Al Sharpton fanning the flames of ignorance and hate...

[blackhawk]

Has he left for Missouri yet?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sharpton to Ferguson Rioters: Don?t Drag Michael Brown?s Name ?Through the Mud? | Mediaite

Good, there shouldn't be any rioting and looting. Also, this isn't about race as my brother a few month ago was also murdered by the police. The police kill all races no matter what.

Sorry for your loss but can we stop with the false equivalent game. Saying police kill all races is ignoring something called frequency.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sharpton to Ferguson Rioters: Don?t Drag Michael Brown?s Name ?Through the Mud? | Mediaite

Good, there shouldn't be any rioting and looting. Also, this isn't about race as my brother a few month ago was also murdered by the police. The police kill all races no matter what.

Sorry for your loss but can we stop with the false equivalent game. Saying police kill all races is ignoring something called frequency.

And you can stop with the false blanket statements game. Back statements like that up or they are meaningless.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good, there shouldn't be any rioting and looting. Also, this isn't about race as my brother a few month ago was also murdered by the police. The police kill all races no matter what.

Sorry for your loss but can we stop with the false equivalent game. Saying police kill all races is ignoring something called frequency.

And you can stop with the false blanket statements game. Back statements like that up or they are meaningless.

With what? Reality? If you want to believe the police shoot as many whites as blacks then we dont have anything to talk about

 

[FA_Q2]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

That is true but not really a statement for this thread. Sharpton is not a 'talking head' that we need to compare with another on the right. he is a special type of hate monger that is the lowest form of life that I can find. I cant even think of someone on the right that I would be willing to compare him with.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he is left. I dare even say that he really is left. He is simply a rasict asshole that is somehow still allowed to operate openly in this nation. For the life of me I cant understand why so many people buy his tripe.

That's the First Amendment. How many people do you think actually support him?

No, that has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. Perhaps I was not clear but I did not mean that the government should not allow him to operate but that the people should not be supporting his tripe. You understand that the first only protects you from government infringing on your rights - it does NOT get you a national stage and a television spot. THAT is done by the people that watch and support the man. He is on national TV because he is profitable. THAT is absolutely disgusting.

You ask how many support him? MILLIONS:
Al Sharpton Ratings Smash! MSNBC #1 Among Black Viewers | News One

You don't get to host national shows because no one supports you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your lumping the likes of conservative, albeit, Southern progressives like Thurmond and Wallace in with Buckley and Reagan is disingenuous. The latter were classical liberals who simply feared the result of encouraging blacks to rely on government would prove to be harmful, would in fact lead to the sort of destructive policies of the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Administration. They were not entirely wrong to believe that. Both Buckley and Reagan eventually revised their understanding of things insofar as institutional racial discrimination was concerned and came to appreciate the necessity of the federal government's intervention to put an end to the violations of fundamental political rights in the South.

How is it allegedly "disingenuous" when they all stood on the same side of the issue regarding Civil Rights and the legislation thereof? I just posted examples of William F. Buckley's stance on white superiority and rule , even if they were the minority in certain areas. The excerpt from the speech by Wallace that I posted, is pretty much the same rhetoric being preached by conservatives today. Lee (Southern Strategy)Atwater worked for both Thurmond and Reagan.

I don't recall Buckley or Reagan calling themselves Liberals. Aren't the aforementioned "conservative icons" and didn't they allegedly preach "conservatism"? The FACT is, that Thurmond, Wallace, Buckley, and Reagan stood on the same side on those issues.

"Thurmond later openly opposed the national party’s liberal plank on civil rights. The summer before the 1964 presidential election, Thurmond decided not to attend the Democratic national convention because of his ideological differences on civil rights, which separated him from the national party’s politics. In a 1964 speech to a South Carolina audience, Thurmond denounced the Democratic Party platform and announced his realignment with the Republican Party and his support of Barry Goldwater’s (a Republican senator from Arizona) 1964 presidential candidacy. Thurmond found more ideological connections with the conservative Goldwater, who, although he was not a segregationist per se, had outlined in 1961 a “southern strategy” to invite southerners to support the Republican Party as the anticivil rights political party. Thurmond’s partisan realignment influenced the eventual realignment of most white southern Democrats to the Republican Party. His realignment with the Republican Party also laid the foundation for what would become a new and lifelong commitment to this political party.

Perhaps disingenuous is the wrong word. You simply don't understand the thinking of folks like Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley, as opposed to that of the old Southern segregationists of Wilsonian progressivism. The former were enunciating the classical liberalism of Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Jefferson, Carlyle, Hayek, Friedman. . . . The big government progressivism of Wilson and FDR, for example, had left a bad taste in their mouths. They were especially appalled by the influences of European fascism on the progressive movement prior to WWII. They simply distrusted the progressive's motives, especially given the virulently racist progressivism of the likes of Margaret Sanger and Horace Mann, and the emerging cultural Marxism of the likes of Marcuse.

Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley were not racists.

These were the formative years of the movement. They were wary of the dangers of big government and the ramifications of permitting the federal government to meddle with free-association. Civil rights protections, beyond putting an end to the institutional racism in the federal government and an end to violations of fundamental political rights, were not something they were willing to support, initially. Notwithstanding, after several years of experience, they came to appreciate the necessity of compelling the governments of the several states to comply as well and the necessity of sanctioning the business practices of segregationists in the private sector. They came to this understanding via the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition in opposition to a segment of society that refused to be reformed any other way.

I don't recall Buckley or Reagan calling themselves Liberals. Aren't the aforementioned "conservative icons" and didn't they allegedly preach "conservatism"?

Seriously? Are you telling me you don't know the difference between the historical sociopolitical tradition of classical liberalism and the parlance of contemporary political culture? Today's conservatives and libertarians are the classical liberals of the Anglo-American tradition coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire. An American conservative is simply one who holds to the founding sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic.

The liberalism of popular culture is not the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, but the collectivism of the Rousseuian-Marxist tradition, and the progressive movement in America has been alternately influenced by either side of the Hegelian historical dialectic, i.e., fascism and/or Marxism.

As for the Southern strategy, it was actually two-fold. First, wrest control of the Republican Party from the progressive, big government Eastern establishment, that is to say, reorient the base of the Party around the classical liberalism of the Republic's founding. Second, appeal to the Southerner's instinctual allegiance to the core values of classical liberalism and rid him of the segregationist mentality of his cultural heritage and the neo-liberal fascism of Wilsonian progressivism. The first would be defeated. The latter would be reformed.

 

[Meathead]

Sorry for your loss but can we stop with the false equivalent game. Saying police kill all races is ignoring something called frequency.

Good. With the concept of frequency we can better access who is more likely to be a criminal. Police have a job to do which puts them in direct contact with blacks far more than their 13% of the population warrants. If blacks are killed by police at a greater rate than others, it certainly would not be surprising.

No equivalency game, but one of huge disproportion, or "frequency" if you insist.

FBI ? Table 43

 

[Pheonixops]

That is true but not really a statement for this thread. Sharpton is not a 'talking head' that we need to compare with another on the right. he is a special type of hate monger that is the lowest form of life that I can find. I cant even think of someone on the right that I would be willing to compare him with.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he is left. I dare even say that he really is left. He is simply a rasict asshole that is somehow still allowed to operate openly in this nation. For the life of me I cant understand why so many people buy his tripe.

That's the First Amendment. How many people do you think actually support him?

No, that has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. Perhaps I was not clear but I did not mean that the government should not allow him to operate but that the people should not be supporting his tripe. You understand that the first only protects you from government infringing on your rights - it does NOT get you a national stage and a television spot. THAT is done by the people that watch and support the man. He is on national TV because he is profitable. THAT is absolutely disgusting.

You ask how many support him? MILLIONS:
Al Sharpton Ratings Smash! MSNBC #1 Among Black Viewers | News One

You don't get to host national shows because no one supports you.

I understand what you are referring to regarding the First Amendment, but you seemed be concerned as to why he is allowed to do what he does. I listen to limbaugh and hannity on a daily basis and I disagree with those pricks. Just because I listen to or watch their shows(Hannity, O'Reilly, and the like) does NOT mean that I support them. That's for damn sure.

That article states that MSNBC is #1 amongst "Black viewers", I don't think that explicitly means that Sharpton is number #1 for "Black viewers".

 

[Pheonixops]

Your lumping the likes of conservative, albeit, Southern progressives like Thurmond and Wallace in with Buckley and Reagan is disingenuous. The latter were classical liberals who simply feared the result of encouraging blacks to rely on government would prove to be harmful, would in fact lead to the sort of destructive policies of the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Administration. They were not entirely wrong to believe that. Both Buckley and Reagan eventually revised their understanding of things insofar as institutional racial discrimination was concerned and came to appreciate the necessity of the federal government's intervention to put an end to the violations of fundamental political rights in the South.

How is it allegedly "disingenuous" when they all stood on the same side of the issue regarding Civil Rights and the legislation thereof? I just posted examples of William F. Buckley's stance on white superiority and rule , even if they were the minority in certain areas. The excerpt from the speech by Wallace that I posted, is pretty much the same rhetoric being preached by conservatives today. Lee (Southern Strategy)Atwater worked for both Thurmond and Reagan.

I don't recall Buckley or Reagan calling themselves Liberals. Aren't the aforementioned "conservative icons" and didn't they allegedly preach "conservatism"? The FACT is, that Thurmond, Wallace, Buckley, and Reagan stood on the same side on those issues.

"Thurmond later openly opposed the national party’s liberal plank on civil rights. The summer before the 1964 presidential election, Thurmond decided not to attend the Democratic national convention because of his ideological differences on civil rights, which separated him from the national party’s politics. In a 1964 speech to a South Carolina audience, Thurmond denounced the Democratic Party platform and announced his realignment with the Republican Party and his support of Barry Goldwater’s (a Republican senator from Arizona) 1964 presidential candidacy. Thurmond found more ideological connections with the conservative Goldwater, who, although he was not a segregationist per se, had outlined in 1961 a “southern strategy” to invite southerners to support the Republican Party as the anticivil rights political party. Thurmond’s partisan realignment influenced the eventual realignment of most white southern Democrats to the Republican Party. His realignment with the Republican Party also laid the foundation for what would become a new and lifelong commitment to this political party.

Perhaps disingenuous is the wrong word. You simply don't understand the thinking of folks like Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley, as opposed to that of the old Southern segregationists of Wilsonian progressivism. The former were enunciating the classical liberalism of Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Jefferson, Carlyle, Hayek, Friedman. . . . The big government progressivism of Wilson and FDR, for example, had left a bad taste in their mouths. They were especially appalled by the influences of European fascism on the progressive movement prior to WWII. They simply distrusted the progressive's motives, especially given the virulently racist progressivism of the likes of Margaret Sanger and Horace Mann, and the emerging cultural Marxism of the likes of Marcuse.

Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley were not racists.

These were the formative years of the movement. They were wary of the dangers of big government and the ramifications of permitting the federal government to meddle with free-association. Civil rights protections, beyond putting an end to the institutional racism in the federal government and an end to violations of fundamental political rights, were not something they were willing to support, initially. Notwithstanding, after several years of experience, they came to appreciate the necessity of compelling the governments of the several states to comply as well and the necessity of sanctioning the business practices of segregationists in the private sector. They came to this understanding via the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition in opposition to a segment of society that refused to be reformed any other way.

I don't recall Buckley or Reagan calling themselves Liberals. Aren't the aforementioned "conservative icons" and didn't they allegedly preach "conservatism"?

Seriously? Are you telling me you don't know the difference between the historical sociopolitical tradition of classical liberalism and the parlance of contemporary political culture? Today's conservatives and libertarians are the classical liberals of the Anglo-American tradition coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire. An American conservative is simply one who holds to the founding sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic.

The liberalism of popular culture is not the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, but the collectivism of the Rousseuian-Marxist tradition, and the progressive movement in America has been alternately influenced by either side of the Hegelian historical dialectic, i.e., fascism and/or Marxism.

As for the Southern strategy, it was actually two-fold. First, wrest control of the Republican Party from the progressive, big government Eastern establishment, that is to say, reorient the base of the Party around the classical liberalism of the Republic's founding. Second, appeal to the Southerner's instinctual allegiance to the core values of classical liberalism and rid him of the segregationist mentality of his cultural heritage and the neo-liberal fascism of Wilsonian progressivism. The first would be defeated. The latter would be reformed.

There's a lot of text here, so I will try my best with the quote function:

Perhaps disingenuous is the wrong word. You simply don't understand the thinking of folks like Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley, as opposed to that of the old Southern segregationists of Wilsonian progressivism. The former were enunciating the classical liberalism of Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Jefferson, Carlyle, Hayek, Friedman. . . . The big government progressivism of Wilson and FDR, for example, had left a bad taste in their mouths. They were especially appalled by the influences of European fascism on the progressive movement prior to WWII. They simply distrusted the progressive's motives, especially given the virulently racist progressivism of the likes of Margaret Sanger and Horace Mann, and the emerging cultural Marxism of the likes of Marcuse.

I totally understand the thinking of Golwater, Reagan, and Buckley. Thoughts, words, and deeds pretty much help figure out what they were thinking. Here's a good link:How the GOP became the ?White Man?s Party? - Salon.com

What "Liberalism" of Locke were they espousing, separation of church and state?
What part of Montesquieu were they espousing? Montesquieu - Wikiquote

As far as Hayek, he wrote a book called "Why I am Not a Conservative".
Hayek and Conservatism

Seriously? Are you telling me you don't know the difference between the historical sociopolitical tradition of classical liberalism and the parlance of contemporary political culture? Today's conservatives and libertarians are the classical liberals of the Anglo-American tradition coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire. An American conservative is simply one who holds to the founding sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic.

Yes, I do know the differences and similarities between the two. Today's conservatives have nothing to do with Liberalism, just ask any conservative. If they are allegedly "Classical Liberals" like you state, then why don't they refer to themselves as such? I don't agree with "parlance" that is incorrect and ignorant. It's the so-called conservatives who hurl "He's a Librul!" in a disparaging and ignorant way. When do the people they call Liberal actually describe themselves as Liberals in this "contemporary political culture"?

You do know that those Founders of this Republic made provisions for change in the Constitution, they had the foresight that people and times will change in this country and we need to have a Constitution that is Liberal enough to change.

When you state that "An American conservative is simply one who holds to the founding sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic"; what are you specifically referring to?

The liberalism of popular culture is not the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, but the collectivism of the Rousseuian-Marxist tradition, and the progressive movement in America has been alternately influenced by either side of the Hegelian historical dialectic, i.e., fascism and/or Marxism.

Liberalism in itself espouses change and freedom, as well as searching for new and better ideas. Just like there are different brands of conservatism, there are also different brands of Liberalism.

In my opinion, I think it's an insult to "Classical Liberals" aka Liberals to state that's what today's conservatives are.

I remember that it was the conservatives who wanted to keep the status quo (Whites up and Blacks down) during the Civil Rights Era, during Reconstruction, and during the fight to abolish slavery. I do remember that it was the Liberals who were fighting to change that status quo. I also remember it was the conservatives who implemented a program to erode our civil liberties, and their answer to that was a smug; "If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" Show me a modern conservative POTUS who actually shrunk the size of government and constrained it's powers. Did Reagan do that???

 

[FA_Q2]

That's the First Amendment. How many people do you think actually support him?

No, that has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. Perhaps I was not clear but I did not mean that the government should not allow him to operate but that the people should not be supporting his tripe. You understand that the first only protects you from government infringing on your rights - it does NOT get you a national stage and a television spot. THAT is done by the people that watch and support the man. He is on national TV because he is profitable. THAT is absolutely disgusting.

You ask how many support him? MILLIONS:
Al Sharpton Ratings Smash! MSNBC #1 Among Black Viewers | News One

You don't get to host national shows because no one supports you.

I understand what you are referring to regarding the First Amendment, but you seemed be concerned as to why he is allowed to do what he does. I listen to limbaugh and hannity on a daily basis and I disagree with those pricks. Just because I listen to or watch their shows(Hannity, O'Reilly, and the like) does NOT mean that I support them. That's for damn sure.

That article states that MSNBC is #1 amongst "Black viewers", I don't think that explicitly means that Sharpton is number #1 for "Black viewers".

Yes, it actually does. the fact that you listen them means that you are funding them. That is support weather or not you disagree with their views.

I was also not stating that Sharpton is number on in really anything BUT there are just under a million people a day that watch his show. That means there are a whole lot who certainly do agree with him. I see support for him all over even if it is not in the majority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see opposing views silenced but I also will never understand Americas ability to stomach hate mongers and the race baiting that many like Sharpton sell. They only lead to things getting worse and the likes of him belong on a cardboard box spewing hate to 10 people rather than a million.

Talking heads are one thing. Those like Rush, Hannity and Shultz are talking heads but Sharpton is a different animal the way I see it.

 

[boedicca]

A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste.

 

[Peach]

A media hustler..................and not a skilled one.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

That's why I place Sharpton & Palin on the same coin; contrast Liddy Dole, and Gillibrand.

Sarah shits Al Sharptons.

 

[Pheonixops]

No, that has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. Perhaps I was not clear but I did not mean that the government should not allow him to operate but that the people should not be supporting his tripe. You understand that the first only protects you from government infringing on your rights - it does NOT get you a national stage and a television spot. THAT is done by the people that watch and support the man. He is on national TV because he is profitable. THAT is absolutely disgusting.

You ask how many support him? MILLIONS:
Al Sharpton Ratings Smash! MSNBC #1 Among Black Viewers | News One

You don't get to host national shows because no one supports you.

I understand what you are referring to regarding the First Amendment, but you seemed be concerned as to why he is allowed to do what he does. I listen to limbaugh and hannity on a daily basis and I disagree with those pricks. Just because I listen to or watch their shows(Hannity, O'Reilly, and the like) does NOT mean that I support them. That's for damn sure.

That article states that MSNBC is #1 amongst "Black viewers", I don't think that explicitly means that Sharpton is number #1 for "Black viewers".

Yes, it actually does. the fact that you listen them means that you are funding them. That is support weather or not you disagree with their views.

I was also not stating that Sharpton is number on in really anything BUT there are just under a million people a day that watch his show. That means there are a whole lot who certainly do agree with him. I see support for him all over even if it is not in the majority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see opposing views silenced but I also will never understand Americas ability to stomach hate mongers and the race baiting that many like Sharpton sell. They only lead to things getting worse and the likes of him belong on a cardboard box spewing hate to 10 people rather than a million.

Talking heads are one thing. Those like Rush, Hannity and Shultz are talking heads but Sharpton is a different animal the way I see it.

If I spent my money on their advertisers, you would have a point. I guess you also have a point if I watch hannity on foxnews. I guess my main point is that I watch and listen to hannity and limbaugh but I certainly don't like their viewpoint and presentation of such.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

Sorry, but the left is preeminently responsible for the political and cultural polarization of America. It's not even close. Cultural Marxism is a conscious and systematic assault on America's founding sociopolitical ethos, and the idea that those who oppose it are being divisive is absurd.

No, the left is not. Not even close. I am surprised to hear this from you as you are usually more thought out.

The RIGHT started this train. The left is simply running with it and furthering the deep fissure that Bush created with his asinine black and white simpletons view of the world.


THIS is where the deep divisions really stated rolling with steam:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A]Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists - YouTube[/ame]


I will never forgive Bush for many things and this is one of the TOP. He made simple disagreement with our government (a CORE American principal) treasonous.

The comments were directed at other countries, jackass. That was obvious from the get-go.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If Al Sharpton was sincere about helping blacks resist State Tyranny he'd advise them to all excerise their second amendment rights and walk around with rifles.

LOL, look at the contrast in the interaction: Both guys had their rifles slung in the same SLOPPY position, in the first video the contact begins at around 2 minutes.

Black Guy Open Carry AR15:



White guy open carry AR-15:

I can sympathize with that black kid and I understand where the officers are coming from. I also recognize the different standard applied to the white kids. What lessons can we draw from your videos?

1.) I'm feeling pretty confident that the police response the black kid got from the police in HIS TOWN would also be the same response that a white kid would get.

2.) The response that the white kids got in the 2nd video was very officer specific, maybe even department specific.

3.) Your comparison, I take it, is meant to illustrate the point that there is a race-disparate standard. These videos don't show that.

4.) Irrespective of these two videos I have no problem in believing that a race-disparate response operates in most places.

5.) The black kid is trying to make a point, maybe even a racism point. That's fine. It's always good to aspire to hold up principles. This though doesn't mean that principles must be upheld no matter the cost associated with those principles.

6.) Stereotypes exist because they convey useful information in low, or no, information environments. Nice, clean cut white boys have EARNED FOR THEMSELVES a reputation of being more peaceful than cornrowed, baggy pants wearing, black boys. That's all you need to know as a cop approaching a situation. When more specific information about the black kid becomes available, the situation deescalates and the stereotype is no longer useful.

7.) Crying about racial profiling does no good because asking people to reject useful stereotypes is the same as asking people to assume risk of death or injury, to themselves or to others, in order to make you feel better about yourself. That's just not going to happen.

 

[Peach]

I understand what you are referring to regarding the First Amendment, but you seemed be concerned as to why he is allowed to do what he does. I listen to limbaugh and hannity on a daily basis and I disagree with those pricks. Just because I listen to or watch their shows(Hannity, O'Reilly, and the like) does NOT mean that I support them. That's for damn sure.

That article states that MSNBC is #1 amongst "Black viewers", I don't think that explicitly means that Sharpton is number #1 for "Black viewers".

Yes, it actually does. the fact that you listen them means that you are funding them. That is support weather or not you disagree with their views.

I was also not stating that Sharpton is number on in really anything BUT there are just under a million people a day that watch his show. That means there are a whole lot who certainly do agree with him. I see support for him all over even if it is not in the majority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see opposing views silenced but I also will never understand Americas ability to stomach hate mongers and the race baiting that many like Sharpton sell. They only lead to things getting worse and the likes of him belong on a cardboard box spewing hate to 10 people rather than a million.

Talking heads are one thing. Those like Rush, Hannity and Shultz are talking heads but Sharpton is a different animal the way I see it.

If I spent my money on their advertisers, you would have a point. I guess you also have a point if I watch hannity on foxnews. I guess my main point is that I watch and listen to hannity and limbaugh but I certainly don't like their viewpoint and presentation of such.

Both are caricatures of political commentators, as is Sharption. Just advertised products, I'll read or listen to a bit of their stuff, its always the same old lines though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry, but the left is preeminently responsible for the political and cultural polarization of America. It's not even close. Cultural Marxism is a conscious and systematic assault on America's founding sociopolitical ethos, and the idea that those who oppose it are being divisive is absurd.

No, the left is not. Not even close. I am surprised to hear this from you as you are usually more thought out.

The RIGHT started this train. The left is simply running with it and furthering the deep fissure that Bush created with his asinine black and white simpletons view of the world.


THIS is where the deep divisions really stated rolling with steam:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A]Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists - YouTube[/ame]


I will never forgive Bush for many things and this is one of the TOP. He made simple disagreement with our government (a CORE American principal) treasonous.

The comments were directed at other countries, jackass. That was obvious from the get-go.

Then you slept through the last decade because that sentiment was NOT leveled just at other nation but also at the senate where the administration would essentially categorize any disagreement as supporting the terrorists, harming the troops and anti-American even though a core tenant of America is speech and dissent.

To MD - I have not forgotten your post, I just don't have time to respond to it atm.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No, the left is not. Not even close. I am surprised to hear this from you as you are usually more thought out.

The RIGHT started this train. The left is simply running with it and furthering the deep fissure that Bush created with his asinine black and white simpletons view of the world.


THIS is where the deep divisions really stated rolling with steam:
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists - YouTube

I will never forgive Bush for many things and this is one of the TOP. He made simple disagreement with our government (a CORE American principal) treasonous.

The comments were directed at other countries, jackass. That was obvious from the get-go.

Then you slept through the last decade because that sentiment was NOT leveled just at other nation but also at the senate where the administration would essentially categorize any disagreement as supporting the terrorists, harming the troops and anti-American even though a core tenant of America is speech and dissent.

To MD - I have not forgotten your post, I just don't have time to respond to it atm.

You're delusional. The congress was behind him 100%.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There's a lot of text here, so I will try my best with the quote function:

I totally understand the thinking of Goldwater, Reagan, and Buckley. Thoughts, words, and deeds pretty much help figure out what they were thinking. Here's a good link:How the GOP became the ?White Man?s Party? - Salon.com

No. You don't.

What "Liberalism" of Locke were they espousing, separation of church and state?
What part of Montesquieu were they espousing? Montesquieu - Wikiquote

As far as Hayek, he wrote a book called "Why I am Not a Conservative".
Hayek and Conservatism

Indeed. I'm familiar with Hayek's various works. LOL! What exactly is your point, given the fact that Hayek makes the very same observations as I about what the contemporary American conservative is, i.e., a classical liberal, and what the so-called liberal of popular culture is, i.e., a statist/socialist? Hayek's concern goes to the confusion of the terms liberal and conservative in popular culture, as contemporary liberals/progressives, for example, are not liberals at all in the historical sense. Hayek prefers the term "Old Whig," which is, philosophically, the same thing as a contemporary American conservative. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Hence, I am moved to ask you once again: Are you telling me you don't know the difference between the historical sociopolitical tradition of classical liberalism and the parlance of contemporary political culture?

As for the Father of classical liberalism John Locke: they espoused the entirety of his philosophy, namely, the divinely endowed, inalienable rights of natural law, which entail the rejection of the supposed divine right of rule of the monarchy and the necessity of the separation of church and state. The problem with you, I suspect, is that you don't know what the latter is in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition. Your construct of separation of church and state is, no doubt, that of the Jacobins of Rousseauianism or the Bolsheviks of Marxism.

As for Montesquieu: they emphasized the separation of powers, and the checks and balances of power in a republican form of government. The classical liberal rejects the trappings of mobocracy . . . er . . . democracy.

Yes, I do know the differences and similarities between the two. Today's conservatives have nothing to do with Liberalism, just ask any conservative. If they are allegedly "Classical Liberals" like you state, then why don't they refer to themselves as such? I don't agree with "parlance" that is incorrect and ignorant. It's the so-called conservatives who hurl "He's a Librul!" in a disparaging and ignorant way. When do the people they call Liberal actually describe themselves as Liberals in this "contemporary political culture"?

No. Apparently you don't, even after it was explained to you. Did you even read the discussion on Hayek's work? Or did you just assume something about it from the title of his work? I don't think you understand the difference between negative and positive rights, or appreciate the essence of the classical liberal's emphasis on the prerogatives of free-association and private property.

Unlike Hayek, I don't have a problem with anyone calling me a conservative, a conservative-libertarian, an Old Whig, a Burkean, a Lockean or a classical liberal. It all comes down to the same thing; and I don't call "liberals" liberals. Alternately, I call them what you actually are: leftists, progressives, fascists, socialists, Marxists, Jacobins, collectivists or statists. What other conservatives are wont to call them is their business.

You do know that those Founders of this Republic made provisions for change in the Constitution, they had the foresight that people and times will change in this country and we need to have a Constitution that is Liberal enough to change.

You think you can instruct me? The Founders wisely provided for a process to amend the Constitution. Do you know what the eternal, unchanging ontological realities of existence and human nature are relative to the Republic's ideological foundation . . . or are you alluding to the ill-defined and inevitably tyrannical construct of a living Constitution?

When you state that "An American conservative is simply one who holds to the founding sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic"; what are you specifically referring to?

If you have to ask, you're no liberal proper.

Liberalism in itself espouses change and freedom, as well as searching for new and better ideas. Just like there are different brands of conservatism, there are also different brands of Liberalism.

Today's leftists are not liberals proper; they're statists. Classical liberalism, in and of itself, is not about "searching for new and better ideas." Your rhetoric reeks of the planned society or economy. Classical liberalism is about liberty. Period. It's about limited government. Period. Hence, it's about the inalienable rights of humanity, the freedom of the people to live and dream and create.

In my opinion, I think it's an insult to "Classical Liberals" aka Liberals to state that's what today's conservatives are.

You don't know what classical liberalism is, and you don't know what today's conservatives are.

I remember that it was the conservatives who wanted to keep the status quo (Whites up and Blacks down) during the Civil Rights Era, during Reconstruction, and during the fight to abolish slavery. I do remember that it was the Liberals who were fighting to change that status quo.

Now you're using the term conservative in its most basic sense: one who is disposed to preserve existing conditions or institutions. You're talking about those who sought to preserve slavery and the trappings of institutional racism.

Your historical ignorance is staggering. It was the classical liberals of the Whig Party in England and the Whig Party in America (later the Republican Party) that fought to end slavery, with Christians leading the charge. Respectively, these were the "conservative" parties of their time, the defenders of the historical conventions of republican government and the imperatives of natural law.

The predecessors of the Progressive movement, the Radical Republicans of the post-Civil War Era, and the classical liberals of the original Whig Parties are not the same animals.

It was due to the rise of the Progressive movement around the beginning of the Twentieth Century that the historical distinction between liberalism proper and the "liberalism" of post-modernism was confounded in the parlance of political culture. As I said in the above, there is a profound difference between the Hayekian "conservatives" of the 1940's and, later, as the movement grew, those of the Goldwater-Reagan revolution, on the one hand, and the conservative segregationists of Wilsonian progressivism, on the other. The former supported most of the goals of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964, and they were sympathetic to the plight of blacks in the South.

(By the way, it was you progressives that detained more than 100,000 Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during WWII, not the Hayekian conservatives of the resurgent classical liberalism of the 1940's. The latter were appalled!)

They came to understand the necessity of compelling the several states to fully comply and the necessity of ending segregationist business practices in the private sector. Their initial concern had nothing to do with racism any desire to continue segregation as such. They were opposed to both. Their concern went to the preservation of free-association and the belief that segregation could be defeated overtime by other means. (Your problem, once again, is that you don't grasp the difference between negative and positive rights, or appreciate the essence of the classical liberal's emphasis on the prerogatives of free-association and private property. You don't understand his motives at all.) They changed their minds within a decade when they realized that southerners were not going to come around on their own fast enough. Further, the thinking among the classical liberals of the fledgling movement was not monolithic regarding the best strategy: legislation or political persuasion? Eventually, the consensus came down on the side of legislation, though the conservatives and libertarians of classical liberalism continued to oppose, and rightly so, the destructive policies of the War on Poverty and affirmative action.