Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

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

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, 12:20 pm

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


In that case, get in your time machine and tell the founding fathers to put anti-immigration into the Bill of Rights.


_________________
"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, 12:22 pm

With regards to inhumane treatment of slavery in the Bible, how about the following?

Exodus 21:20-21
“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

This means that hitting slaves with a rod is ok as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly as a result.



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, 12:24 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


As far as I can tell, by your definition of liberal, everyone is liberal except for yourself.


_________________
"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: 39,424
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2013, 12:27 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


As you know, I hail from the Pacific Northwest, which has the least church going demographic in the whole nation. As a Lutheran, the joke I've heard goes, "that isn't snow on the Rocky's, but baptismal certificates tossed out of the train window by Lutherans heading to the Northwest." That said, my pastor, who had been born and raised in Iowa, has said that he finds the open irreligiosity refreshing, because back home in the Midwest (and in comparison the south as well), people go to church because they feel they have to. Here, we go if we go to church because we sincerely want to.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


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, 12:28 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


Have you ever lived in a poor, black neighborhood? Do you live in places like Manhattan Island's Upper West Side and Beverly Hills? If not, you seem to be taking some liberties in your assumptions of their viewpoints. I live in a neighborhood where poverty is the norm, and I have yet to hear any talk of how integration is a bad thing.

I also have not met a single person who calls for people to give up all of their possessions and move out to give the land back to the native people.

As always, I find your judgemental attitudes appalling.


_________________
"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


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, 12:35 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


The difference (from a religious standpoint) was only that the south travelled further and further along the path to extremism and Biblical rationalization, while the north did not.

And just for the record, I do not find Genovese to be very credible. Especially when he goes on about slavery likely coming to an end without the Civil War based on economic factors. 98% of economists disagree with all of his assumptions in that regard. The majority of his work is based on assumption and vast leaps of logic with a highly biased fact set that excludes many facts that contradict his positions. So if you want to argue slavery with me, Genovese is not the "expert" you want to invoke.

And what do phrenology, astrology, Ouija boards, and mesmerism have to do with slavery? I am a little confused about that one.


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


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 12:56 pm

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.

No, but I am calling you disingenuous. The armed forces keep their battle stations manned until the threat has passed. The rpimary job of the military isn't to push papers, maintain copying machines, weld, or any similar activities. The ONLY purpose of the military is to protect the country, which means keeping out those who don't belong here.

Nor does subjugation have to occur for it to be an invasion. If somebody enters your home without your permission, they are invading regardless of whether they are "subjugating" you.

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.

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.

So, you are against illegal immigration but just don't think it's important enough to do anything about? If that position is different than being for it, I find the distinction to be academic at best.

I am absolutely proposing the use of deadly force to protect and defend this country's borders; this is the ONLY valid reason why our armed forces are armed. As far as those looking for a "better life", I want Americans, who are the rightful owners of this country to have a better life. And too many of them are unemployed right now because of immigrants competing with them for scarce jobs. Americans should come first in their own country.

Just to respond to your melodramatic statement on "extermination", I'm only in favor of protecting US borders, NOT invading other countries. The ONLY valid function of the US armed forces is to defend this country--not to attack countries that have done nothing to us, such as Iraq or Iran--or Mexico for that matter.

I will take the liberal position of open borders seriously when liberals begin to open their homes to anybody who cares to move in for a "better life". I'm sure you have rooms you aren't using that some poor, needy person could use. And even if you don't, you could share your bed with these people looking for a "better life". No, this country belongs to the American people, and we have the right to decide who comes in and who does not.



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, 1:12 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
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.


The difference (from a religious standpoint) was only that the south travelled further and further along the path to extremism and Biblical rationalization, while the north did not.

And just for the record, I do not find Genovese to be very credible. Especially when he goes on about slavery likely coming to an end without the Civil War based on economic factors. 98% of economists disagree with all of his assumptions in that regard. The majority of his work is based on assumption and vast leaps of logic with a highly biased fact set that excludes many facts that contradict his positions. So if you want to argue slavery with me, Genovese is not the "expert" you want to invoke.

And what do phrenology, astrology, Ouija boards, and mesmerism have to do with slavery? I am a little confused about that one.


Biblical and rationalization don't go together. If you read your Max Weber, you would understand that it is liberalism that is obsessed with rationalizing even if it is one of the most irrational forces on the planet. Christianity harbors no such pretensions, not even as a conceit. Or is Weber another of the great scholars you dismiss simply because you don't like his findings?

As far as Genovese goes, he is widely considered to be the greatest historian of the South who has ever lived. If you care to dismiss him with prejudice--meaning you haven't read him--that is unfortunate, but your prerogative, sir. You are only hurting yourself.

As far as the occultist movements are concerned, as the north became more liberal, these were the movements that began to replace Christianity in the popular consciousness of many liberal northerners. Look at it this way: The Southern Baptist church is a major force, and one almost everybody recognizes, whether they like them or not. How many people know the current name of the descendant of the old Puritan sect? And how influential is it?



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

04 Dec 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote:
I want Americans, who are the rightful owners of this country to have a better life.


Uhhhhhhhhhh.....

Image



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, 1:14 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
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.

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.


So, you are against illegal immigration but just don't think it's important enough to do anything about? If that position is different than being for it, I find the distinction to be academic at best.


I am only saying that illegal immigration is not the most important issue facing this country. Not by a long shot. Yes, something should be done about it, but right now there are so many other more important things to worry about. What is so hard for you to understand about that? I also have issues with people going over the speed limit, but I'm not going to call for a massive increase in troopers to monitor the highways because there are much more important things for them to worry about.

Thelibrarian wrote:
I am absolutely proposing the use of deadly force to protect and defend this country's borders; this is the ONLY valid reason why our armed forces are armed. As far as those looking for a "better life", I want Americans, who are the rightful owners of this country to have a better life. And too many of them are unemployed right now because of immigrants competing with them for scarce jobs. Americans should come first in their own country.


If you want the real culprit behind the majority of the disappearing jobs, then look to technological improvement. A factory that would have needed 5,000 employees to operate 50 years ago can likely operate even more efficiently with a few hundred. There are thousands of jobs that keep disappearing because of technological improvements, and the internet has eliminated so many more. How many retail jobs do you think this country is going to add from this point forward? For crying out loud, warehouses are rapidly transitioning to almost entirely machine run operations. With self driving vehicles, you are likely to see a few hundred thousand truck drivers out of work within 20 years, along with taxi drivers, bus drivers, and countless other jobs where being in the driver's seat is required. And drone technology is going to eliminate the need for pilots (passenger and cargo). Sea lane shipping will likely follow.

And do you realize how few American citizens are willing to do backbreaking agriculktural labor for minimum wage? I'll give you hint: few enough that in some areas that have increased the severity of immigration law there are whole crops that rot in the fields.

If you worry about jobs, maybe we should spend money on creating them and stop spending it on laws that are easily abused to discriminate against anyone without a pasty white complexion?

Thelibrarian wrote:
Just to respond to your melodramatic statement on "extermination", I'm only in favor of protecting US borders, NOT invading other countries. The ONLY valid function of the US armed forces is to defend this country--not to attack countries that have done nothing to us, such as Iraq or Iran--or Mexico for that matter.


I never said anything about invading other countries. I was talking about your call to exterminate any illegal immigrants to this country, which to me seems to be violent extremism.

Thelibrarian wrote:
I will take the liberal position of open borders seriously when liberals begin to open their homes to anybody who cares to move in for a "better life". I'm sure you have rooms you aren't using that some poor, needy person could use. And even if you don't, you could share your bed with these people looking for a "better life". No, this country belongs to the American people, and we have the right to decide who comes in and who does not.


I have never agrued this, although you still seem to think that I have. I will once again say (for added emphasis) that My main point is that illegal immigration is not even close to the most important issue facing the US at the moment. It is about priorities, not some sort of liberal agenda.


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


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 1:17 pm

TheGoggles wrote:
Quote:
I want Americans, who are the rightful owners of this country to have a better life.


Uhhhhhhhhhh.....

Image


Yes, the Indians lost their lands because of open borders. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

If you believe the Indians still own this country, what are you doing here? Don't you know you are in possession of stolen property if that is the case? Why don't you go home to Europe or wherever your ancestors came from? Or am I the one who is supposed to feel guilty?



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

04 Dec 2013, 1:31 pm

Nah, they really didn't. Smallpox eliminated 99% of the entire native population. Nevermind the absurdity of building a wall along the entire east coast.

I acknowledge that America has committed acts of genocide against them, just as the Germans acknowledge the actions of the Nazi Party. That's all we can do. Remember the atrocities of the past, and demand that they never take place again. Flippantly dismissing them is irresponsible.

Quote:
If you want the real culprit behind the majority of the disappearing jobs, then look to technological improvement.


That's a factor that doesn't help, but our trade war with China is much worse. Clinton signed off on free trade with the Chinese, and they immediately offered American manufacturers a place where they could use prison labor, child labor, and sweatshop labor. No pollution control whatsoever. Vietnam, India, and Bangladesh offer the same attractive deals.

It's not like the Chinese plan a land war or anything, but they want to establish economic supremacy. Whether they can maintain that while everyone's getting cancer or committing suicide remains to be seen.



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, 1:33 pm

I am only saying that illegal immigration is not the most important issue facing this country. Not by a long shot. Yes, something should be done about it, but right now there are so many other more important things to worry about. What is so hard for you to understand about that? I also have issues with people going over the speed limit, but I'm not going to call for a massive increase in troopers to monitor the highways because there are much more important things for them to worry about.

I disagree emphatically. Immigration is the ONLY issue that matters right now. What immigration will guarantee is that Americans become a despised minority in their own country. What open borders guarantees is civil war in this country. Tell me, do Arabs and Indians have a right to countries of their own? If so, why aren't you willing to acknowledge that Americans have the same rights? Why do you consider me to be less human that others?

If you want the real culprit behind the majority of the disappearing jobs, then look to technological improvement. A factory that would have needed 5,000 employees to operate 50 years ago can likely operate even more efficiently with a few hundred. There are thousands of jobs that keep disappearing because of technological improvements, and the internet has eliminated so many more. How many retail jobs do you think this country is going to add from this point forward? For crying out loud, warehouses are rapidly transitioning to almost entirely machine run operations. With self driving vehicles, you are likely to see a few hundred thousand truck drivers out of work within 20 years, along with taxi drivers, bus drivers, and countless other jobs where being in the driver's seat is required. And drone technology is going to eliminate the need for pilots (passenger and cargo). Sea lane shipping will likely follow.

Nonsense. The jobs have simply been offshored to the places with the cheapest labor. China is booming right now, and the concern is that there will soon be a labor shortage. I just don't understand your callous disregard for Americans, sir. Should we all just starve and disappear from the earth? Are we former people?

And do you realize how few American citizens are willing to do backbreaking agriculktural labor for minimum wage? I'll give you hint: few enough that in some areas that have increased the severity of immigration law there are whole crops that rot in the fields.

So, you believe those Americans are just lazy and no good, huh? How do you explain then that we created a country that your ancestors wanted to immigrate to?

If you worry about jobs, maybe we should spend money on creating them and stop spending it on laws that are easily abused to discriminate against anyone without a pasty white complexion?

Ah, now we come to the crux of it: You don't like white people. Am I being melodramatic? I would say not since I can't imagine you talking so cavalierly about people with an "excrement brown complexion"? Why don't you leave your racial hatreds out of this? It is indecent.

As far as socialism goes, which I assume is what you are referring to by "spending money to create jobs", are you not aware that this approach has been a dismal failure wherever it has been tried? The fact that America has never been this way explains why it is an immigrant magnet.


Thelibrarian wrote:
Just to respond to your melodramatic statement on "extermination", I'm only in favor of protecting US borders, NOT invading other countries. The ONLY valid function of the US armed forces is to defend this country--not to attack countries that have done nothing to us, such as Iraq or Iran--or Mexico for that matter.


I never said anything about invading other countries. I was talking about your call to exterminate any illegal immigrants to this country, which to me seems to be violent extremism.

A country that isn't willing to use lethal force to defend itself isn't long for this world, with sounds to be just what you want for the American people. This is standard Political Correctness, which makes the very existence of an American nation into some kind of immoral act. Sorry, I find your position to be extreme, as well as highly irrational, as I'm sure you wouldn't say the same for Third World peoples fending off imperialism. Your position sounds suspiciously like the imperialism of old.



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, 1:34 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Biblical and rationalization don't go together. If you read your Max Weber, you would understand that it is liberalism that is obsessed with rationalizing even if it is one of the most irrational forces on the planet. Christianity harbors no such pretensions, not even as a conceit. Or is Weber another of the great scholars you dismiss simply because you don't like his findings?


Biblical and rationalization do not go together, but that doesn't stop religious fundamentalists from pretending that they do. I have not read Weber, but I have now put him on my list. I will agree that liberalism does employ entirely too much rationalization at some of the most inappropiate times. But I also think that Conservatism does the same.

Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as Genovese goes, he is widely considered to be the greatest historian of the South who has ever lived. If you care to dismiss him with prejudice--meaning you haven't read him--that is unfortunate, but your prerogative, sir. You are only hurting yourself.


I have read Genoivese. His writing style is one of the best in the whole of non-fiction. I actually quite enjoy reading his work. There are many who I disagree with but still enjoy reading. It is his credibility that I question on certain subjects where he does not seem to have done as much research. It is almost as if he wanted to stir up controversy more than he wanted to be historically accurate (in terms of thoroughness). He does a fantastic job - some of the time. It just depends on the particular subset of southern history.

I personally find that many other historians have covered the south much more objectively (if not as extensively or exclusively). I think that Zinn, McCullough, Foucalt, and Foote (Civil War history only) to be more comprehensive. I will admit that most of them are not as enjoyable.

Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as the occultist movements are concerned, as the north became more liberal, these were the movements that began to replace Christianity in the popular consciousness of many liberal northerners. Look at it this way: The Southern Baptist church is a major force, and one almost everybody recognizes, whether they like them or not. How many people know the current name of the descendant of the old Puritan sect? And how influential is it?


Have you paid attention to the things that southern Christians held as undeniable truths? Have you paid attention to what many of them still hold as fact? I am not saying that northern Christians weren't pretty screwy, I am just saying they did not have the monopoly and that the south went into the realm of fanaticism.


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


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm

Nah, they really didn't. Smallpox eliminated 99% of the entire native population. Nevermind the absurdity of building a wall along the entire east coast.

Actually, European diseases eliminated about ninety percent of American Indians, as well as those in Mexico and Central America.

As far as building a wall along the east coast goes, I will leave you to fight with your straw man. I understand it is how liberals prove their courage.

I acknowledge that America has committed acts of genocide against them, just as the Germans acknowledge the actions of the Nazi Party. That's all we can do. Remember the atrocities of the past, and demand that they never take place again. Flippantly dismissing them is irresponsible.

Genocide? Do you even know what genocide is? If Americans had wanted to commit genocide against the Indians, there wouldn't be any around.

BTW, it is ironic you sent me the picture you did, which is obviously of the trail of tears. The reason Jackson orchestrated this move was because he was sickened by the Puritan approach to dealing with their Indian tribes, which was real genocide. Jackson removed them to Oklahoma to prevent genocide, both in terms of needless slaughter, and to allow them to practice their cultures. Again, the Puritans, the proto-liberals, wiped out most of their tribes to extinction. It is another example of how liberalism is the most intolerant force on earth.

I don't feel guilty at all. Do you? How do you atone for all of these alleged sins? Do you flagellate yourself? Do you sit around in sack cloth and ashes?