The gummint screwed up again

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I never claimed the US was "blameless". But I do claim we are a morally superior nation. You can easily make me eat my words if you can name one that is morally superior to the US. Care to try? The Dutch or Swiss are as close as I can come to rivals.

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

In terms of humane treatment of others, American slavery wasn't just better than communism; it was infinitely better. While Americans wouldn't be human if there were some injustices, it was by far the exception rather than the rule. Are you aware that slaveholders could be, and were, legally prosecuted and imprisoned for mistreatment of their slaves? Here is an excellent example of that which I speak of:

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

This woman's sadistic treatment of her slaves almost got her lynched.

The seminal work on American slavery, Eugene Genovese's "Roll, Jordon, Roll", see here:

http://www.amazon.com/Roll-Jordan-World ... ordan+roll

Makes the argument that slaveholders were far more likely to dote on their slaves, and treat them as children or pets, than they were to abuse them. No, the only defensible criticism of slavery was its paternalism, not its cruelty. As such, American slavery was more of an ultra-humane form of socialism than it was anything sadistic or cruel. But, being opposed to socialism in all forms, I am also opposed to slavery.

As far as American Indians, are you aware that the overwhelming majority of them died of contagious diseases? And are you aware that Indians were just as likely to treat Americans cruelly as vice versa?

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 30 Oct 2013, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nor am I a communist in anyway, despite the fact that Librarian chooses now to refer to me as "comrade Bill."
Nor am I any sort of internationalist. Just because I am willing to extend the benefits of American culture to new immigrants hardly means I'm advocating the diminishing of American culture. New immigrants have always become assimilated, which has always been the American way from the very beginning. And if certain customs of immigrants stick with Americans, such as German Christmas trees, or Irish celebration of St. Patrick's Day, then all the better as those things are harmless and colorful. I seriously have never seen American government institutions altered by the authoritarian forms of government immigrants were fleeing from.
And when was the country ever just English and Scottish Protestant? From the very beginning, there had been German and Dutch Americans, not to mention African (though they were not acknowledged as real human beings yet), while this country's first national hero was Christopher Columbus - that last being because the fledgling Americans had wanted to distance themselves from their enemies Great Britain by celebrating a Non-Briton. And even if we were just of the British Isles in those days, that hardly can be said of America today. To deny that Americans are from the the whole world today is to put on intellectual blinders. An American is defined not by tribe, but by the culture he or she practices.

The Native Americans that died of contagious diseases, would mostly not have done so had they not been herded into overcrowded reservations with unsustainable resources, and usually in the middle of winter. The government of the time kept breaking the land treaties. Had the Native Americans been left in peace and not forced to adapt to the White ways, the tragic slaughters that took place on both sides wouldn't have happened to the extent they did. They were only trying to defend their territories and people.

Please read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown. I'm currently reading it and it's well worth it.

BTW I'm not American. Virtually no countries have an unblemished human rights record.

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.

How did the US force the Soviet Empire into an arms race? As far as the Cold War goes, i the US was even more justified in resisting communist incursions than we were to resist fascism. I would further add that it takes two to fight. Did the Soviet Empire really make a good-faith effort to become humane and make peace with the world? If so, please tell me about it.

By the way, Democracy can't be sustained under endless war either.

Actually, democracy cannot be sustained under any circumstances, and never has. I challenge you to show me a successful democracy, which is defined as rule by the people--or where citizens take the place of legislators and vote on all legislation directly.

The communist/leftist definition of democracy is unadulterated cant: It is what leftists think the people should want rather than what they really do want. This is why Soviets slaughtered twenty to thirty million innocent Russians while thinking they were doing the right thing.

We are currently being sustained by lies, or as we call it- “quantitative easing”. This isn't going to last.

I agree. But it is also the case that the welfare state is such that it cannot be sustained without such an abomination.

Perhaps socialism requires peace and cooperation among all the world's nations.

And just how do you plan to accomplish that?

I don't say that the US is the embodiment of all evil, but we have done similar evil.

Making moral comparisons between the US and the Soviets is like making a moral comparison between the kid who smokes cigarettes in the boys' room and the mass murderers at Columbine.

As far as "genocide of the natives" goes, there were around twenty million Indians here in 1492. So, if Americans had slaughtered every last one of them, it still wouldn't amount to what the Soviets did. As far as genocide goes, it is the most malicious form of ignorance to declare that is what the US government did to the Indians. Had the US government wanted genocide against the Indians, there wouldn't be any today.

Slavery, the genocide of the natives, segregation, detention of Japanese citizens...

I discussed slavery in another post; I won't do it again here.

As far as segregation goes, liberals love their cant on "separate can't be equal". Think about that for a minute. Unless we refer to something being equal to itself (this is called the identity theorem, and is the epistemological referent for all mathematics and logic), only separate entities can possibly be equal. Equal means "is the same as".

Here is the reason for the logical absurdity: Yes, segregation was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment's freedom of association (meaning if I wish to associate with blacks, that is my right). The problem is that forced desegregation is wrong for the same reason (meaning if I wish not to associate with blacks, I am forced to).

As far as segregation being a moral issue, I would also take issue with that. When I was in the Navy, sleeping and mess arrangements were strictly segregated, and it never did me a bit of harm. It is also the case that I wouldn't be welcome to have lunch down at the country club.

St. Bernard said that only the poor have the right to commend poverty to others. By the same token, I would say only those liberals who live in ghettos or barrios, or send their children to gang-infested schools where English is no longer spoken have the right to demand others do so. I wouldn't hold my breath on this if I were you.

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.

The ideal of communism was the most bloody violence the world had ever seen--The Revolution--in which anybody with any money or brains was to be slaughtered. Well, the communists slaughtered a hundred million people, and we're not a step closer to utopia than when they started. How many more do you think need to be slaughtered in support of the "ideals of communism"?

As far as the truth about the internment of the Japanese, since there are a number of good books out on that, it's just too ridiculous even to respond to. FDR's real crime was partnering with the world's second-worst mass murderer to stop the third worst, and enabling the man who was the worst in the process.

The Native Americans that died of contagious diseases, would mostly not have done so had they not been herded into overcrowded reservations with unsustainable resources, and usually in the middle of winter. The government of the time kept breaking the land treaties. Had the Native Americans been left in peace and not forced to adapt to the White ways, the tragic slaughters that took place on both sides wouldn't have happened to the extent they did. They were only trying to defend their territories and people.

First off, I am a native American. American is an ethnic designation for those who celebrate an Anglo-Celtic-Protestant core. As such, denying Indians their own ethnicities (e.g., Cherokee, Pawnee, Comanche) is itself a form of genocide. This is not to say they are not US citizens; they most certainly are. But the purpose behind calling Indians "native Americans" is genocide against Americans by denying we even exist as a unique people.

Actually, most of the Indians were dead of those diseases long before the first American ever set foot on these shores.

Do you have any idea why the reservation system was set up? Andrew Jackson strongly advocated for the reservation system because he was horrified by what the Puritans of New England did, which was to slaughter them wholesale. Indians were put on reservations for their own protection. This is why Oklahoma is full of Indians while they are as rare as hen's teeth in Massachusetts.

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.

A part of the conflict between Indians and Americans that you liberals refuse to recognize is that Indians wanted the things that civilization produced, such as metal pots and utensils, knives, guns, cotton cloth, and on and on and on. The problem was that the Indians had few ways to pay for these things. Thus, conflict.

Please read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown. I'm currently reading it and it's well worth it.

What makes you think I haven't read Brown's book? I have, and I'm fully aware that it is as libelous to Americans as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Jews.

BTW I'm not American. Virtually no countries have an unblemished human rights record.

Who decides what a "human right" is? And are you aware that this system institutionalizes slavery as it guarantees all kinds of goodies to some people and the bill for it all to others. "Human rights" is more cant--or liberals engaging in predatory behavio--since every people has a right to determine its own rights. The entire concept of "human rights" is an abomination, and one I emphatically reject as much as I do Allah being the one and true god.

^^^^ Your first paragraph indicates that you don't really know the definition of the word "genocide."

geno·cide
noun \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\

: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group

(www.merriam-webster.com)


How does the propagation of human rights institutionalize slavery? Basically, "human rights" refers to the freedom of humans to associate with whom they please, and enjoy the basic political and social freedoms that true democracy entails. As I'm from a country where racial segregation was once on the statute books, I was able to witness the social harm it did. As a child I was not really aware of all this, due to the propaganda machine of the government, but gradually I began to realise how senseless it was and how important it was that peaceful and progesssive change be brought about. "Human rights" can be be expressed as having the right to do what you please but not at the expense of others With the privileges of human rights comes responsibility.

Ahem:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5692319.html#5692319


That one finally drew a moderator response, to which you were unrepentant, but PPR is FULL of similar statements from you. Apparently, you don't care for the taste of what you serve, interesting.

No, they are just better off financially. Are the elite wealthy who you have railed against superior to you because they are more self-sufficient?



I agree with this sentiment in terms of military alliances of the mutual protection variety.



You do realize that Bryan advocated and helped bring about many of the social programs you so despise, don't you?



It is one thing to respect our nation's history and another thing entirely to use it as justification for some sort of personal bias against those who do not share your opinion (as that is very much against the ideals that this country is founded on).



Not sure how religion got pulled into this. I am an atheist. Does that have any bearing on whether or not I'm an American?



And again, what do you propose takes the place of government?



So all the former Spanish colonies are just clones of Spain? So Brazil is pretty much the same as Portugal? Haiti and France are the same? Not sure I buy that. I have studied too much world history.



Not quite accurate. The reasons the majority of the immigrants came to this country are economically based. This has been true for several centuries now.



To start with, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing people of being communists, directly or indirectly, unless they have stated that they are. Secondly, the government reflects culture; it does not create it. I consider myself to be a moderate nationalist, although I hesitate to mention it because most people these days seem to assume it means some sort of isolationist, anti-immigration, elitist.
I love this country. It has its problems, and some of them are real doozies, but it is still (in my opinion) the country with the most opportunity. Responding to changes in the times and adapting to new customs, cultures, and shifting opinions is an essential part of the reason this country has lasted so long.



Seriously? So they outlaw sexuality? They outlaw the freedom of religion and speech? They do tend to try to regulate greed (which is problematic in so many ways) and violence (although many of these attempts were poorly thought out reactionary BS), but to assume that they are attempting to regulate human nature while maintaining that conservatism does not is a farce.



What do you mean by "deracinate?" I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean end discrimination based on race?
What you describe as being all about culture comes off as some sort of superiority complex. Are you saying that only the aspects of culture that you espouse are valid?



The US is an idea. It is a grand experiment based in logic and thought that has worked out ok. It has taken on the form of an all inclusive, non-discriminatory state of freedom. Even you, in your statements about what is American and un-American have claimed that the nation is culture (which is merely an idea that has been handed down long enough to become tradition).



Having trouble with the paragraph structure. Which thesis are you rejecting, exactly? The thesis that this country was founded in god?



Calling real rights cultural constructs adds nothing to your claims. As the government is a representation of the people (albeit a fairly skewed one), the rights that they espouse reflect the nation's current culture.
You refer to hostile elites. Are you including conservatives that fit the bill in that category? Are you including yourself? Or do make a huge distinction between superior and elite?
By the way, most people are in favor of gun rights for more practical reasons than, "a customary, or cultural, right."
And not to start an argument, but no one is coming for your guns. The very few proponents of that are as unreasonable as the ones who say a kindergartner should be allowed to pick up a gun with his allowance money on the way home from school.



For someone who knows a pretty good amount of American history, you may want to take another look at that statement, unless you are saying that only the 13 original colonies are included in your version of American culture.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 30 Oct 2013, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

By your definition of morality, there can be none higher. By mine, most of Western Europe has been passing us by for decades.



Um, what?



And are you aware that in most slave states, there were no laws preventing this?



I have read it. I found it to be somewhat disturbing, as it seemed to almost completely excuse slavery based on the fact that it had positive outcomes. And for someone who does not like the idea of non-European culture being seen in America, you seem to accept this book as gospel, which goes to great lengths to outline the culture of the slaves and its impact on culture.



Wow. Just, wow. So slavery wasn't that bad because the people were treated like pets? The only defensible criticism of slavery is its paternalism? Slavery=Socialism? What the?

Well the US has the longest running continuous government in recorded history, so there's that. I'm not sure what you are looking for, as no form of government has been infinitely sustainable.



No, it is more like someone who beats his wife and someone who beats his wife to death. One is obviously worse, but that does not lessen the horrors of the other.




You live in much different reality than me. Most of your criticisms of liberals are equally applicable to the conservatives in government. You also seem to be under the impression that anywhere that there is poverty, there is open gang warfare. You also seem to assume poor neighborhoods don't speak English? Or am I misunderstanding that one?



Trying to blame communists for all the world's slaughter is just as absurd as trying to blame it all on Muslims.



You continue to malign FDR, while elevating William Jennings Bryan. You do realize that the New Deal supported much of Bryan's philosophy, don't you?

I called the tea party ass wipes, I never said they weren't Americans. As a matter of fact, I said they were the ones who'd call my wife and I Un-American for living in genteel poverty.

No, they are just better off financially. Are the elite wealthy who you have railed against superior to you because they are more self-sufficient?

That depends. Those who make an honest living are always superior to those who don't, with the operant term being HONEST.

It is the case that I don't care much for liberal elites, for reason I will get to momentarily. Having said that, there are even degrees of bad within this group. If we could talk to the mega-rich of decades past and were to ask them how they made their money, they could answer in a few words to a sentence (e.g., Bill Gates, computer software). Today it is all too often becoming the case that if you ask the mega-rich how they made their money--and if they will even tell you--you had best have all afternoon, as well as advanced degrees in economics and mathematics to understand what they are talking about. Unlike the Bill Gates types, this kind has done nothing but destroy; they are the worst kind of barbarians (e.g., George Soros).

The problem with liberalism is that it assumes that all men were created equal. If this were the case, the local junior high football team would be able to compete successfully against a professional team. We know this isn't true instinctively. Yet, the dullest among us are called to compete against the economic equivalents of that professional football team, and the contest is no less uneven. Egalitarianism is the lie with which champion economic players compete with the junior leaguers. It is in the interests of the elites to do so, because every dollar they take from us is another dollar in their own pockets.

You do realize that Bryan advocated and helped bring about many of the social programs you so despise, don't you?

I admire Bryan because he railed against a liberal system that forces average citizens to compete with the equivalent of that champion boxer. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he stood for. For example, I think he was wrong on evolution.

One of the self-inflicted problems liberals suffer from, due to postmodernism, is not being able to distinguish between all, some, and none; or the rule from the exception. It doesn't bother me a bit to disagree with others. In fact, much of the information I'm using here came from left-wing scholars. As a conservative, I believe in objective truth, and try avoid poisoning the well, which is another fallacy with which liberal constantly afflict themselves.

It is one thing to respect our nation's history and another thing entirely to use it as justification for some sort of personal bias against those who do not share your opinion (as that is very much against the ideals that this country is founded on).

Yes, I disagree with those I disagree with. I have noticed you do the same. So, what is your point?

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


Not sure how religion got pulled into this. I am an atheist. Does that have any bearing on whether or not I'm an American?

I too would have a hard time saying I believe in the God of the Bible with any sincerity. But at the same time, Christianity isn't just a useful fiction; recent history shows that it is an indispensable fiction. As Voltaire noted, If God did not exist, he would have to be invented. I agree with him.

Why? Because religion is the locus of all healthy cultures. When a people quits believing in their gods, it is the beginning of the end for them. Right now, we are witnessing dissolution of the existing order. This is in no small part because the elites no longer believe in themselves or what they are doing. Belief in a higher good has been replaced with narcissism, if not solipsism. This is the reason the rich are getting every richer while everybody else is suffering; there is absolutely no sense of noblesse oblige left. And the only place something like noblesse oblige can be sustained is in a religious culture.

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


And again, what do you propose takes the place of government?

Since I have never advocated for anarchism, I won't defend something I never said. I do want the federal government to go the way of slavery, but that hardly means I don't want any government.


So all the former Spanish colonies are just clones of Spain? So Brazil is pretty much the same as Portugal? Haiti and France are the same? Not sure I buy that. I have studied too much world history.

Clones? No, the relationship is more that of a child to a parent. North American culture is much more closely related to British culture than Latin American is to Spanish culture. The reason is that Anglo-Celtic settlers brought their women with them and set up societies completely independent of the indigenous societies; they came to stay. Spaniards, on the other hand, came to these shores to conquer, plunder, make their fortunes, and hopefully return to Spain rich men. Consequently, the generally didn't bring their women with them; they married local women. Hence, their societies are an admixture of Spanish and indigenous ways--what you postmodernists call a hybridity.

Haiti is a little different. Though the French planters set up a permanent society, when the French Revolution broke out, France abandoned these planters and they were wiped out by their slaves exactly two hundred years ago. So, Haitian culture, the abomination it is, still has vestiges of French culture, though it is mostly African.

As far as Brazil goes, the whites definitely retain strong traces of their Portuguese heritage--and proudly so. The blacks and indigenous peoples less so.


Not quite accurate. The reasons the majority of the immigrants came to this country are economically based. This has been true for several centuries now.

I agree completely. But your tacit admission that American culture has provided more economic opportunities than other cultures gives lie to the cherished Boasian liberal myth that all cultures are created equal. American started out with an economy that was a product of its culture. It is no coincidence that as America loses the Anglo-Celtic culture that made it great, the economic opportunities are vanishing as well.

To start with, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing people of being communists, directly or indirectly, unless they have stated that they are. Secondly, the government reflects culture; it does not create it. I consider myself to be a moderate nationalist, although I hesitate to mention it because most people these days seem to assume it means some sort of isolationist, anti-immigration, elitist.

What makes you think I called you a communist? All I did was to use Marx as an example. Communism arose not only as a reaction to liberalism, but is a product of liberalism. Communism is like the errant child that hates its parent. Had you studied the genesis of liberalism and Marxism, you would understand this. Marx spent much of his life in London libraries studying early liberal thinkers.

Nor have you shown my example to be inappropriate. To wit: Nationalism hardly means hating other nations any more than loving my own family more than yours means that I hate yours. Nationalism does mean some degree of isolationism though to protect what is unique about a given nation the same as families wish to occupy their own living spaces. It is the same with immigration. Imperialism was wrong because subject peoples didn't want foreigners in their countries. Open borders is wrong for the same reason. Not wanting those from other nations here doesn't mean I hate them any more than not wanting to share my bed with the fellow down the road means I hate him. There are boundaries that must be respected. Every position you advocated for is part and parcel of liberal, global universalism.

Responding to changes in the times and adapting to new customs, cultures, and shifting opinions is an essential part of the reason this country has lasted so long.

How so?

Thelibrarian wrote:
The left is ultimately a venture to criminalize human nature.


Seriously? So they outlaw sexuality? They outlaw the freedom of religion and speech? They do tend to try to regulate greed (which is problematic in so many ways) and violence (although many of these attempts were poorly thought out reactionary BS), but to assume that they are attempting to regulate human nature while maintaining that conservatism does not is a farce.

No, but the left has been trying to destroy the nuclear family almost since its inception. It is part of the left's neurosis with discrimination. There is something the left just cannot stomach about the idea of monogamy. By definition, monogamy means that we discriminate against literally every other human on the planet as a sex partner. It is the same with families. The left just cannot abide with the idea that parents want to take better care of their own children than they do the children of others.

Since the left believes that we were all created equal, apparent inequalities must be the result of poor environment rather than genetics. So, it is paramount for the good leftist to wish to rear children into a "proper" environment, which means children reared by the state, and all under equal conditions, so that inequalities can be eradicated.

The Bolsheviks started down this path, but Stalin put a stop to the destruction of the family. Bela Kun's revolution failed because of his policies on the family. The early kibbutzim in Israel, which were thoroughly socialist, originally held all children in common. Since I read the last kibbutzim quit doing this five or so years ago, we can assume they too failed.

You can argue that you are not a communist or socialist again. But liberalism also pathologizes the family. Here is probably the most culturally influential American book of the 20C, and nobody has ever heard of it. Its basic argument is that what normal people consider a healthy family is based upon patriarchal authoritarianism that inevitably results in fascism if not stopped. This book is the basis for the entire cultural revolution of the sixties that has decimated the family. This is the Bible for modern, therapeutic, Politically Correct liberalism:

http://www.amazon.com/AUTHORITARIAN-PER ... ersonality

As far as the left's attitudes toward religion and freedom of speech, I can't take you seriously enough even to comment. Don't play me for a fool.

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


What do you mean by "deracinate?" I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean end discrimination based on race?

It is as simple as consulting a dictionary:

de·rac·i·nate (d-rs-nt)
tr.v. de·rac·i·nat·ed, de·rac·i·nat·ing, de·rac·i·nates
1. To pull out by the roots; uproot.
2. To displace from one's native or accustomed environment.

What you describe as being all about culture comes off as some sort of superiority complex. Are you saying that only the aspects of culture that you espouse are valid?

No, because I reject postmodernism, I believe in right and wrong, and true and false. I say what I believe to be true. Accordingly, I am fully amenable to correction in light of compelling arguments or evidence. I crave correction, and thus far I have not received any. If I'm wrong, by all means, show me the error in my thinking.

Thelibrarian wrote:
Actually, Comrade Bill denied the existence of the historic American nation be declaring the US to be an "idea".


The US is an idea. It is a grand experiment based in logic and thought that has worked out ok. It has taken on the form of an all inclusive, non-discriminatory state of freedom. Even you, in your statements about what is American and un-American have claimed that the nation is culture (which is merely an idea that has been handed down long enough to become tradition).

Sir, you represent the standard, and by definition genocidal, liberal abhorrence of nationalism. I couldn't care less what you believe. But I don't care to share a country with those who refuse to acknowledge my very identity and existence. Yours is the thinking that led to the fascist and communist atrocities. I want no part of your hatred masked in pious cant.

Thelibrarian wrote:
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).


Having trouble with the paragraph structure. Which thesis are you rejecting, exactly? The thesis that this country was founded in god?

I stand by what I wrote. All I can do is suggest you read it more carefully. If you can't understand what I wrote, it is either a reflection on your intelligence, or the way liberal ideology has warped your thinking. In either case, it is regrettable. But there is nothing else I can do.




Calling real rights cultural constructs adds nothing to your claims. As the government is a representation of the people (albeit a fairly skewed one), the rights that they espouse reflect the nation's current culture.

Yet you claim that American has no core culture--that it is just an "idea". Do you have any idea why some, including me, consider liberalism to be a mental disorder? There are some on this website who suffer schizophrenia through no fault of their own, and my heart goes out to them. I'm still not sure how to react when schizophrenia is self-inflicted.

You refer to hostile elites. Are you including conservatives that fit the bill in that category? Are you including yourself? Or do make a huge distinction between superior and elite?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are asking if all conservatives, including me, are above moral reproach, you don't have the first clue as to what conservatism is--or the left for that matter.


By the way, most people are in favor of gun rights for more practical reasons than, "a customary, or cultural, right."
And not to start an argument, but no one is coming for your guns. The very few proponents of that are as unreasonable as the ones who say a kindergartner should be allowed to pick up a gun with his allowance money on the way home from school.

Of course you would deny that guns are a cultural right for Americans when you deny the very existence of a distinctive American culture. The very fact that people like you consider people like me to be subhuman only makes us defend our gun rights ever more staunchly. And do you consider people like me to be subhuman? Please consider: Even Hitler accepted that Jews were a people with a distinct culture. We Americans would be suicidally crazy not to defend our gun rights against you post-Americans. In fact, you remind me that I'm running low on ammunition.

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


For someone who knows a pretty good amount of American history, you may want to take another look at that statement, unless you are saying that only the 13 original colonies are included in your version of American culture.

Please explain.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 167 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 28 of 200
"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

I called the tea party ass wipes, I never said they weren't Americans. As a matter of fact, I said they were the ones who'd call my wife and I Un-American for living in genteel poverty.

Bill, regarding the insulting name, insults are the most graceless way possible of admitting you have lost the argument. It means you don't have anything intelligent to say.

Well the US has the longest running continuous government in recorded history, so there's that. I'm not sure what you are looking for, as no form of government has been infinitely sustainable.

Your statement that the US has "the longest running continuous government in recorded history" is factually incorrect. The British government has been running continuously since 1688. But there is a connection. American governing ways are based upon British governing ways. Do you understand now, or are you too liberal to be taken in by the obvious?

No, it is more like someone who beats his wife and someone who beats his wife to death. One is obviously worse, but that does not lessen the horrors of the other.

Ah, these vague horrors that Americans are guilty of--all Americans, through collective guilt. You claim you "love your country", yet you offer serious indictments that are scandalously vague. With friends like you, does America really need enemies?


Thelibrarian wrote:
St. Bernard said that only the poor have the right to commend poverty to others. By the same token, I would say only those liberals who live in ghettos or barrios, or send their children to gang-infested schools where English is no longer spoken have the right to demand others do so.


You live in much different reality than me. Most of your criticisms of liberals are equally applicable to the conservatives in government. You also seem to be under the impression that anywhere that there is poverty, there is open gang warfare. You also seem to assume poor neighborhoods don't speak English? Or am I misunderstanding that one?

What conservatives in government? As for the rest, I will only defend what I say.

Thelibrarian wrote:
The ideal of communism was the most bloody violence the world had ever seen--The Revolution--in which anybody with any money or brains was to be slaughtered. Well, the communists slaughtered a hundred million people, and we're not a step closer to utopia than when they started. How many more do you think need to be slaughtered in support of the "ideals of communism"?


Trying to blame communists for all the world's slaughter is just as absurd as trying to blame it all on Muslims.

I see you remain the sworn enemy of Americans AND straw men.

Ghandi, I will succumb to temptation just one more time. Then, I have work to do:

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

Communism IS slavery, and especially inhumane slavery at that. And in the case of the Soviet Empire at least, the overwhelming majority of those who were slaughtered were Great Russians, who WERE the indigenous people. Of course, there were exceptions: Pol Pot's Cambodian slaughter of one-quarter of the population was actually genocide against Camobodia's ethnic Chinese minority.

And why the scare quotes around "communist country"? You've already said you don't believe Americans have a cultural identity, but are instead an idea. Do you think communism didn't exist either?

At the time I equated TP, or tea party with toilet paper, I was hardly losing an argument or even making an argument. My blood was up over those tea party members who advocate just letting the needy either pull themselves up by their bootstraps or die. One of the few things that makes me see red and lose all reason is the demonization of the have-nots by the haves.