Page 142 of 147 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142143144 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1411
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago. I didn't see one crying Chicago parent holding up a sign of their kids in the Congressional Hearing yesterday.

    Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.

    Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?

    Oh I know why, they didn't care.

    They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago.

    Apparently you weren't watching the SOTU address. You know, the one that this thread is all about? They're addressing the rising death toll in the country, not only Chicago. He spoke quite clearly about the murder of a young girl who sang at his inauguration, was shot and killed a mile from his home in Chicago. He even mentioned her parent's who happend to be sitting with the First Lady in the Gallery. He spoke of the killings in many cities including Chicago specifically. His former Chief of Staff is Mayor of Chicago. He's quite well aware of the murder epidemic in Chicago. That's his home remember?



    So...are you suggesting that they were cheering the rising body count of 6year old kids? Is that what you're saying? Is this the new conservative talking point?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #1412
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Do you have any data beyond "I think . . ."?
    Actually I have lots of data and have already shared it in this thread (apparently you missed it).

    But your question was subjective, so "I think" is a reflection of the subjective nature of the question.

    I know exactly how much taxes are paid by the group of people under a million, and over a million for that matter, but as I said, "I think" the people under a million are paying their fair share.

    Someone else with the exact same data might "think" that they pay more or less than their fair share.

    Criminy, you ask for my opinion and whine when I give you my opinion?

  3. #1413
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    They have yet to adress Nationally the rising death toll in Chicago. I didn't see one crying Chicago parent holding up a sign of their kids in the Congressional Hearing yesterday.

    Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.

    Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?

    Oh I know why, they didn't care.

    You posted this in a previous comment: "I imagined more than a few high fives going around the white house when the body count came in. Classy...Originally Posted by Fenton. No Fenton. That wasn't a classy thing to say at all. That was no class.

    I owe Conservative an appology. Fenton here, lists himself as a conservative. There's also a poster here that calls himself, Conservative. The two of them talk about the very same things. And I mistakenly confused Conservative with a conservative. I said some pretty nasty stuff about the above comment which, as it turns out, actually came from Fenton, and for that, I appolgize. ( Mr. Owl...take note. I told you, I know I could be wrong, and when you are you recognize it and you do something about it.) So, in light of that, I take back the comments I directed at Conservative. And Deliver them here for Fenton.

    Originally Posted by Adagio

    Claiming that the White House was cheering the death toll of 6 year olds to promote a politial agenda...that's true hate in action. That's irrational hate. That kind of hate is pure evil. You have a very sick and cynical view of people and anybody that harbors that kind of hate, isn't worth the time of day. What you actually do is reveal yourself as vile. And you confuse nobody. You torpedoed any credibility you may have hoped to gain. Any message you try to offer is buried by your own hate. Maybe you'll learn to read what you write before posting and consider the damage that you do to your own credibility.
    I think your credibility, or what there was of it, is completely gone as a legitimate poster. You're consumed with hate as we can see. You require a notebook of "talking points" provided to you by the RNC or Sean Hannity, or Rush Limpballs, or whatever other freak shares your all consuming hatred for anything outside your narrow little world in order to make you feel like you can hold your own on a political forum. You clearly can't think for yourself, and you're overflowing with hatred for this particular president. I can't imagine why? This is hate mongering at it's worst, and I'm not interested in anything you have to say. You've wasted mine and everyone elses time with your garbage.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1414
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    It's not fair. that's the whole point.
    exactly. and it should be obvious to anyone who cares to look
    graph income distribution in the USA.jpg
    and those who insist the elite pay the most taxes are absolutely correct
    but what they fail to also recognize is that they also realize the most after tax income growth
    graph change in after tax income.jpg
    and let's see how that plays out in terms of accumulated wealth
    graph wealth distribution in the usa.jpg
    the data is quite clear. the very rich are doing very well. not so much the rest of us. and the obvious conclusion is that the rich are NOT paying their fair share while enjoying a disproportionate share of the prosperity
    when that is no longer the circumstance, only then can it be said the rich are actually paying their 'fair' share of the tax burden
    graph changes in effective tax rates for the rich.jpg

    trickle down my ass!

    American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #1415
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,318

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Apparently you weren't watching the SOTU address. You know,
    the one that this thread is all about? They're addressing the rising death toll in the country, not only Chicago. He spoke quite clearly about the murder of a young girl who sang at his inauguration, was shot and killed a mile from his home in Chicago. He even mentioned her parent's who happend to be sitting with the First Lady in the Gallery. He spoke of the killings in many cities including Chicago specifically. His former Chief of Staff is Mayor of Chicago. He's quite well aware of the murder epidemic in Chicago. That's his home remember?



    So...are you suggesting that they were cheering the rising body count of 6year old kids? Is that what you're saying? Is this the new conservative talking point?
    Better late than never I suppose. I mean how long did it take them to notice the rising death toll in Chicago ?

    It takes a school of white kindegardeners to get his attention apparently.

    Actually his true motives are far more disgusting.

    He couldn't hang decades old Democrat gun laws on murdered Chicago kids. Not enough "oohmph! " factor.

  6. #1416
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,318

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    exactly. and it should be obvious to anyone
    who cares to look
    graph income distribution in the USA.jpg

    and those who insist the elite pay the most taxes are absolutely correct
    but what they fail to also recognize is that they also realize the most after tax income growth
    graph change in after tax income.jpg
    and let's see how that plays out in terms of accumulated wealth
    graph wealth distribution in the usa.jpg
    the data is quite clear. the very rich are doing very well. not so much the rest of us. and the obvious conclusion is that the rich are NOT paying their fair share while enjoying a disproportionate share of the prosperity
    when that is no longer the circumstance, only then can it be said the rich are actually paying their 'fair' share of the tax burden
    graph changes in effective tax rates for the rich.jpg

    trickle down my ass!

    American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America
    The data might be "clear" but your understanding of our economic system is about as clear as a muddy puddle.

    Hell, adagio was just bragging the other day about the rich getting richer.....DOW.

    It's what happens when a leader saddles massive amounts of debt, regulation and mandates on those who PRODUCE.

    They simply sit on their capital. SHOCKER !!!

    Hey what's the current Fed Reserve up to now ?

    Lol. You guys whine about the rich keeping their assets out of the economy but are blissfully unaware of the mechanism YOU PEOPLE put in place thats causing it

    I don't think there is a better description that exempflies your ideology more.

    It must be embarrasing.
    Last edited by Fenton; 02-28-13 at 02:43 PM.

  7. #1417
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=OpportunityCost;1061516609]
    Except you didnt include the part with the entire interview and the context of what Atwater is talking about is what politicians ran in the South. In the 50s it was pure race baiting, in the 60s it was voter rights/Jim Crow/forced busing, in the 70s, Atwater was describing what you would want to run on to appeal to voters. Hes not equating the things as being equal hes saying what strategy would work for voters. Voters werent just whites anymore, so the strategy going forward has to be different. Its a historical idea as much as anything else. The first 5 minutes are all about the context BEFORE he made those statements and places the context of what he meant.
    That's quite a gymnastics routine. I haven't seen anything like that since the summer games Atwater is appealing to the very same mentallity, showing exactly how to appeal to the very same racist voter with new language. He explains clearly how you can't use the same words that you could in the 50's without painting the candidate and the party itself as hopeless racists. He explains in words that everyone can understand, that the term States Rights, would appeal to those people that know, that "States Rights" = the right of a state to decide for itself how it will handle segregation outside of the Federal Government and it's blasted constitution, leaving the issue up to the states. Ronald Reagan made that very appeal to States Rights at the Neshoba County Fair near the town of Philadelphia Mississippi. The place where Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman were murdered for trying to register blacks to vote. In his speech he said this: "I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].I believe in state's rights.

    I've heard the recording of that speech. That States Rights comment really went over well. Of all the places in the United States he could have kicked off his campaign, Reagan does it right in the heart of Klan Kountry, and appeals to the very same crowd that killed three young mend and buried them in an earthen damn. They shot Schwerner and Goodman but they saved something special for Cheney. The shot him after shoving the gun up his backside, and then shot him in the penis because he ( a black guy) should have known better. Great location to kick off a presidential campaign. And you wonder why blacks don't vote Republican? Those were the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Those same conservative Democrats are conservative Republicans today. Same ideology. Different tie.

    Maybe it should. Promising them bread and circuses only works for so long.
    Seeing Latino's as illegals doesn't help your cause.

    Nah, its not.
    Well then, here's my comment: "I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?"

    If it's wrong, then explain why it's wrong? Just you saying that it's wrong means nothing unless you can provide some explanation of what makes it wrong. That's called a critique. Or is it wrong, because you say it's wrong? I'm afraid that won't be enough. You can't very well appeal to yourself as your own authority? What would you base that on? So...if it's wrong you should be able to explain why?

    Sigh. You make blanket assertions like I believe conservatism cant be wrong. At no point did I say or assert that. In fact I disagree with a lot of socially conservative positions. If you could avoid making arguments about things Ive never said that would be super.
    That isn't what I said. I asked you if if YOU could be wrong. I never made any assertion that you believe conservatism CAN'T be wrong. Although there seems to be a whole lot of them that feel that way. No compromise at all. Very absolutist in principles and values that can't ever be compromised even though they can't be demonstrated as true. I asked you if YOU were fallible and if you are, then I know you are smart enough to know that any idea coming from a fallible source must itself be fallible. It can't be infallible. It's inherently flawed and prone to error.That means that if you know that about yourself, you have to also know that about conservatism as an ideology. If you can't ever compromise in your principles or values, you must believe that they're infallibly correct. You wouldn't hold values that you don't believe are absolutely true would you? So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.

    You hold liberal positions most often, and you havent bothered to clarify or voice any positions other than liberal ones.
    You see me as holding liberal positions in relation to your own conservatism. What you see is that I don't hold conservative views. In your eyes that makes me a liberal by default. I'm certainly not a libertarian am I. (I've read Hayek, and actually read 4 of Ayn Rands novels including the two huge books, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It appealed to me the way a comic book appeals to a young kid) I take a Pancrtical rationalist perspective. I work from the premiss that you get closer to the truth by stripping away the things that are false. You do that not through trying to justify your positions. But to hold them up to criticism. Including your own. That means that every time I come across some absolutist comment I question it. And that...makes me a Liberal, at least in the eyes of a conservative that I'm directing the questions toward. Those that make those kind of statements tend to be conservatives, because they see their ideology as right. Infallibly right. They cannot ever ever ever be wrong. In fact they are so certain of their ideology, they'd be willing to tank the US credit and toss it in the trash rather than compromise on that absolutely certain idea that what they think IS the only way to do anything.

    So Im going with liberal until you post something different. So far you sound like a liberal water carrier we see around here quite a lot,
    I have no objections to being called a liberal.Look at my posts. I call myself that. I like being a source of irritation to conservatives. And have you considered that you and the others sound like conservative water carriers that lurk around here in my view? I don't need to carry water for anyone Mr. Owl. Like I said, I don't work off of talking points. Your friend Fenton...now theres a water carrier. When a liberal starts to tell me, "there can be no dout, no debate" "We know with complete certainty..." then I'll be more than happy to rip him a new one. Because no liberal knows with absolute certainty...anything. What we're dealing with are theories on how to govern. Not some utopian idea of perfection. That can't be done by either party. At least the liberals know that. As I said, " the difference between the conservative and the liberal is the conservative KNOWS he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which in your view is closer to the truth?

    So far you are lodged pretty far into liberal territory. Its not "truth", or "sacred ground", its just ideology based upon a realm of political thinking. You also seem a lot more wedded to it, than I do, but less honest about it.
    Yes. It would seem that way to a conservative. I'm not a conservative. That probably has something to do with it. But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change. That's all it is. Being open to change. Maybe I'll change if something convinces me that I should. So far I haven't seen that from either conservatives or libertarians, or fascists, commies or theocrats. The point is that I'm open to it. If it brings me closer to the truth, great. At my age, I'm tired of hearing bull****. I'd like truth and if it means chopping up some baseless ideology, I'm happy to do it. Conservatism won't do that. It's flawed, and truth isn't flawed. It won't compromise the ideology even when it conflicts with the truth. That brings us to liberalism doesn't it. It doesn't make claims of infallibility. It already accepts that it might make a mistake. The difference is that when you're open to the fact that your ideas didn't work, you can make the needed changes to correct that mistake. It takes a little more guts because you don't know the outcome until you try something. The conservative doesn't want to try something because it wants certainty. It wants to know the outcome before hand. But you'll never know that. You can't predict the future by looking at history. That's historicism and that's Karl Marx to the core. Marx was wrong about that. But being an ideologue he couldn't accept that. I'm not afraid of being wrong. But the conservative is. The conservative doesn't even acknowledge that there is a mistake, and despite the impact of reality on every good idea...they continue down the same path of pounding a square peg into a round hole for the sake of staying conservative. I find that dumb. It's like beating your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1418
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=OpportunityCost;1061516609]


    You assume I believe conservatism is infallible and go about proving that without any argument from me to that effect. You assume Im wedded to conservativism on all issues, also not true.
    That's not circular logic. If what you just said were in fact true, then it would be called a Straw Man. Not circular logic. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.That's what it would be IF your premiss was true...which it isn't. I never assumed this: "I believe conservatism is infallible . I asked you if you thought you could be wrong. I may have even asked you if you thought conservatism could be wrong, however I never assumed that you thought that which is why I asked you specifically IF you thought you could possiblly be wrong? I don't make assumptions on people. I'm experienced enough on these forums and in touch with my own philosophical views to never make a positive assertion about people or things. I don't define people. I let them define themselves. When they do, (conservatives seem to like defining people) that definition can be criticized for it's truth. Whats the definition based on? What makes me a liberal, is that I dare to question a conservative. I'll challenge the premiss of their arguments. They don't like being on the defensive. I don't have any ideology to defend. They do.

    The part where you assume to know what I believe without actually finding out. You are most definitely speaking for me by assuming what I believe without delving into any specifics whatsoever. Ive taken very few positions here, in point of fact, and Im tired of dealing with your lecturing, cajoling and overbearing crap.
    I don't need to know what you believe. That's totally irrelevent to what I'm saying. Whatever it is that you believe...The moon is made of green cheese, there are pink unicorns on Mars... it doesn't make any difference. "" If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? What is your belief in the Moon and green cheese based on? What do you base the belief of pink unicorns on Mars on? I don't have to know what it is. That's totally up to you. But if you actually have any interest in the truth...then you must examine your ideology and ask yourself what is this belief based on??? If you don't do that, you are operating on the assumption that this ideology that you believe in IS the truth based on itself. And THAT is circular logic.
    Either you follow that justification spiral into that black hole of infinite regress looking for the next justification for the next base...OR you stop the search for any justification and say that the ideology is based on itself. That is the definition of circular reasoning.It's called the dilemma of infinite regress vs dogma. If you hold to the dogma, you need bases to justify that to keep rationalizing your ideology. The more you are pressed for justification, the deeper into that hole you go looking for a base and that goes on forever as long as you hold the dogma of the ideology. You have two choices then. Dump the ideology becaise it is unable to demonstrate what makes it true, or take the leap into circular reasoning using the ideology to justify itself. And that is an irrational position to hold. Again...I haven't assumed that you hold these position. I asked you if you did. You dodged that question several times. I don't act on assumptions Mr. Owl. IF you hold those positions, this is what you would have to look forward to. If you don't, then you have no problem. But being a conservative isn't just a fashion statement. People beat each other to a pulp these days trying to out-conservative the other guy. I already know where a guy like Fenton is at. Same with Conservative. Maybe you aren't a conservative after all. We both know you know you and conservatism could be wrong, dont' we. We even know that you could be wrong about liberals.

    Democrats treat minorities as voting blocks rather than people that have the same needs as other Americans
    .

    There you go. First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so that may or may not be true. There is nothing to demonstrate that as true. It's just another absolute statement. Democrats are this. Democrats are that. Define, define, define. Assume assume assume. As a liberal, I do not. Furthermore, I don't see that minorities are treated as voting blocks. They are treated like real life human beings, no different than you or I. which is exactly why those minorities form voting blocs and turnout for democrats. But they aren't monolithic as you suggest (voting bloc) On the other hand, the conservatives DO in fact treat minorities as voting blocs. That very idea has already been articulated by Sean Hannity, and many others that recognize that they'll need to get serious on immigration if they want to attract Latinos.Treating them as a bloc. Where the Latino vote is concerned, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney. CNN’s exit poll shows Obama winning 71% of that vote, and the polling organization Latino Decisions measured even bigger gains for Obama, showing that Obama beat Romney by a whopping 75% to 23% among Latinos. In the electoral college, the Latino vote was crucial to Obama, particularly in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada, which Obama won, and Florida. You won't get their vote if you see them as illegals or good enough to mow your lawn.


    Racism is racism. I dont think its a conservative or liberal concept, its a dehumanizing one. One I dont agree with on any level.
    Racism is racism. Thats a pretty weak and simplistic definition for a person that likes defining people. There is a predisposition to why people hold the views they hold. They don't just randomly pop into a persons way of life with no reason. I've laid out a few things about conservatives that come from them. Not from me. I don't define them. I let them define themselves. Basic to conservative thinking is the preservation of existing institutions.Tradition. that's core to the belief.

    In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based, calling it ordered liberty.

    Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
    1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
    2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
    3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
    4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
    5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
    6. Society must alter slowly.

    Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he
    gave the conservative movement its name.

    Kirk was Reagans ideological guru. Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters
    was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:

    As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”

    —Ronald Reagan, 1981

    Kirk is really warmed over Burke. If you've read Burke you know that. Mark Levin loves to quote Burke. Burke was an aristocrat and the leading anti-Enlightenment voice in history. Levin also wrote his own Manifesto for Conservatism. ( Can't get more ideological than that...the Conservative Bible according to Rush Limpballs)

    So what does all this have to do with racism? The US Constitution set up this country as a White Supremacist nation. That racism is embedded into our constitution in Article 1.sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. Slavery was an institution in this country. It flourished in the south which was our only true American aristocracy. Obviously slavery couldn't last, however the abolition of slavery would have an impact on the eonomy and lifestyle of southerners. The conservative South fought to maintain that institution. They lost. But here was Mississippi's reasoning for secession:

    A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
    Mississippi from the Federal Union.

    “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. “

    “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

    A pretty solid example of the reluctance to let go of existing institutions. The other states had very similar reasons all based on racism. Since that time, the very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

    The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Which is why we see the Voting Rights Act being challenged right now in the Supreme Court by two conservative Senators from Alabama, sponsoring Shelby County Alabama in the court. And with a conservative Court...looks like theres going to be a problem. I can tell you that African/Americans that have lived through this and bled and died and been lynched all for the sake of the simple right to vote...to have come this far...they aren't going to accept having their voting rights compromised. But then, conservatives didn't want their votes anyway. Did they? Liberals aren't doing this Mr. Owl. This is the conservatives. The same mentallity that never got over losing the war 120 years ago. States Rights!
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1419
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=OpportunityCost;1061516609]

    In fact, many of them are not conservative or only nominally so. If they WERE conservative they would not face primary challenges from the right so often, McCain amongst them.
    These aren't conservatives. At least not in the mold of Reagan. He couldn't have gotten nominated today. These are extreme ideologues. If they seen as working with the President, they'll get primaried. And they all know it. Look at Christi. The C-Pac snubbed him, and he has 72% approval rating in blue state New Jersey. But then he has no time for their nonsense. He has a state to rebuild. So they say what's on their mind, and the next day, they're on the phone genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh. A drug addict with a microphone and no class. What a pretty picture.

    So, now Im supposed to believe exactly what Grover Norquist believes? Really? Its GOT to be all or nothing eh? Did I argue that? I argued we should be making cuts because the spending we are at is not sustainable. I didnt say every man for himself, YOU said I did. So many misrepresentations in one post, how pathetic.
    Did I say you were a Teabagger? No.All I know is that you take the conservative line. Do you disagree with him? Do I hear anybody from that group telling Grover to take a hike? No. How do the Teabaggers see government? No tax increases. All tax cuts. Shrink the size of Government. And Grover would take it down to the size of a bathtub and drown it.

    Other pearls of wisdom from Grover:

    "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." from the National Review, quoted in The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock, Crown Publishers 2004, pg. 50

    "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." Farrell, John A., "Rancor becomes top DC export: GOP leads charge in ideological war", The Denver Post, 26 May 2003, p. A-01.

    "The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head." quoted in "The Slatest" Blog Post, Josh Voorhes, November 12, 2012 [1]

    "Don Sherwood’s seat would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled.” quoted in Caroline Daniel et. al., Financial Times, November 10, 2006 [2]

    "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." quoted in John Aloysius Farrell, "Rancor becomes top D.C. export: GOP leads charge in ideological war," Denver Post, May 26, 2003

    "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #1420
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,318

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    I know what Addagio's been doing all day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •