Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[Erand7899]

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

What nonsense! Individual liberty is not in danger from global corporations, and never has been. The danger is in government being in league with global corporations, and forgetting where one leaves off and the other begins.

And, it is the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum that continually supports this interaction between government and corporations. As long, of course, those corporations are working in conjunction with left wing goals of green energy, unionization, and the like.

Yea right! Like the left has a monopoly on corporate welfare and corporate donations to their parties and candidate races.

Apples and oranges. Political donations and corporate welfare are not half as dangerous as the government/industry mergers that have been taking place over the last few years. Some of you need to get your heads out of your asses and realize what this is leading to.

 

[Erand7899]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

They were not wrong, and I am a strong believer that all people are equal under the law, regardless of their skin color or ethnic background. A private citizen has the fundamental right of free association. To associate with, or not associate with, anyone they choose.

Government does not have the right to tell any businessman that they have to do business with people they do not desire to do business with, regardless of how socially beneficial that would be to all. That is akin to telling people what they must think.

I include private clubs that would not have me as a member, or hotels that considered me to be "not one of their clientele". It is not proper for government to restrict the rights of some to elevate the rights of others. That is the 1984 expression that all persons are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I imagine that you will counter with the fact that the supreme court disagrees with me. I am in disagreement with the supreme court on many issues. They have the power to enforce their opinions, but they do not have the power to change my belief that they are dead wrong on many constitutional issues.

 

[Erand7899]

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because he opposed Chapter two of the act as unconstitutional. He was not opposed to the sections that prohibited states from allowing segregation. So, you are completely wrong. He also stated correctly, that you cannot legislate morality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one does my thinking for me.
I remember this slimy dog from the Nixon days, when two sincere men far his better refused to do Nixon's bidding in firing Cox. This 'character' was only too happy to carry out his masters contemptuous orders in order to obtain high position.
Thank goodness he never became Supreme Court judge as Ronnie proposed (another mark of who that president really was, too).

Typical Liberal response.

What's slimy is your pretending to ignore the question of whether or not you've studied any of his work.

You haven't.

So....you do let others do your thinking for you.

You haven't commented on the earlier Bork statement. Let me reprise same:

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.


See any problem there....or do you need MSNBC to tell you what to believe about it?

It's possible someone who thinks of her/himself as a 'liberal' might think the same way. I can't speak for such people. I do enough of my own thinking to not immediately throw others into a class simply out of disagreement. If you want to go by things this hypocritical lackey wrote, go ahead. I go by what I witnessed.

What you were told to witness.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

They were not wrong, and I am a strong believer that all people are equal under the law, regardless of their skin color or ethnic background. A private citizen has the fundamental right of free association. To associate with, or not associate with, anyone they choose.

Government does not have the right to tell any businessman that they have to do business with people they do not desire to do business with, regardless of how socially beneficial that would be to all. That is akin to telling people what they must think.

I include private clubs that would not have me as a member, or hotels that considered me to be "not one of their clientele". It is not proper for government to restrict the rights of some to elevate the rights of others. That is the 1984 expression that all persons are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I imagine that you will counter with the fact that the supreme court disagrees with me. I am in disagreement with the supreme court on many issues. They have the power to enforce their opinions, but they do not have the power to change my belief that they are dead wrong on many constitutional issues.

Ok, so you're another conservative who confirms the point in my rhetorical question that the author of this thread is calling me out on.

She claims the answer to my question is an overwhelming 'no'; so far she has no support for that claim.

 

[Redfish]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

there is only one appropriate response to your post------------------BULLSHIT, TOTAL UNALTERATED BULLSHIT!

 

[NoNukes]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

It is said often by conservatives on this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You called me out in OP with my quote, and now you refuse to talk about the quote. Why is that?

So far most conservatives in this thread who've expressed a specific opinion on the matter have confirmed what was in my quote -

they, as conservatives, believe that states should have the right to segregate based on race.

My quote, which you got from another thread:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Why don't you state your position on the issue? Did I miss that?

Goldwater supported the above; Johnson opposed it.

Rand Paul, the right's new fad, in 2010 as you may recall expressed his opposition to the 64 Civil Rights Act,

until he chose to flip flop for political expediency.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

It is said often by conservatives on this thread.

It's always been a widely supported conservative position on this forum.

My question was:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

It's a states right question, in principle. It's a constitutional question, in principle.

 

[Redfish]

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You called me out in OP with my quote, and now you refuse to talk about the quote. Why is that?

So far most conservatives in this thread who've expressed a specific opinion on the matter have confirmed what was in my quote -

they, as conservatives, believe that states should have the right to segregate based on race.

My quote, which you got from another thread:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Why don't you state your position on the issue? Did I miss that?

Goldwater supported the above; Johnson opposed it.

Rand Paul, the right's new fad, in 2010 as you may recall expressed his opposition to the 64 Civil Rights Act,

until he chose to flip flop for political expediency.

what you and most of your left wing buddies choose to ignore is that there was more to that act than equal rights for minorities. You also choose to ignore that many democrats also voted against that act and that it only passed because of GOP votes.

 

[Redfish]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

It is said often by conservatives on this thread.

It's always been a widely supported conservative position on this forum.

My question was:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

It's a states right question, in principle. It's a constitutional question, in principle.

are sexually segregated rest rooms a violation of constitutional rights? Why should women be deprived or the right to use a urinal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You called me out in OP with my quote, and now you refuse to talk about the quote. Why is that?

So far most conservatives in this thread who've expressed a specific opinion on the matter have confirmed what was in my quote -

they, as conservatives, believe that states should have the right to segregate based on race.

My quote, which you got from another thread:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Why don't you state your position on the issue? Did I miss that?

Goldwater supported the above; Johnson opposed it.

Rand Paul, the right's new fad, in 2010 as you may recall expressed his opposition to the 64 Civil Rights Act,

until he chose to flip flop for political expediency.

what you and most of your left wing buddies choose to ignore is that there was more to that act than equal rights for minorities. You also choose to ignore that many democrats also voted against that act and that it only passed because of GOP votes.

Those Democrats were not liberals on the issue of states rights as it related to segregation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is said often by conservatives on this thread.

It's always been a widely supported conservative position on this forum.

My question was:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

It's a states right question, in principle. It's a constitutional question, in principle.

are sexually segregated rest rooms a violation of constitutional rights? Why should women be deprived or the right to use a urinal?

That is a different topic. You should start a thread on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who were the racists in 1957, PC (sort of ) asks?

Let's look at this editorial that appeared in conservative icon's (and one of PC's favs) William F. Buckley's magazine, the National Review:

The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?

The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.

The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.

I was going to shorten the above for sake of the brevity I try to practice, but then I noticed the awesome reference to Kenya.

brinklindsey.com

So, should we discuss the above, PC, or would you be willing to dismiss it with the concession that once again it proves the wisdom of my proverbial ex-sigline statement,

The history of Conservatism of a history of always being on the wrong side of history.

eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who were the racists in 1957, PC (sort of ) asks?

Let's look at this editorial that appeared in conservative icon's (and one of PC's favs) William F. Buckley's magazine, the National Review:

The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?

The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.

The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.

I was going to shorten the above for sake of the brevity I try to practice, but then I noticed the awesome reference to Kenya.

brinklindsey.com

So, should we discuss the above, PC, or would you be willing to dismiss it with the concession that once again it proves the wisdom of my proverbial ex-sigline statement,

The history of Conservatism of a history of always being on the wrong side of history.

eh?

1. There is no misconduct in not knowing. There is sloth, as it means, in this information age, that one hasn’t attempted to learn. But there is misconduct in pretending that ignorance is beneficial to one’s perspective.
That defines you.
Sloth bound to misconduct.


2.Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. LBJ, for it. Who was the racist?


3.The answer is fairly simple. One man supported equal rights throughout his life. The other supported segregation, including blocking every anti-lynching bill that came his way.



4. Filling in your lapses in knowledge would require more time and space than is available…Here is part of the education you’ve failed to incorporate: Property rights precede liberty. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes



5. Goldwater knew this. LBJ probably knew it, as well. But segregationist liberal Democrats saw the opportunity to camouflage their pro-slavery history, and didn’t stop at co-opting property rights through the misuse of the commerce clause.



6.Not only did it hide their intentions to obfuscate, but it provide cover for the most stupid among us to support big government totalitarianism as though it were some sort of noble endeavor. Raise your paw.

a. Misconduct also included turning a blind eye to the effects of the LBJ program.
“The Great Society was the panacea for poverty, right? And it especially helped blacks, who had been held back by years of racism, didn’t it? For those who think that the government is the most efficient dispensary of public welfare, the answer is yes. But the historical facts and figures disagree markedly, and it’s hard to paint this disparity as sheer coincidence. Those facts indicate that the plight of blacks had been improving up until the passage of the Great Society program, but that in the forty-some-odd years since, blacks’ economic, social, familial, and educational situations have gotten much worse.”
Just How ?Great? was the Great Society? | Simple Utah Mormon Politics


So….who was the racist…Goldwater or LBJ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who were the racists in 1957, PC (sort of ) asks?

Let's look at this editorial that appeared in conservative icon's (and one of PC's favs) William F. Buckley's magazine, the National Review:

The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?

The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.

The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.

I was going to shorten the above for sake of the brevity I try to practice, but then I noticed the awesome reference to Kenya.

brinklindsey.com

So, should we discuss the above, PC, or would you be willing to dismiss it with the concession that once again it proves the wisdom of my proverbial ex-sigline statement,

The history of Conservatism of a history of always being on the wrong side of history.

eh?

1. There is no misconduct in not knowing. There is sloth, as it means, in this information age, that one hasn’t attempted to learn. But there is misconduct in pretending that ignorance is beneficial to one’s perspective.
That defines you.
Sloth bound to misconduct.


2.Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. LBJ, for it. Who was the racist?


3.The answer is fairly simple. One man supported equal rights throughout his life. The other supported segregation, including blocking every anti-lynching bill that came his way.



4. Filling in your lapses in knowledge would require more time and space than is available…Here is part of the education you’ve failed to incorporate: Property rights precede liberty. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes



5. Goldwater knew this. LBJ probably knew it, as well. But segregationist liberal Democrats saw the opportunity to camouflage their pro-slavery history, and didn’t stop at co-opting property rights through the misuse of the commerce clause.



6.Not only did it hide their intentions to obfuscate, but it provide cover for the most stupid among us to support big government totalitarianism as though it were some sort of noble endeavor. Raise your paw.

a. Misconduct also included turning a blind eye to the effects of the LBJ program.
“The Great Society was the panacea for poverty, right? And it especially helped blacks, who had been held back by years of racism, didn’t it? For those who think that the government is the most efficient dispensary of public welfare, the answer is yes. But the historical facts and figures disagree markedly, and it’s hard to paint this disparity as sheer coincidence. Those facts indicate that the plight of blacks had been improving up until the passage of the Great Society program, but that in the forty-some-odd years since, blacks’ economic, social, familial, and educational situations have gotten much worse.”
Just How ?Great? was the Great Society? | Simple Utah Mormon Politics


So….who was the racist…Goldwater or LBJ?

As long as you refuse to directly address the subject of your own thread, I will be happy to let the points I've made about the subject of your thread stand unchallenged,

and thus unrefuted.

You lose again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You called me out in OP with my quote, and now you refuse to talk about the quote. Why is that?

So far most conservatives in this thread who've expressed a specific opinion on the matter have confirmed what was in my quote -

they, as conservatives, believe that states should have the right to segregate based on race.

My quote, which you got from another thread:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Why don't you state your position on the issue? Did I miss that?

Goldwater supported the above; Johnson opposed it.

Rand Paul, the right's new fad, in 2010 as you may recall expressed his opposition to the 64 Civil Rights Act,

until he chose to flip flop for political expediency.

what you and most of your left wing buddies choose to ignore is that there was more to that act than equal rights for minorities. You also choose to ignore that many democrats also voted against that act and that it only passed because of GOP votes.

Well since the OP refuses to debate the topic of her own thread, maybe you can defend here original point.

Barry Goldwater believed that the federal government had no powers regarding education.

(page 28 Conscience of a Conservative). He was speaking on the issue of segregated schools.
Apply that to my statement above, Goldwater is agreeing that yes, in regard to school segregation, his position as a conservative is that the state DO (constitutionally in his opinion) have the right to segregate based on race.

Was he wrong? Is the modern conservative consensus that the Constitution does in fact take that right away from the states?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

That's a constitutional question, btw, in case that isn't clear.

Do ANY conservatives here disagree with it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's another quote from an editorial from William F. Buckley's National Review,

1960:

In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution.

Is it any wonder that the whites in power in the Southern states thus fought a desperate battle to preserve what they claimed were their 'states rights' on the issues of race????