The gummint screwed up again

Post Reply New Topic

There is nothing to clear with the SSA. The contract would be independent of SS, with only the dollar amounts based on estimated SS benefits. It is perfectly legal to set up annuities with dollar values based on whatever the heck you want. You could base it on lunar cycles and the dollar value of pork futures in 2020.

I'm arguing for American ideas of morality, which begin with not breaking the law. Anything else here is illegitimate, sir.

As far as the "melting pot" goes, that scheme was cooked up by an anti-American internationalist liberal named Israel Zangwill back in the 1920's. It didn't exist back then except as wishful propaganda, and it doesn't exist now as it assumes that there is no such thing as being an American beyond a piece of paper granting citizenship. I think if you will do some research, you will find that back during the Ellis Island invasion that the "tomato soup" metaphor was accepted. It means that immigrants add flavor and spices to the American cultural soup, but do not substantially alter it.

To answer your question, the two cultures today are reflected in the red-state/blue state divide, and has been ongoing since the earliest days of the republic. This ethnic American divide was the real cause of the American Civil War, which resolved nothing except putting the WASP class in charge of the country for a hundred years.

I know you don't understand the problem with respecting American customs, beginning with obeying laws we don't like. And that is sad. You are even less decent than what I suspected. Is there anything so low or disreputable that you wouldn't consider doing it?

Librarian-

Not all of us have the opportunity to buy a ranch - are we to be penalized for that? Social security is a promise made to Americans that the rest of us intend to hold the government to.
As far as America being an ethnicity is concerned - no, America is based on an idea, not on a tribe or a religion. And if new immigrants aren't real Americans, then are their children - or their children? I happen to know right wing southerners - like their New England brethren in late 19th, early 20th centuries with their obsession with "old Yankee" stock - believe only Scots-Irish can be called "real Americans." If that's the case, one certainly has to consider the drawbacks of belonging to only those groups, which both had had histories of inbreeding and associations with less than exemplary religious affiliations (Puritanism in New England, Baptist fundamentalism in the south - both of which are highly flawed theologically and socially, and outside the mainstream). No, a real American is one who holds to the ideals of what constitutes America. To deny that is to deny what makes America the country it is.

As far as my ranch goes, what opportunity did I have that others didn't? When I was in the Navy, I saved so much of my money that all I had were the rattiest civilian clothes, and liberty for me was buying a six-pack of the cheapest beer to go, and finding some place to hide to drink it. I was really looked down upon by my shipmates, but I really didn't care; I knew what I wanted. Tell me, am I really less entitled to my ranch than the other sailors who blew their money on expensive booze, prostitutes, and other goodies? How much do I owe to them for their improvidence?

As far as your assertions that American is a proposition state rather than a nation, a couple of thoughts:

1. Since I and others who live in this country strenuously disagree with you, by your definition we aren't Americans either--assuming, of course, that the American "ideal" means anything at all. It's proof once again of the fraud of liberalism's silly pretension to be a universal, we-are-the-world movement. You are just as much a tribalist as I am. The only difference between us is that you are denying the very legitimacy of one-half of the population of this country by denying our existence. In your eyes, Americans are what Stalin called "former persons", or people who are there, but just don't count or matter.

2. And I do mean I'm an American. In the past I have provided you ample documentation as to why this is the case--documentation I must assume you have ignored to maintain that American is not an ethnicity, especially as you have done nothing to refute my position. You simply ignored it. I understand your position better than you do, since I study it as my special interest. But it is part of the prejudice and hatred of liberals not to know the first thing about people like me or the actual history of this country. Consequently, you are a post-American, as you wish to destroy the American nation that made this country what it is and replace it with something else.

3. Just as you refuse to study the ethnic history of my nation, you obviously have refused to study the history of other proposition nations. It is part and parcel of the liberal belief that reality is infinitely malleable, and can be shaped to meet current needs. But if you had bothered to study such things, you would find that proposition nations tend to be short-lived, or they have very unfortunate histories, or both. I'm talking about places like Britain (which is in the process of coming apart), the Soviet Empire, Yugoslavia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Only ethnicity can bind citizens together; all else is divisive--if I may properly use a prevalent liberal buzzword.

I will have to say you are partially correct. The United States is an artificial construct of a liberal, northern ethny, and a conservative, Southern and heartland ethny, the United States itself is a proposition, and it is causing a lot of conflict, as evidenced by this conversation. The country should seek an amicable divorce along red state-blue state lines, and then I couldn't care less if you deny my existence. Until then, there will be conflict. I can only wonder why people like you would relish such a thing.

When I was in the Navy, I didn't spend all my money on booze and hookers. I saved half of every paycheck. A car accident took every penny of that and then some. Does that make me less deserving somehow?



I have never denied the legitimacy of any political party. Just because I disagree with you on SS doesn't mean I judge you to be some sort of inferior being in any way.



I was just unclear on who you meant by two cultures defining America. I am still somewhat unclear. I know quite a bit about the history of this country. To assume otherwise seems a bit rash to me. I don't understand why you feel like I am attacking everything you stand for. I disagree with you on most aspects of SS, and I have trouble with your assumptions that I am un-American because I don't agree with you. As for people like you, my whole family is full of people with your viewpoints. I have heard all of this before, with the exception of bringing irrelevant things into the argument.



America has always been what you are describing as a proposition nation. We have always passed legislation to address the difficulties of the times. We have had a pretty good run so far. As for nations coming apart, you are the one advocating a red state secession. I do not relish conflict so much as relish open and continuing discussion on divisive issues. Without discussion, there can be no progress by anyone.

And you don't have to assume I am some sort of far left liberal. I lean towards the liberal side when it comes to helping those less fortunate, but I am very much in favor of fixing all the social welfare programs because they are inefficient and expensive. But I think that far left liberalism goes too far to the extreme just as much as the far right does. Please stop thinking of it as "if you aren't 100% for me, then you are 100% against me."

Ghandi, I think if you will check my last post, I wrote this to Kraichgauer, and not you. With that in mind, is there anything you would care to revise before I respond? Or is it a case of the liberal shoe fitting you like Bill? I'm giving you a chance to edit before I respond. It's up to you.

You posted on a public forum. I assumed that meant it was public.

I have nothing to revise.

I think Ghandi and I are very much in agreement. That's why he took up my argument.
And no, I don't try to make you a non-person because of your politics, or accident of being born in a particular region. It's a matter of defending those Americans who you diminish into non-personhood who are immigrants or their descendants.
As for a country failing because of being an "artificial construct" like the Soviet Union of Yugoslavia - those states included different ethnic and national groups who were included involuntarily. With the exception of Native Americans or Southwest Latinos of the 19th century, that's hardly the case for America today. Everyone who is an American wants to be. On top of that, in Yugoslavia, other Balkan tribes were excluded from privilege at the expense of the Serbs, as it was the same case in the Soviet Union, where the Russians were clearly the elite national group. If anything, the inclusion of any and all ethnic and national groups in the United States is the best safeguard against animosity aimed at the in group by the out group.
And surely you must know every modern day national group or ethnicity is simple the result of combining formerly disparate groups. France comes to mind - originally a collection of Celtic, Celto-Germanic, and Celto-Ligurian tribes called the Gauls, the Romans conquered and decimated their population. The Romans boasted that they had taught the Gallic women to "lay down along the road" - a euphemism for rape - thereby introducing their own genes en mass. By the 4th and 5th centuries, the Franks and other Germanic tribes had colonized mostly northern and eastern Gaul, making the country an extension of the lands east and north of the Rhine. Those Gallo-Romans to the south - who for some time continued to identify themselves as part of the Roman world - rebelled constantly against their Germanic overlords to the north for several centuries, till they eventually came to embrace a French identity. France was hardly the exception but the rule to how modern nations are the results of melting pots.

I am expressing neither love nor blind hate of the communist state. I merely pointed out that to suggest they collapsed on their own, out of some inherent flaw in the principle of communism, is a lie. I would also point out that the founding of the USA is also stained by mass murder, authoritarianism, support for torture, and sending citizens to detention camps. But it was rather longer ago, so maybe you don't remember that.

When I was in the Navy, I didn't spend all my money on booze and hookers. I saved half of every paycheck. A car accident took every penny of that and then some. Does that make me less deserving somehow?

I too found myself in some awful situations. There were a few times when I was living on nothing but dried beans and rice. Still, I preferred that to spending my savings. So, no, I don't think you deserve anything from me.

My recommendation to you would be to seek help from other sons of Ghandi--your brothers, and I will help out sons of Robert E. Lee and William Jennings Bryan--my brothers.



I was just unclear on who you meant by two cultures defining America. I am still somewhat unclear. I know quite a bit about the history of this country. To assume otherwise seems a bit rash to me. I don't understand why you feel like I am attacking everything you stand for. I disagree with you on most aspects of SS, and I have trouble with your assumptions that I am un-American because I don't agree with you. As for people like you, my whole family is full of people with your viewpoints. I have heard all of this before, with the exception of bringing irrelevant things into the argument.

Liberals by definition are internationalists, and your handle, "son of Ghandi" proves it. Ghandi is a national hero of India, and not Americans. We have our own heroes. American is something specific whereas liberalism harbors cosmopolitan pretensions that are anathema to nationalism of all forms. Hence, my designation post-American.

If you are interested in learning more about the culture that comrade Bill seems hellbent to deny the existence of, I can recommend you start with the following two books, the first of which wasn't even written by an American:

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Anglo-A ... lo+america

and

http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-Brit ... n%27s+seed

As far as your family identifying as Americans, that's great. Again, American is not a racial designation the way, say, being an Indian or Jew is. But it is an ethnic designation.

Thelibrarian wrote:

America has always been what you are describing as a proposition nation. We have always passed legislation to address the difficulties of the times. We have had a pretty good run so far. As for nations coming apart, you are the one advocating a red state secession. I do not relish conflict so much as relish open and continuing discussion on divisive issues. Without discussion, there can be no progress by anyone.

No, the US government has always been a proposition, and an abomination that needs to go the way of slavery. The conflict is here, and as long as predatory liberalism exists, will remain.

As far as talk goes, our differences are irreconcilable, especially when you won't even admit the existence of Americans. To people like you, America is nothing but a government. Would other sons of Ghandi deny that Indians are a people and only defined by their government?

And you don't have to assume I am some sort of far left liberal. I lean towards the liberal side when it comes to helping those less fortunate, but I am very much in favor of fixing all the social welfare programs because they are inefficient and expensive. But I think that far left liberalism goes too far to the extreme just as much as the far right does. Please stop thinking of it as "if you aren't 100% for me, then you are 100% against me."

Sir, one cannot be a little bit American any more than one can be a little bit pregnant; you either are or you are not. Nor do I buy into this liberal lie that there is only we-are-the-world liberalism and hate. My concern is with the sons of Robert E. Lee--my brothers. As far as the sons of Ghandi go, I have neither the time, energy, nor inclination to hate them; they just don't interest me.

"I am expressing neither love nor blind hate of the communist state. I merely pointed out that to suggest they collapsed on their own, out of some inherent flaw in the principle of communism, is a lie. I would also point out that the founding of the USA is also stained by mass murder, authoritarianism, support for torture, and sending citizens to detention camps. But it was rather longer ago, so maybe you don't remember that."

The Soviet Empire collapsed because they were obsessed with having a more powerful military than the US, and socialism was just too pathetically inefficient to compete. The second factor was the collapse in oil prices. If you have proven this narrative wrong, I haven't seen it.

As far as the US being the embodiment of all evil, I will call it tired old Frankfurt School Critical Theory lies unless you can give me some specifics. Sir, you can consider this a dare. How about some specifics?

I will defend Americans as being better in their worst moments than you communists in your very best. Prove me wrong, sir.

I didn't say I deserved anything from you. I was responding to your assertion that you were more deserving because you were frugal with your money. I have always been and likely always will be very conservative with my money. After my medical bills started rolling in, I ate nothing but ramen for months and lived in someone's basement. I am still struggling with my finances a decade later, trying to get back to where I was then. I live in a low rent, poor neighborhood 300 sq ft craphole and still eat only cheap foods. I have a 14 year old truck that I keep limping along because it is paid for. I don't go to restaurants, bars, movies, the mall. Apart from socks and underwear, All of my clothing was either free or a thrift store purchase. All I am saying is that no matter how well or how poorly you handle your money, it may not leave you well off, so don't play the superiority card on someone else using that argument.



If conservatives are not nationalists, why do the majority of them support military intervention overseas? Would you propose that the US insulates itself from the world and pretend it doesn't exist?
Gandhi was a hero in India. Ghandi was not. And just because a hero comes from another nation does not make their actions any less heroic.

Thelibrarian wrote:

As far as your family identifying as Americans, that's great. Again, American is not a racial designation the way, say, being an Indian or Jew is. But it is an ethnic designation.

I never said America was a racial designation. I was just having difficulty understanding what you meant. The way it was written, I took it to mean that you meant only two foreign cultures formed the nation and were therfor their descendants were the only ones qualified to be Americans. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thelibrarian wrote:

[b]No, the US government has always been a proposition, and an abomination that needs to go the way of slavery. The conflict is here, and as long as predatory liberalism exists, will remain.

What do you propose takes the place of government?
As for liberalism being predatory, the same can be said of conservatism. And I agree that everyone in DC plays the predatory politics game.

Thelibrarian wrote:

When have I denied the existence of Americans? I have put forth the argument that being American is not dependent on where you came from or what political philosophy you subscribe to. The government is not America, it just runs it. In my opinion, America is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to education and equal opportunity, the right to vote in the electoral process, being tolerant of others, helping those less fortunate than themselves, and protecting those who cannot help themselves.



I do not understand you here. I have said nothing of being "a little bit American." if you mean American in the sense of your personal ethics, your analogy is false. A medical condition either is or isn't. Politics and philosophy are not a black and white subject.
I don't know quite what you mean by "this liberal lie that there is only we-are-the-world liberalism and hate." Could you reword it so I know what you mean?
Who do you define as "sons of Robert E. Lee?" Southerners? Republicans? Conservatives? Christians? His actual relatives? White people? Please elaborate.

I am still looking for a clear version of your definition of American. Is it only people who believe the government should be eliminated? Conservatives? Southerners? People who oppose SS in all its forms? People who think the US should be an isolationist country?

And just for the record, I also admire William Jennings Brian (although not all of his political positions). Truman once said this of William Jennings Brian: ""If it wasn't for old Bill Bryan, there wouldn't be any liberalism at all in the country now. Bryan kept liberalism alive, he kept it going." His speeches leads in a direct line to the progressive reforms adopted by 20th century Democrats. He believed in the wisdom of ordinary folk. His "common man" speeches led to drawing of the African-American and feminist vote into the Democratic party. His biographer put it this way: "Bryan was the first leader of a major party to argue for permanently expanding the power of the federal government to serve the welfare of ordinary Americans from the working and middle classes....he did more than any other man--between the fall of Grover Cleveland and the election of Woodrow Wilson - to transform his party from a bulwark of laissez-faire to the citadel of liberalism we identify with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ideological descendants.” In his weekly magazine, The Commoner, he insisted that Democrats should dissolve the trusts, regulate the railroads, and support the Progressive Movement. He also served on the general committee of the Inter-church World Movement. He is actually a person whose political philosophy I (for the most part) admire. He is someone who did not pick a hard line "everything the party says or nothing" attitude. Which to me is the most valuable trait for a politician to possess.

He did defend Prohibition, oppose the theory of evolution (he was heavily involved in the Scopes trial and proponent of state laws forbidding the teaching of evolution), and was a big proponent of Christian faith being the basis for national law. These are things which tend to resonate with conservatives.

I don't believe anyone here has stated that the US is the embodiment of evil, just stated that the US isn't a blameless, morally superior nation.



So slavery and the willful slaughter of indiginous peoples is better than anything that has come out of a "communist country?"

Librarian-

Believe it or not, I never, ever, denied that you are an American. I never, ever, denied that conservatives are Americans. But to refuse the same courtesy to me and sonofghandi simply because of our political and social viewpoints is quite simply rude and bigoted. Americans concede that Americans, regardless of differences, are Americans. And that means caring for more than just certain citizens of this country, but disregarding others.
By the way, you might be interested to know that Robert E. Lee considered slavery to be morally indefensible, and secession to be illegal.

"I didn't say I deserved anything from you. I was responding to your assertion that you were more deserving because you were frugal with your money. I have always been and likely always will be very conservative with my money. After my medical bills started rolling in, I ate nothing but ramen for months and lived in someone's basement. I am still struggling with my finances a decade later, trying to get back to where I was then. I live in a low rent, poor neighborhood 300 sq ft craphole and still eat only cheap foods. I have a 14 year old truck that I keep limping along because it is paid for. I don't go to restaurants, bars, movies, the mall. Apart from socks and underwear, All of my clothing was either free or a thrift store purchase. All I am saying is that no matter how well or how poorly you handle your money, it may not leave you well off, so don't play the superiority card on someone else using that argument."

If I were a postmodernist, I would say words can mean whatever you want them to--what the postmodernists call "meaning deferred". Since I contend that words have meaning, superiority has meaning. And those who are fully self-reliant are superior to those who are a burden to others. Deal with it.

If conservatives are not nationalists, why do the majority of them support military intervention overseas? Would you propose that the US insulates itself from the world and pretend it doesn't exist?
Gandhi was a hero in India. Ghandi was not. And just because a hero comes from another nation does not make their actions any less heroic.

Why? Because the people calling themselves conservatives--namely elitist Republicans--aren't conservative at all. In fact, the Republican Party was originally a party of northeastern liberals set up to destroy real conservatism, beginning with the South. This is why those of us who value the historic American nation are so disgruntled with the GOP. The GOP acts in the best interests of the rich and powerful, and nobody else.

As far as Democrats go, the old Boll Weevil Democrats--Southern Democrats--were the only conservative party this country has ever had. But they were destroyed by the left-liberal faction of the Democrat Party in the late sixties. This is why old Southerners like to say that they didn't leave the Democrats; the Democrats left them. As such, the Democrats are just as elitist as the GOP except they want to hand out welfare.

What I would propose as far as foreign policy goes is the policy of my nation's founding of avoiding entangling alliances. What does this mean? If people who thought the way I do prevailed, this country wouldn't have fought a war since the Mexican War. Nor would it ever have had colonies, such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or the Philippines. If we accept Samuel Johnson's definition of cant as a whining pretension to goodness, intervention is cant since it is nothing more than flimsy justification for predatory behavior.

As far as "Ghandi" goes, what I do know is that whatever you are referring to, it is not American, so we are not brothers. I'm a son of Robert E. Lee and William Jennings Bryan.

As far as your family identifying as Americans, that's great. Again, American is not a racial designation the way, say, being an Indian or Jew is. But it is an ethnic designation.

Actually, America's cultural core consists of two groups: Anglo-Protestant Puritan types who created northern, proto-liberal culture; and a Celtic-Protestant culture that formed the South. At the time the Constitution was written, the US was over ninety percent British, and over ninety-eight percent Protestant. Does that mean that, say Catholics can't be Americans? No. It does mean that good Americans respect our cultural origins. I say this as one who was born and reared as a Catholic.

What do you propose takes the place of government?
As for liberalism being predatory, the same can be said of conservatism. And I agree that everyone in DC plays the predatory politics game.

Ah, an intelligent question. I am impressed. I am not an anarchist, or even a libertarian. Rather, my position is the conservative position, which is that the culture creates the government, and not vice versa.

As Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington noted, had the US been settled by the French, it would resemble something between Quebec and Haiti; had the Portuguese settled the US, it would resemble Brazil; and had the Spanish settled the US, it would look like Latin America.

The fact of the matter is that every country in the New World has allowed immigration. But the US has always been the first choice of immigrants due to our governing ways, which come from Anglo-Celtic governing ways.

The tragedy of the left is that it assumes that government can created culture in its own image. Marx contemptuously rejected culture as "superstructure", and this explains in large measure why the system that bears his name has failed everywhere. Under liberal universalism that wants a cosmopolitan, proposition world society that Comrade Bill seems to favor, we are witnessing renascent nationalism all over the world--from northern Californians and Coloradans wishing to secede from their own states, to Basques and Catalonians in Spain, to Scots and Welsh in Britain--and I could go on and on....

The left is ultimately a venture to criminalize human nature. The communists tried to outlaw selfishness with tragic results; and liberals are trying to deracinate people, with similar, if incipient, tragic results. Conservatism, which is all about culture, tries to sublimate human nature rather than repress it.

When have I denied the existence of Americans? I have put forth the argument that being American is not dependent on where you came from or what political philosophy you subscribe to. The government is not America, it just runs it. In my opinion, America is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to education and equal opportunity, the right to vote in the electoral process, being tolerant of others, helping those less fortunate than themselves, and protecting those who cannot help themselves.

Actually, Comrade Bill denied the existence of the historic American nation be declaring the US to be an "idea". This is why I made a point of asking you in an earlier post if this applied to you.

As far as those rights go, rights only have any meaning when they can be exercised even when they offend the government or the elite class--e.g., even Stalin allowed his subjects to say whatever they wanted as long as he didn't find it offensive. This is tyranny, since whatever rights are given by government can, and will, be taken by government, at the government's convenience. This is why the founding fathers claimed Constitutional rights originated with God; the government cannot take what was given to us by God. (I am happy to explain why I reject this thesis; just ask if you are interested).

No, real rights are cultural constructs. This is why the hostile elites are having such a devil of a time trying to disarm Americans. As far as the Second Amendment goes, it really doesn't matter what it says. The fact is that Americans regard firearms ownership as a customary, or cultural, right. And that is something the government didn't give, and hence cannot take.

America is about the culture that gave us those rights, which were English and Scottish in origin.

I'm not a communist.

Anyway, to say the USSR collapsed due to socialism is ridiculous. The US forced the USSR to waste their money on weapons due to the cold war. By the way, Democracy can't be sustained under endless war either. We are currently being sustained by lies, or as we call it- “quantitative easing”. This isn't going to last. Perhaps socialism requires peace and cooperation among all the world's nations. I don't say that the US is the embodiment of all evil, but we have done similar evil. Slavery, the genocide of the natives, segregation, detention of Japanese citizens... The ideals of communism hardly survived the revolution, and having a Stalinist leader was not part of Marxism, in fact Democracy is part of Marxism, as are markets. So let's have a more nuanced critique of communism, not just reactionary Cold War propaganda.