymore in western industrialized countries. And even in those days when most people were dirt everywhere, American exceptionalism allowed us to provide an example for the rest of the world to embrace equality and fairness. That's why we were such a magnet for the huddled masses around the world yearning to be free.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 2:45 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
That's just it. Liberalism made every one of the problems you mention WORSE. Yes, they did free the slaves, but the way they did it meant that the life expectancy of blacks was lower in 1940 than it was in 1860, along with all other Southerners.

Source?

Right here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Master-C ... ster+class

Read it and you might learn a thing or two.


Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.

The so-called "Liberals" (oh, how I hate US political terminology) achieved the following:

I define liberalism as those ideologies originating in the Enlightenment that emphasize individualism, change, universalism, the conceit of advancing freedom, and the conceit of egalitarianism.

Conservatism is defined as conserving a particular people and their ways, in a particular time and place.

As far as hating US political terminology, I'm guessing there isn't much about the US you do like. Am I wrong?


- Equal rights for African Americans

Examples, please.

- Equal rights for Women

Feminism is an elitist fraud and sham. Feminism serves the elites by doubling the workforce, and commensurately lowering wages. And women are far worse off. Now, in addition to having a home and family to take care of, they also have full-time jobs in addition to their previous responsibilities. It fits in with Orwell's maxim that slavery is freedom, huh?

- Equal rights for Homosexuals (still needs a proper SCOTUS ruling about State laws, though)

Examples, please.

- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights due to dual incorporation of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment (likely the greatest restriction on US government power since The Bill of Rights)

Examples, please

- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights by establishing a constitutional right of privacy due to Roe vs. Wade (affecting up to half of the US population)


Exactly where is the right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution?

You see, liberalism began by placing the individual above God--called secular humanism. Then liberalism placed the individual above their society and particularly morality--called cultural Marxism. Then liberalism placed the individual above reality itself--called postmodernism. Roe V Wade fits in very firmly with the latter, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 2:57 pm

Ask black people if they'd rather be property or live longer, and I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd pick being free over getting older. I know I certainly would.

Whether you are right or wrong is beside the point. The point is the way the slaves were freed. And liberalism was one hundred percent responsible for that. Had the slaves been freed peacefully, this wouldn't even be a question. Liberalism can brook no dissent, and therefore the South had to be destroyed. It is rank hatefulness, which is the essence of liberalism.

And how about those non-slaveholding whites who suffered? Do they matter? Or are they what the Soviets called "former people"?


And as far as disenfranchisement around the world is concerned - not so much anymore in western industrialized countries. And even in those days when most people were dirt everywhere, American exceptionalism allowed us to provide an example for the rest of the world to embrace equality and fairness. That's why we were such a magnet for the huddled masses around the world yearning to be free.

There is no such thing as American exceptionalism; we are no better, or worse, than any other group. This is the attitude that earned us the moniker "ugly Americans". Humility is a virtue, Bill.

Yes, everybody has to vote now, at least in the West. But are we really any freer? I would submit not, and here is the reason why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy

The fact is that we can't be free and equal; it is either/or, as seventy years of communism made clear.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 3:02 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Therefore, I would replace the GOP with a generic American party of some kind that puts the interests and needs of American first in their own country, and leaves social issues up to the states and local communities to decide. This party would concentrate bringing jobs and wealth back by closing the borders to all immigration; stopping these shabby free trade deals that are impoverishing countless numbers of Americans while enriching enemies like China; and putting PC into the same closet that liberalism has shoved Christianity into.


This is the current GOP in a nutshell.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:04 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Therefore, I would replace the GOP with a generic American party of some kind that puts the interests and needs of American first in their own country, and leaves social issues up to the states and local communities to decide. This party would concentrate bringing jobs and wealth back by closing the borders to all immigration; stopping these shabby free trade deals that are impoverishing countless numbers of Americans while enriching enemies like China; and putting PC into the same closet that liberalism has shoved Christianity into.


This is the current GOP in a nutshell.


How so? The only things I can see that the GOP are really willing to fight for are more tax cuts for the rich, more shabby free trade deals, and more foreign wars. What am I missing?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 3:07 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
In practical terms though, right now, the government is admitting a hundred thousand legal immigrants every month, and at a time when there aren't jobs enough for Americans.


Between 2000 and 2005, about 8 million immigrants came to the US (more than in any other 5 year period. Half of them illegally.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:11 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
In practical terms though, right now, the government is admitting a hundred thousand legal immigrants every month, and at a time when there aren't jobs enough for Americans.


Between 2000 and 2005, about 8 million immigrants came to the US (more than in any other 5 year period. Half of them illegally.


I agree, though I think that figure is slightly understated concerning illegal immigration, since the government doesn't care to admit how criminally lax their border enforcement policies are. As per the last major immigration act in the early nineties, 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted every year, which is in line with the figures you cite.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,400
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2013, 3:15 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Ask black people if they'd rather be property or live longer, and I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'd pick being free over getting older. I know I certainly would.

Whether you are right or wrong is beside the point. The point is the way the slaves were freed. And liberalism was one hundred percent responsible for that. Had the slaves been freed peacefully, this wouldn't even be a question. Liberalism can brook no dissent, and therefore the South had to be destroyed. It is rank hatefulness, which is the essence of liberalism.

And how about those non-slaveholding whites who suffered? Do they matter? Or are they what the Soviets called "former people"?


And as far as disenfranchisement around the world is concerned - not so much anymore in western industrialized countries. And even in those days when most people were dirt everywhere, American exceptionalism allowed us to provide an example for the rest of the world to embrace equality and fairness. That's why we were such a magnet for the huddled masses around the world yearning to be free.

There is no such thing as American exceptionalism; we are no better, or worse, than any other group. This is the attitude that earned us the moniker "ugly Americans". Humility is a virtue, Bill.

Yes, everybody has to vote now, at least in the West. But are we really any freer? I would submit not, and here is the reason why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy

The fact is that we can't be free and equal; it is either/or, as seventy years of communism made clear.


What evidence is there that slaves would have been freed voluntarily in the south? Slavery was more than just an economic system, it was also a determiner of social status. The more slaves a person or family owned, the higher their status. And even those poor whites who didn't own slaves could at least tell themselves they weren't at the bottom of the social ladder with the slaves. And it's for that reason why slavery probably would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to uproot. While it's absolutely true that there had been slaves in the north for a time, the institution had hardly been so hardwired into class society as it had been in the south. And it's absolutely incorrect to say that all poor whites in the south had fought for the Confederacy. Plenty of poor southerners had been drafted against their will into the Confederate army. There was indeed a significant number of white southerners who had either left to fight in the Union army, or like Newton Knight had organized Pro-Union resistance to carry out guerrilla warfare against the Confederate army and government. And it's no surprise that that virtually every one of these Pro-Union southerners were poor men who knew secession was a rich man's cause. And some like Newt Knight even were motivated by anti-slavery sentiments.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 3:29 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
I agree, though I think that figure is slightly understated concerning illegal immigration, since the government doesn't care to admit how criminally lax their border enforcement policies are. As per the last major immigration act in the early nineties, 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted every year, which is in line with the figures you cite.


Also something to consider: over 60% of those legal immigrants were for family reunification. And the government doesn't just hand out citizenship like candy. Before you can even apply for actual citizenship you must first be granted a visa in one of these ways:
Employer Sponsored: Employment visa.
Sponsorship by immediate family/relatives: Family Immigration, Fiancé/Spouse of US citizenship, Child adoption, family immigration or Spouse of LPR in the US
Special Immigrants: Working as interpreters or translators, working/worked for the US government or religious workers.

Lax border policies don't really make that big of a difference. Don't you realize how vast the border is? Even with current standards of border control, the cost is not justifiable for the gain. Increasing border security would only be a further fiscal burden on an already impressive mountain of expenses. I am not a fan of illegal immigration by any means (I am not a fan of anything illegal without regards to my personal moral code), but I really think that that money could be put to a much better use.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:44 pm

What evidence is there that slaves would have been freed voluntarily in the south? Slavery was more than just an economic system, it was also a determiner of social status. The more slaves a person or family owned, the higher their status. And even those poor whites who didn't own slaves could at least tell themselves they weren't at the bottom of the social ladder with the slaves. And it's for that reason why slavery probably would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to uproot. While it's absolutely true that there had been slaves in the north for a time, the institution had hardly been so hardwired as it had been in the south. And it's absolutely incorrect to say that all poor whites in the south had fought for the Confederacy. Plenty of poor southerners had been drafted against their will into the Confederate army. There was indeed a significant number of white southerners who had either left to fight in the Union army, or like Newton Knight had organized Pro-Union resistance to carry out guerrilla warfare against the Confederate army and government. And it's no surprise that that virtually every one of these Pro-Union southerners were poor men who knew secession was a rich man's cause, and some like Newt Knight even was motivated by anti-slavery sentiments.

You are right that slaves were status, but only insofar as they were wealth. Back then, the rich owned slaves; today they drive a Mercedes. But that is hardly reason why slavery wouldn't have died of its own accord.

A much better argument that slavery would not have died is that the South had set up a true slave-based society--the first since ancient Roman times. But this position would expose the very deceitful liberal narrative on slavery for they lies they are. More particularly, Southern slavery was closer to European serfdom than slavery as it was practiced just about everywhere else.

Slavery was on its way out for a number of reasons: First, the supply of free or very cheap land was running out. The poor non-slave-owning whites managed to get by by squatting on land that they didn't actually own. They essentially survived by living off the land--land that wasn't theirs. The problem is that as land became scarce they would've been chased off of it, and would have had to have a way to support themselves. The only way would have been to end slavery in favor of free labor. With endless supplies of free land, the elites could afford to ignore poor whites. When this dried up, those poor whites would have had to have some way of supporting themselves.

Second as Genovese points out, slavery was already on the wane in Virginia and Maryland at the time of the war, though hardly dead. Slave populations were actually declining in favor of free labor, which is simply a more efficient way of doing things; this is why the north won the war. The reason was that the land had to be rehabilitated instead of used up and abandoned. This required a regimen of care that slavery was simply not capable of providing for a host of reasons.

Third, slavery was good at providing one thing: Unskilled muscle power. One of my favorite slave pictures is of a scrawny slave woman swinging a hoe on a handle that was as thick as a baseball bat. Why? Because tools had a way of self-destructing in the hands of slaves. As technology, and particularly the internal combustion engine, came of age, the need for muscle power was greatly reduced.

Fourth, world opinion. World opinion was turning hard against slavery, and while it may not have ended slavery in and of itself, it would have made it much harder. This factor, in conjunction with the others, guaranteed an end to slavery.

As far as anti-Confederacy Southerners, there were some of these, particularly German Texans, but they were a very small minority. The fact is that every Southern state held a referendum on secession, and in every single state these referenda passed overwhelmingly.

This does NOT mean that average soldiers fought to protect slavery; they had their own reasons for doing so. Thinking that poor Southerners fought to protect slavery is as naive as believing that average soldier fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to for the Jews or big oil. They too had their own reasons.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

03 Dec 2013, 3:50 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


Without the efforts of Abraham Lincoln -- Republican this nation would be divided into at least two pieces.

ruveyn



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:54 pm

Also something to consider: over 60% of those legal immigrants were for family reunification. And the government doesn't just hand out citizenship like candy. Before you can even apply for actual citizenship you must first be granted a visa in one of these ways:
Employer Sponsored: Employment visa.
Sponsorship by immediate family/relatives: Family Immigration, Fiancé/Spouse of US citizenship, Child adoption, family immigration or Spouse of LPR in the US
Special Immigrants: Working as interpreters or translators, working/worked for the US government or religious workers.

Lax border policies don't really make that big of a difference. Don't you realize how vast the border is? Even with current standards of border control, the cost is not justifiable for the gain. Increasing border security would only be a further fiscal burden on an already impressive mountain of expenses. I am not a fan of illegal immigration by any means (I am not a fan of anything illegal without regards to my personal moral code), but I really think that that money could be put to a much better use.

One of the goals of anti-nationalist liberalism has been to devalue citizenship in favor of the free movement of capital, goods, and people wherever they wish to go. What matters is not whether these people become citizens; what matters is that they live here, and their children do become citizens.

I'm well aware of the length of the borders. If the NSA can keep track of every communication made by anybody anywhere in the world, I don't buy that they can't keep track of who comes across the borders.

Look at it this way: There are 1.1 million total troops in the US Army. The border with Mexico is a little less than two thousand miles. If you do the math, you will find that we could place a troop every ten feet. Do you really believe that having a soldier placed every ten feet along our southern border couldn't stop illegal immigration?