You are classifying me as something I am not because Stormfront happens to agree with me on a thing or two.
Your argument is crap, there is no way to 'respond' to someone attempting to accuse you of being "more likely to be something that I will not be"
Your pompous attitude is ridiculous.
Second, whether or not people on stormfront are saying similiar things is relatively irrelevant and doesn't prove anything other than some may share broad line views with each other which speaks nothing to their motivations behind said views or the extent they think it should go to fix it as is the implication by him.
This is like saying that we should quote Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members whenever someone said we should pull out of Iraq early or end the War on Terrorism or criticize Israel because obviously if they're saying the same things as terrorists we need to highlight it...I mean, for completely legitimate reasons that are in no way trying to imply that by making similar arguments that the people must be similar in all things.
Or perhaps it needs to be put in terms that actually affects you to realize why its an idiotic and rather transparently dishonest debate tactic. We could always shove it into an Israel thread where you and others are advocating for Israel to give its land over to the Palestinians and show where terrorists have said similar things.
You see, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "[Person X] dislike rock music; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan" and "[Person X] advocates Israel simply giving its land over to the Palestinians; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I'm not pointing out that they share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that they share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that [person x] is a terrorist, but that they're more inclined to become one of those people shooting at our Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan than to become a Tea Party member.
Its an invalid tactic meant to do nothing but smear and discredit through associated views
Last edited by Zyphlin; 06-09-10 at 09:29 AM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
However, you are spot on in your assessment that slavery was a secondary issue to the war.
That tariff led to a series of heated arguments between the north and the south which culminated in the Nullification Crisis...pretty much a situation where the Southern states convened popular conventions and drafted their own legal philosophies regarding the Constitution as a contract between states and not a supreme law of the land, giving South Carolina, in particular, the right to nullify the tariff (which by this point had been redrafted as the Tariff of Abominations of 1832, reduced by 10%, leaving it still at a staggering 35%). In response, Jackson had Congress draw up the Force Bill which granted the PotUS the power to call up state militias and use the army and navy to put down insurrection. At this point, Calhoun left his post as VP and ran for senate. The conventions reconvened and passed rulings that nullified the Force Act. This is basically the stage that was set for Lincoln upon his inauguration. If he had really wanted to keep the peace and unity of the nation, he would have done something about the tariffs, but instead, he reaffirmed the tariffs, pleasing his northern industrial supporters but alienating the agrarian south. In fact, when South Carolina did secede, he was quoted as having said "But what will become of MY tariff"? No, Lincoln was not interested in peace and unity at all, but rather keeping his industrial northern supporters happy. Even in the 1800's, politicians were whores to their business interests.
The issue of slavery didn't even come into the picture in force until British Abolitionists, bereft of any reason to support the south now that the Tariff made trade with the south unprofitable, began to kick up a storm about slavery. The pressure to end slavery in the south came from abroad more than anywhere else and it was used to leverage other diplomatic issues, which Lincoln ultimately capitulated to because he couldn't handle a civil war at home without giving it some meaning. The slavery issue was the perfect excuse for prosecuting a war to keep the union intact but he didn't go freeing slaves out of his humanitarian interest in the plight of the displaced African at all.
You'd have to make a strong case that Osama bin Laden and liberals (speaking of modern liberals along Rawlsian lines, not classical liberals), start from shared moral conceptual axioms. Since Osama bin Laden and his ideology represent a conservative pan-Arab nationalist and pan-Sunni Islamist perspective that is in very fundamental conflicts with leftist beliefs about sexual egalitarianism and social freedoms, I don't think you'd be able to do so. Even occasional ideological match-ups, such as those that occur between liberals and libertarians on social issues, aren't evidence of a shared framework of common principles.
On the contrary, I've explained in great detail why the authoritarian facets of social conservatism facilitate evolution into white supremacist views. The underlying conceptual framework is the same. Selecting views that you consider to be commonly held by leftists or libertarians and ignoring the slight conflicts between their views on women's rights, for example, won't work, because shared moral frameworks mean that there will typically be bundles of common views held. That's why we don't tend to find pro-life, pro same-sex marriage, anti death-penalty, anti-welfare, pro-war people, though there are exceptions to rules. George Lakoff says this about the "Strict Father" view of social programs, for example:
And this is what we find on Stormfront, and on the youth board, at that: As White Nationalist Youth, what issue irks you the most? - StormfrontConservatives...apply the Strict Father model of parenting to the Nation as Family metaphor. To them, social programs amount to coddling people - spoiling them. Instead of having to learn to fend for themselves, people can depend on the public cole. This makes them morally weak, removing the need for self-discipline and willpower. Such moral weakness is a form of immorality. And so, conservatives see social programs as immoral, affirmative action included.
Lakoff writes this about the Moral Order, which guides the conceptualization process of social conservatives.For myself, personally, I can't stand the current welfare system (mixed with Affirmative Action.) All a Black person has to do is become pregnant to get welfare, but my own step-mother was denied welfare at one point in her life, and she had two kids of her own. It was because she was White. In other aspects of the welfare system, I can't stand. A large proportion of the people on welfare (which is, again, mostly black in itself) are using money that the government gives them to go out and buy a dime back of rock instead of providing for their children. These children, unguided by their parents, are the current young Black generation. A lot of them act like thugs, a lot are involved in crime, a lot have hatred and jealousy for White's who have never laid a finger on them, and this could all be solved by a few, easy measures.
* Mandatory drug testing. If you test positive, you lose your money and your kids. None of that government paid recovery and treatment bull-crap, you find out the hard way. One strike, you're out.
* Eliminating racial quotas for welfare, but enforcing a strict rule that illegal immigrants are not allowed to receive welfare.
* There needs to be a maximum amount of time for being on welfare. It's understandable if you have a disability and will be dependent on welfare for your life, that I can live with. But have you guys seen the movie Precious? That mother sat on the couch all day, beat her daughter, even let her husband rape the daughter, and pretended to be looking for a job. It's a crooked system, and people will take advantage of it. 2 years in your lifetime should be sufficient, and I don't mean consecutively. That's 24 months of your life where the government will send you a check, enough to supply food and water and appliances.
* Convicted Felons will not be allowed to have welfare.
* Government agents on your behind, 24/7. They will walk you into Burger King to get a job if they have to.
I know this sounds like a lot of government interference, but welfare will never be abolished, and it's better to make reforms that will better all of America.
ProtestWarrior founders Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton provided a very good summary of exactly what Lakoff is referring to in their book A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos. Contrasting the "Employed White Male" with the "Blacktivists" and "Islamothugs," they wrote this:Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:
The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.
The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.
The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born American rank above immigrants.
The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.
The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.
If your conceptual system contains the Moral Order metaphor, as it will if you accept Strict Father morality, then your conceptual system contains the framework into which such clauses could fit; and indeed, historically those clauses were present in the conceptual frameworks of many Americans. There was a time when they were all as American as apple pie. Many Americans have since dropped them, though they are still very much present for many others.
It is important to bear in mind that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy, and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.
That's the perspective on Stormfront. The white male is virtuous, hard-working and productive, and is hated by egalitarians who want to redistribute his earned wealth to the lazy and less skilled racial minorities, and viciously demonize him doing so.Employed White Males were the original American protesters, rabble-rousers, and revolutionaries, who understood the necessity of collective action to secure their freedoms. When the British began to levy arbitrarily higher taxes on their North American colonies, the progenitors of this species - whose professions ranged from lawyers to judges to businessmen, merchants, shippers, land and securities speculators, farmers, scientists, physicians, and ministers - organized together to form a nation based on the inalienable rights of man. In a letter to his wife, Abigail, John Adams spoke of his future Employed White Male descendants: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." And his descendants proceeded to do just that, building the most industrious and wealthy nation on the planet, earning the envy and scorn of the rest of the world.
As the leftist philosophies of nihilism and relativism began to dominate the late twentieth century, the undeniable achievements of the Employed White Males enraged feminists, Communists, and Islamic fundamentalists everywhere. Bound by the myopic view of cultural egalitarianism, the left insisted that Employed White Males not only did not contribute anything special to civilization, but in fact have caused more damage to the world than all other groups combined. And thus the Employed White Male was blamed for racism, pollution, world poverty, oppression, and every other wrong in the world. Today, he quietly carries this burden, too innocent to fully understand or be bothered by the contempt for his achievements.