Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Page 6 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,371
Location: Reading, England

04 Dec 2013, 11:16 am

Quote:
I want America to be a gated community.

Why do you hate America so much? :?



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 11:24 am

Wanting to protect America is "hating" it? Do you understand that your question is Orwellian? Do you believe that ignorance is knowledge, slavery is freedom, and war is peace as well?



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,944

04 Dec 2013, 11:25 am

The german wall was not built to protect from outsiders, but to take away from the own people, the choice of leaving the country, to force an political oppinion on them, that they did not want, in an amount, that even peaceful fleeing and leaving the country, was forbidden to them. The only thing you can compare the wall around germany with, are the chains that Castro put on the feet of the woman he kidnapped, to prevent them from leaving his terror system.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 11:32 am

Excellent point. One of the most sobering experiences of my life was getting to see the Iron Curtain right outside of Hamburg. The dissonance between the beautiful, peaceful German countryside and the walls of the world's largest prison house was jarring to the senses and conscience in every way.

What my detractors can't seem to understand is the difference between the locks on your house door and the locks on a jail cell. The communists had to put up walls to keep East Germans in; the US needs them to keep foreigners out. It seems to me to be a difference worth noting.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 11:36 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
I want America to be a gated community.

Image



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 11:37 am

Is this what passes for intelligent argument for liberals now?



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

04 Dec 2013, 11:46 am

Sigh. I'm annoyed, but not surprised: "Overpaid slack-maximizing bureaucrat." I'm thinking it would be best just to shut this thread down in its entirety. Maybe we could start another thread discussing the thought of James Madison, for instance.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 11:58 am

Bach, since she hasn't bothered to reply back, I will have to assume that this liberalette thinks this country still belongs to the Indians. If I'm right, it is another example of the same rank hypocrisy of liberalism that has given us racial integration. Poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics abhor integration. Integration's biggest proponents are rich liberals living in places like Manhattan Island's Upper West Side and Beverly Hills--people who wouldn't dream of living in a black neighborhood, or sending their own children to schools where English is no longer spoken. Yet they expect others to do what they wouldn't dream of doing themselves. It is hypocrisy on stilts.

By the same token, liberals who believe that this country still belongs to the Indians should immediately give up all of their possessions, including real estate, to a worthy Indian and head back to their country of origin. It doesn't happen, but yet liberals expect Americans to do what they would never dream of doing.

St. Bernard told us that only the poor have the right to commend poverty. By the same token, only those liberals who live in black neighborhoods and send their children to gang-infested schools have the right to expect Americans to do the same. And only those liberals who give all their possessions to Indians and move back to Europe have the right to expect Americans to do the same.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Dec 2013, 12:07 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
What passages justified treating slaves as "livestock"? One of the reason northerners abandoned Christianity at an early date was that the Bible in no way, shape, or form forbids slavery, though it does strongly encourage masters to treat their slaves humanely. I challenge you to show differently. Good luck.


I never said any of them did. I am just saying that Biblical passages were frequently used (out of context and with very liberal interpretation) to justify it.

And the north never abandoned Christianity. There are still more Chritians in the north than all other religions (plus atheism) combined.


_________________
"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


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,602

04 Dec 2013, 12:09 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Is this what passes for intelligent argument for liberals now?


You are obsessed with that "liberal" word.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Dec 2013, 12:11 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Excellent point. One of the most sobering experiences of my life was getting to see the Iron Curtain right outside of Hamburg. The dissonance between the beautiful, peaceful German countryside and the walls of the world's largest prison house was jarring to the senses and conscience in every way.

What my detractors can't seem to understand is the difference between the locks on your house door and the locks on a jail cell. The communists had to put up walls to keep East Germans in; the US needs them to keep foreigners out. It seems to me to be a difference worth noting.


And I still maintain that a wall would do little to curb illegal immigration. The only way it would make a significant difference is if you drastically increase the size, budget, scope, and authority of Immigration, thereby massively increasing the government's financial obligations, power, and size. So again I say there are much better ways to spend that money.


_________________
"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


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,687
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Actually, slavery was being strangled in an anaconda choke hold with leaving the status of each western state and territory as either slave or free up to popular vote. One of the Confederacy's long term goals had been to circumvent that with succession, in order to expand into Mexico, and Central and South America in order to keep slavery alive with new land for cotton fields. The Confederates had no intention of allowing slavery to die away.
And as far as southern slavery resembling serfdom - I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. European serfs of old were tied to the land and owed labor and produce to the landlord, but were hardly chattel to be bought and sold, and had no fear of having their families divided. As a matter of fact, share cropping, which replaced slavery and encompassed both freed slaves and poor whites, had much more in common with serfdom. And it ought to be remembered, serf rebellions were very common, as the serfs saw themselves little better off than slaves.
And while I don't doubt that many poor whites had supported the Confederacy, the fact remains that those opposed it were more than just Texas Germans. Newt Knight - a Mississippian with an Anglo-Saxon name - as well as his small guerrilla army made up of Confederate army deserters and and escaped slaves, were hardly Texas Germans.

Actually, the abomination of Dred Scott was a major cause of the Civil War. What this decision in effect said was that slaves were personal property, and it was a violation of the property rights of slaveholders not to let them have their property wherever they wished. In effect, had this decision been carried out, it would have made all states slave states. Most Southerners were actually opposed to this abomination, as it negated the Somersett precedent which had governed slavery laws since before the country's founding:

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

As far as the Confederacy expanding, you are half right. There was a group called the Golden Circle, the most radical of whom did advocate expanding in to Mexico. But most of them would have been happy taking over the Caribbean slave strongholds, such as Jamaica and Barbados.

While this movement was hardly universally popular in the South, the more moderate version did make some sense. We are used to hearing about the original thirteen colonies, but there were actually twenty-six if British holdings in the Caribbean and central America are included. Many Southerners thought it was a terrible mistake ever to ally with the northern states for independence. Instead, this group wanted to ally with Britain's Caribbean and central American colonies to form an independent nation that same as northeastern Yankees had their eyes on taking over Canada.

Again, the Golden Circle was far from popular; most Southerners simply wanted to leave the union, whether they owned slaves or not. They were as sick of liberal oppression as modern conservatives are.

As far as the Confederates not allowing slavery to die, why do you think that? Were they all-powerful like God? Or is it possible that they didn't control the events that would have led to the downfall of slavery? Remember, it ended everywhere else peacefully. The difference in the US was intolerant liberalism that wanted to destroy everything and everybody that was different.

You are right that European serfs were tied to the land. That is the major difference between Southern slavery and European serfdom. The primary reason for this difference is that the US wasn't settled, but was expanding westward. And since the Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, the existing slave population had to be moved along with the slaveholders.

Actually, serfdom had nothing in common with sharecropping. Sharecroppers had no legal rights to the land, and were removed from it at will. There was also no sense of noblesse oblige present with sharecropping.

As far as serf rebellions were concerned, they did happen, but they were hardly the rule.

As far as serfs not being any better off than slaves, the only place I know that to be the case was Russia. The fact is that in western Europe, serfs had customary rights the same as Southern slaves did. It was in the liberal north that slaves had no rights, and this is why one of the biggest slave revolts in American history took place in NYC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_S ... lt_of_1712

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_C ... cy_of_1741


Whether they had wanted to expand into Mexico or the Caribbean isn't the point - the point is, the Confederacy realized they needed to expand slave territories or see the institution die.
And while slavery did die on it's own everywhere else, who says that has to be a hard and fast rule that could be applied everywhere? And it should be pointed out, slavery did not end voluntarily in Jamaica, but with a bloody slave uprising.
Also, I'd be remiss to point out that the Confederacy didn't need to secede. No one had held a gun to their heads. Lincoln at the time had not been motivated to take action against slavery, even though he personally held anti-slavery beliefs. The man hadn't even taken office yet when the Confederacy took up arms and declared it's independence, so accusations that Lincoln was oppressing the south doesn't hold any water. And the fact remains, had there been no movement to secession by the south, there would have been no violent uprooting of slavery and southern society by the Union. I argue that the south would have been considerably better off had they simply stuck it out, despite regional animosities.
Incidentally, on the subject of regional animosities - those have never in reality been that severe, until ambitious political leaders and social extremists have blown them out of proportion.
As far as share cropping and serfdom are concerned - yes, there were differences. But my primary point is, share cropping, like serfdom - semi-free farmers working the land for a landlord in both cases - seems to naturally follows after the extinction of slavery.
As far as serf rebellions are concerned - there had been such uprisings in the European Middle Ages and Reformation period. The Anabaptists had taken control of the Peasant movement - which the Protestant reformers had originally supported as a secular counterpart to the Reformation - and turned it into a bloody rebellion which the Reformers had no choice but to side with the princes to reestablish law and order.


_________________
-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

04 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
What passages justified treating slaves as "livestock"? One of the reason northerners abandoned Christianity at an early date was that the Bible in no way, shape, or form forbids slavery, though it does strongly encourage masters to treat their slaves humanely. I challenge you to show differently. Good luck.


I never said any of them did. I am just saying that Biblical passages were frequently used (out of context and with very liberal interpretation) to justify it.

And the north never abandoned Christianity. There are still more Chritians in the north than all other religions (plus atheism) combined.


It is not just for color that the South is termed the Bible Belt. Having lived both places, the South is far more religious than the north, though I would certainly agree that there are Christians living in the north. But the biblical argument over slavery did start the north on the path to be far more secularized than the South. In the years leading up to the Civil War, things like phrenology, astrology, Ouija boards, and mesmerism all became big fads--things that were considered anathema in the more Christian South.

One of the curious effects of slavery was that it made the South more Christian. While certainly not encouraging slavery, the NT recognized its existence and tried to make it as humane as possible. Since the slaveholders were getting a lot of heat over slavery, they increasingly took refuge in the Bible. Genovese goes so far as to say the South was headed toward theocracy on the eve of the Civil War, though I don't know if I would go this far. But what Christianity did was to strongly encourage humane treatment of slaves, even if it hardly freed them from their bondage.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 12:18 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Is this what passes for intelligent argument for liberals now?


You are obsessed with that "liberal" word.


How so? Why don't you like that word? I have defined what it means when I use it. As such, why do you find its use unacceptable?

I don't mind being called a reactionary; I'm proud of who I am.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

04 Dec 2013, 12:18 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Not realistic? Surely you jest, sir. The primary purpose of the army is to keep the nation safe from invasion, and illegal immigration by definition is invasion. Thus, during time of invasion, troops who would ordinarily be pushing paper and such man their battle stations. For example, when I was in the Navy (as you claim you were), during general quarters, cooks and paper pushers manned their battle stations.


So you accuse me of lying about my time in the service? I know about GQ, and yes, everyone has their station. Are you proposing that every member of the military be mobilized to a non-stop combat readiness status? Illegal immigration is definitely not an invasion where those coming over are looking to subjugate those already here.

Thelibrarian wrote:
You are also assuming that we would actually need a troop every hundred feet. You are also assuming that non-combat personnel have no role in supporting combat. A lot of those non-combat types man radar and other devices that can do surveillance.


You are the one that came up with the every 100 feet number. And I have already pointed out the many supporting positions in the military (which is why it is impossible to station someone every 100 feet).

Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as your defeatism goes, a country that is not willing to defend its borders is not long for this world. For centuries, Romans defended their borders and created one of the mightiest empires the world has ever seen. When they quit defending their borders, the barbarians took over, putting the world into a dark age for a thousand years.


What defeatism? I am against illegal immigration. I just don't see it as some all consuming problem that we should address to the exclusion of all other things.

Thelibrarian wrote:
If the ancient Romans could defend their borders with ancient technology, it is silly to think the country with the most modern surveillance equipment in the world can't do the same. It's only a matter of having the will to use whatever it takes, up to and including the use of deadly force. Americans have to be prepared to use deadly force to defend their homes. It is no different with our country.


You are a proponent of using deadly force against people who are just looking for a better life? Americans aren't defending their homes against illegal immigrants. They are not some sort of attackers that need to be exterminated.


_________________
"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