The gummint screwed up again

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe I do know the definition of genocide:

General Assembly Resolution 260A (III) Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Please note that nobody necessarily has to die for genocide to occur. It is also worth noting that under subsections (b) and (c) that liberals themselves are guilty of genocide. I am, of course, referring to the liberal attempt to deny the very existence of a unique American culture and identity.

As far as the rest of your comments go, I would advise you to read my original comments. What was true and factual yesterday generally remains the same today. It is unfortunate that postmodernism blinds liberals to even the simplest of truths.

And unique American culture are liberals trying to destroy?

@librarian:

Quoting your posts would take entirely too much space.

Communism is an ideal that was distorted and then used to put a small group in power and to maintain their power. What do you think wealthiest people in this country do? The actions are the same, regardless of the supposed reasoning.
To say that nothing good ever came from a country claiming to be communist is faulty.

I have never called you sub-human. I have never called you un-American. Having different opinions than you does not mean that about me, either.

I do love my country. Just because you love something does not mean that you should ignore its faults; past, present, or future.

You continue to speak out against wealthy elite liberals, yet continue to ignore the fact that conservatives can be just as elitist and wealthy.

Which of Bryan's views do you agree with? Most of what he stood for you have demonized throughout this thread.

You continue to assume that I am an all out liberal, which is false. I do lean toward liberalism when it comes to helping those who cannot help themselves, though.

You claim that liberals ignore truth and are not objective, despite the fact the same remains true for conservatives (including yourself).

I do not agree that only a religious culture can sustain noblesse oblige. It is absurd to think that it can only exist in a religious context. Your own arguments also suggest that you are opposed to the idea yourself.

I have never said that you advocated anarchy. I merely asked what you would propose takes the place of the federal government which you want abolished. Nothing more.

American culture does exist. But it has taken on aspects of every group of people that came here. To assume that the first Europeans to arrive are the only ones that should have been allowed to influence culture is absurd in the extreme.

I have studied Marx and Engels quite a bit. I find it to be a fascinating and beautiful philosophy that is only good on paper. To dismiss all aspects of it after having supposedly studied it so much makes me feel that your claims of impartiality are greatly exaggerated.

You complain of immigration, despite the fact that the founders of this country were all in favor of it, many being immigrants themselves.

You say imperialism is wrong, yet you live in a country where a large part of its cultural past is based upon it.

You are seriously mistaken in many of your assumptions on liberals. Liberals do not support the abolition of the nuclear family, are not against monogamy, are not upset that people want to take care of their own children more than those of others, they do not think that everyone is genetically equal (just that we are all born with an equal right to opportunity), it is not a mental disease, it is not out to destroy the family.

You cannot take me seriously when I say that I support freedom of religion and freedom of speech? Just because I find most of your opinions to be conservative extremism does not mean I am against your right to express those opinions in any way.

I disagree that you would change your opinions in light of anything whatsoever. You continue to insult, ignore, or dismiss anything that does not fall perfectly in line with your thinking (including history).

Do not accuse me of hatred. It is very difficult for me to hate anyone. I will admit that I find you somewhat distastful, but there is no hatred being focused your way from me.

I never stated that guns were not a cultural right, merely that that is not the primary reason gun advocates maintain their positions on the subject. I own firearms. I hunt. I don't think that cultural rights have anything to do with the issue.

You try to maintain that Anglo-Celtic culture is the only thing that made this country great. You do realize that Florida was mostly Spanish and that the Louisiana purchase didn't come from Scotland? You do realize that there have been massive waves of immigration over the centuries including huge numbers of Dutch, Irish, German, and Eastern European? The country didn't collapse then. Our current economic troubles are mostly due to the exploitive survival of the fittest business mentality that most conservatives defend to the death. Capitalism is a great thing until it is used as a tool to eliminate the possibility of competition, which is where it has ended up.

You stated earlier that insults are the most graceless way of admitting you have lost an argument. You may want to take a moment and consider the implications of that statement on many of your own posts.

What do you consider an honest living? Is it simply doing your best at your job? Just curious.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 31 Oct 2013, 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

South Africa has a similar culture to US in that it is a melting pot of many different cultures, all of which combine to produce a unique SA culture (English, Dutch, French, German, Xhosa, Zulu, Malay, Ndebele, Swazi, Khoisan, Indian, Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc etc.) all contribute to our heritage and yet each have unique aspects of their own.

As in SA, the US is also a melting pot of many different cultures, which all contribute to the American way of life and yet the various peoples and ethnicities retain festivals etc. in which they can celebrate their particular heritage.

Thelibrarian, you would probably support one of the small right wing fringe parties if you were a South African. Some don't even participate in elections any more. The party I support has a woman as national leader and another woman as parliamentary leader, so you probably wouldn't support them!

Thelibrarian wrote:

Nor is it the case that Americans had some kind of monopoly on breaking treaties or cruelty. The Indians were terribly cruel not only to the Americans, but to each other; hence the moniker "savage".

At home I have collection of local Indian arrowheads hanging on my wall. These very fragile items serve as a reminder that Indians were stone age people. What is also interesting is that few were produced after 1492. Why? Because metal was infinitely superior

So, am I uunderstanding you correctly? Are you suggesting the Native Americans are/ were nothing more than Iron Age savages? Doesn't that sound somewhat offensive and racist even to your ears? They had a highly advanced culture that respected all living things. What about General Philip Sheridan's barbaric orders to destroy all the buffalo - of 3 700 000 buffalo killed between 1872 and 1874, only 150 000 were killed by Indians Sheridan said "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated, as it is the only way to bring peace and allow civilization to advance." (Dee Brown, Bury my Heart at Wouunded Knee Pg 265).

So, Sheridan could be called a savage by decent standards, even though he assuaged his conscience with his later work to have Yellowstone proclaimed a national park. He must have made quite an about turn in his attitude to wildlife conservation!

Because "communist" countries are communist in name only. The same way that I would label Venezuela a "socialist" country or the US a "democracy."

I think that America does have a cultural identity, just not your narrowly defined version. I also feel that the US is an idea. Since cultural identity itself is an idea, I don't see how they are mutually exclusive.

What is North Korea then? Marx and the insane Kim family reign as Gods in N. Korea.

ruveyn

N Korea is a dictatorship, no matter what they call themselves.

Although you could also call it a kratocracy, or simply label it as despotism.

Bill, come on. Most liberals I have encountered are as nasty and hateful as they are self-righteous. I've not known you to be that way. Insults are beneath you--I hope.

Ghandi, I have explained this once before. Since I am in a good mood today, I will do so one more time:

Marx, who is the father of modern communism, said that the proletariat--and ONLY the proletariat--could initiate The Revolution. Since the Second Coming is infinitely more likely to occur than workers suddenly turning into engineers, accountants, and executives, all communist movements have been initiated by the intelligentsia. Since this isn't going to happen in the real world, the communism you see is all you will ever see. Communism was cooked up by sick minds, and will never exist any more than unicorns or leprechauns will.

Cultural identity is an idea that describes a pre-existing, empirical reality. Ideology reflects something the left want to happen, but never will. The left has inflicted NOTHING but misery on the world since the Terror of 1793.

As far as labeling goes, you postmodernists don't believe in a fixed reality. We in the reality-based community believe that words have meaning, including communism and democracy.

On the other side of the coin, a great many conservatives I've known could also be described as nasty and hateful.

I never said that words have no meaning. I am merely saying that their meaning is often very different to different people. True democracy and communism do not exist on a national level and never have, hence the quotation marks. The labels we place on governments are often arbitrary and used primarily for showing allegiance, dependence, or the desire for goodwill with countries using the same (or similar) label.

I never said that cultural identity did not exist. I merely pointed out that your interpretation of it is not the only viable one. Even your idea that America is an anglo-celtic one reflects the fact that multiple cultures merged at one point in the past into something you consider valuable, and to assume it is not possible in the future or that it is somehow destructive seems narrow minded to me. I'm not saying to forget where the country came from or ignore history and tradition, just that you cannot let the past be the only way to define the future.

Your definitve statement that the left has inflicted nothing but misery is ridiculous. Yes, it has caused some misery (as have the right) and will do so in the future (as will the right), but both sides have offered good things to the nation and the world as well.

I believe very strongly in fixed reality. I look at things from the standpoint of what currently is and what could be done to possibly improve it. You seem to want to look at the problems and say that the good old days were better so we should go backwards. To assume that your definition of American culture is somehow the pinnacle of human achievement and all things good is something that I find confusing. I also think that a rigid, unbending, and unquestioning adherence to tradition leads to the stagnation, conflict, and the eventual decline of a culture.

As for your views on communism and the reasons it has not (and will not) become a reality, I agree with you completely. I have (on several occasions in this thread) stated that true communism cannot work on a large scale. And even if it could, it would lead to stagnation and eventual decay. It is a beautiful concept, but impractical.

As civil rights, workers rights, and consumer rights have always been championed by the left, I hardly think gains in those areas can hardly be called misery. Misery only comes when such gains have been rolled back.

Sure, some conservatives are nasty and hateful. But most of the people you think of as conservative are actually right-liberals, which is anathema to real conservatism. The reason liberals tend to be more nasty and hateful than conservatives is because the facts just don't support what they believe. And when you run out of facts, what's left besides being nasty and hateful?

Then why is it the more the liberals take over the country, the fewer rights we have, including consumer rights?

Exactly.. its all about control..
monitoring ..and more attempted control..

I can buy food for my family without fear of some horrible vomit/diarrhea/death inducing virus possibly being present. How is that taking rights away from us - unless you figure food producers have the right to sell us dangerous, substandard food?