Conservatives and Racism

[Pogo]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

CCJ isn't the OP here. I think you tend to speed-read.

Our, not your.

But the fact that you avoided the issues is obvious.

It isn't my issue to avoid, dood -- that's not my post.

It says "your OP" -- addressed to CCJ. And he's not the OP.

See what I mean about speed reading? What is this, three times you got the poster wrong now? Frickin' goofball.

 

[Pogo]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

 

[Jroc]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

I never said it "modified" anything. Just puts Lincoln's thought process in context, unlike the person who posted one quote with pic insinuating something different

 

[Pogo]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

I never said it "modified" anything. Just puts Lincoln's thought process in context, unlike the person who posted one quote with pic insinuating something different

So they're unrelated, just say it. It can't be part of a thought process when it's not even present.

The poster's graphic (both of them) were virtually unreadable in that red font, which is one reason I spelled it out -- if I hadn't already been familiar with it I don't think I could have pulled it out of the visual weeds. But I tellya, in this new software when you put a quote in a box and it comes out in that tiny italic font, and then you put it in red too, it's almost as unreadable as the graphic. Might wanna try another format next time. Software limitations you know.

 

[norwegen]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

 

[norwegen]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

I never said it "modified" anything. Just puts Lincoln's thought process in context, unlike the person who posted one quote with pic insinuating something different

Quite right. That quote was out of context. And then the same guy quoted Teddy Roosevelt as if that progressive were a conservative.

Liberals is funneh.

 

[Pogo]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

I never said it "modified" anything. Just puts Lincoln's thought process in context, unlike the person who posted one quote with pic insinuating something different

Quite right. That quote was out of context. And then the same guy quoted Teddy Roosevelt as if that progressive were a conservative.

Liberals is funneh.

I thought his point was that TR was not conservative, but it was that same red font -- couldn't read that either.

I didn't care for everything TR did but I like the stances he took standing up for the people against encroaching Corporatia. That of course was the age of Progressivism. Not that bullshit term tossed around now but historical Progressivism. That's why I had to go out of my way to avoid the simple non-proper adjective progressive in my treatise above and went with modernist. Too many readers here wouldn't get the difference in the lower case P.

 

[norwegen]

That's not "keeping in context" -- that's burying under a lot of latter-day blog fluff.

Lincolns quotes are in red..... that stuff

And how do you think any of that modifies the quote? The labor quote is not even in there.

Reading is a lost art.

I never said it "modified" anything. Just puts Lincoln's thought process in context, unlike the person who posted one quote with pic insinuating something different

Quite right. That quote was out of context. And then the same guy quoted Teddy Roosevelt as if that progressive were a conservative.

Liberals is funneh.

I thought his point was that TR was not conservative, but it was that same red font -- couldn't read that either.

I didn't care for everything TR did but I like the stances he took standing up for the people against encroaching Corporatia. That of course was the age of Progressivism. Not that bullshit term tossed around now but historical Progressivism. That's why I had to go out of my way to avoid the simple non-proper adjective progressive in my treatise above and went with modernist. Too many readers here wouldn't get the difference in the lower case P.

Oh, yes, he says Roosevelt was not a conservative. I jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Roosevelt was instrumental in kick starting the Progressive Movement, as we know, because such a movement was not necessary in a progressive country.

Eh?

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.

 

[norwegen]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.

Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.

Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.

 

[Faun]

Bet you didn't know that, did you?


And then comes this:

Oh my goodness. How can that be?


So, while Liberals rant and rave about it, conservative are DOING something about it. We don't care what your color is – only how you assimilate with and produce something beneficial for society.


Read the story @ Race A Conservative View RedState

Holyfuckingshit!

What do you mean, Conservatives ARE doing something about it??? That was 140 years ago. Meanwhile, in the current Congress, there are 43 blacks serving ... only ONE is a Republican.

 

[Faun]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

Conservatives especially wanted blacks to be inclusive when it came to slavery. That's why they were eager to form their own Conservanation to help blacks remain as slaves and why they fought the Civil War so blacks could forever be indebted to their Conservative masters.

 

[norwegen]

Bet you didn't know that, did you?


And then comes this:

Oh my goodness. How can that be?


So, while Liberals rant and rave about it, conservative are DOING something about it. We don't care what your color is – only how you assimilate with and produce something beneficial for society.


Read the story @ Race A Conservative View RedState

Holyfuckingshit!

What do you mean, Conservatives ARE doing something about it??? That was 140 years ago. Meanwhile, in the current Congress, there are 43 blacks serving ... only ONE is a Republican.

You're not helping your misinformed liberal friends, Son. You're supposed to agree with them that America 140 years ago was leftist.

And one congressman out of 44 is a thinking homo sapiens? What a surprise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Heck, it wasn't conservative in the early 20th Century either:

Keep in mind that what we today now as progressives didn't have a constituency back in the old days. Back then those who thought like modern-day progressives were locked up in mental wards.

But an ad hominem fallacy is as much a fallacy today as it was in the old days.

 

[Faun]

Bet you didn't know that, did you?


And then comes this:

Oh my goodness. How can that be?


So, while Liberals rant and rave about it, conservative are DOING something about it. We don't care what your color is – only how you assimilate with and produce something beneficial for society.


Read the story @ Race A Conservative View RedState

Holyfuckingshit!

What do you mean, Conservatives ARE doing something about it??? That was 140 years ago. Meanwhile, in the current Congress, there are 43 blacks serving ... only ONE is a Republican.

You're not helping your misinformed liberal friends, Son. You're supposed to agree with them that America 140 years ago was leftist.

And one congressman out of 44 is a thinking homo sapiens? What a surprise.

Whassamatter? Conservatives can't find more than one black they consider a "thinking homo sapien?" But Conservatives aren't, by and large, racist?

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.

Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.

Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.

Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:

>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
​

It's about classism.

Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.

 

[Unkotare]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

Conservatives especially wanted blacks to be inclusive when it came to slavery. That's why they were eager to form their own Conservanation to help blacks remain as slaves and why they fought the Civil War so blacks could forever be indebted to their Conservative masters.

You are referring, of course, to democrats.

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

Conservatives especially wanted blacks to be inclusive when it came to slavery. That's why they were eager to form their own Conservanation to help blacks remain as slaves and why they fought the Civil War so blacks could forever be indebted to their Conservative masters.

You are referring, of course, to democrats.

No, he said "conservatives" -- that's a reference to ideology, not party. As we already spelled out, a political party can stand for different ideologies in different times, or even at the same time in different places.

Party; ideology --- know the difference. See post 8.

 

[Unkotare]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

Conservatives especially wanted blacks to be inclusive when it came to slavery. That's why they were eager to form their own Conservanation to help blacks remain as slaves and why they fought the Civil War so blacks could forever be indebted to their Conservative masters.

You are referring, of course, to democrats.

No, he said "conservatives" -- that's a reference to ideology, not party. .

It's doublespeak that democrats disingenuously - and futilely - attempt to fall back on to assuage their guilt over what their party is and has always been. And yes, that is where 'liberalism' as used in current parlance leads every time. You can't escape your past, especially when you refuse to change.

 

[Youch]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

No, some open racists identify with, or are driven by certain religions, and those tend to affiliate with political republicans. That is different than political conservatives.

The real racists, however, throughout our history, have been the intolerant liberal....all the way. Wanna debate the facts?

Let's discuss this, Jones!!! Please. Cuz your OP and topic title disgust me on several levels, all easily debunked...

CCJ isn't the OP here. I think you tend to speed-read.

Our, not your.

But the fact that you avoided the issues is obvious.

It isn't my issue to avoid, dood -- that's not my post.

It says "your OP" -- addressed to CCJ. And he's not the OP.

See what I mean about speed reading? What is this, three times you got the poster wrong now? Frickin' goofball.

I already acknowledged the typo...it was supposed to be "our" not "your," and yes, your focus on a poster and not on the topic is avoidance. So emotional...