Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[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.

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.

But, you are a liberal, and they are going to argue with anything that you say, even if they have said it themselves on this board.

 

[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?

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.

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

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

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.

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

Maybe Reagan was?

 

[boedicca]

If you want to play that game, Reagan is Not Bowing...but look who is.

 

[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.

But, you are a liberal, and they are going to argue with anything that you say, even if they have said it themselves on this board.

PC claims it was an ignorant statement, and yet, she hasn't been able to produce a single conservative on this board who disagrees with it.

In fact, she doesn't even disagree with it herself. I think she's unintentionally proven that the answer to my question is a strong 'yes'.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

You just gotta know this guy voted the straight Democratic ticket. Only a dyed in the wool Democrat would manage to get a dildo stuck up his bunghole, go to the hospital and tweet about its removal.

Twitter User @Grawly Says He Has A Dildo Stuck Up His Butt, Livetweets Hospital Trip (TWEETS)

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Maybe Reagan was?

Reagan's contribution to this conservative cause was his restoration of the racist Bob Jones University's tax exempt status after it had been revoked in 1970.

Reagan later flip flopped on the issue, feeling the political heat.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well no PC.

It seems you have no idea what Conservatism is..

In a nutshell, conservatives support a powerful government that favors the rich and assures that the population will be of the same ethnic, cultural and religious background.

They support tradition and are averse to change of any sort.

With all due respect, your definition of "conservatism," Sallow, is made-up and untrue.

 

[Misty]

The way I see it, conservatives want each individual to achieve success and fulfillment in life with as little help from the government as possible. Only the constitutional obligations of government.

Liberals want special interest groups to become dependent on the government so they can use their power to buy votes, not really caring about the individual at all only pretending to care about these people.

 

[Misty]

Well no PC.

It seems you have no idea what Conservatism is..

In a nutshell, conservatives support a powerful government that favors the rich and assures that the population will be of the same ethnic, cultural and religious background.

They support tradition and are averse to change of any sort.

With all due respect, your definition of "conservatism," Sallow, is made-up and untrue.

Sallow is a lunatic delusional lying fake teet sucking brainwashed liberal. Oh and he deserves no respect.

 

[Dante]

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. Liberalism/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

Reinventing the Right Exactly!

Not conservatism, not the GOP, but the 'right' -- a reactionary right reacting against what they perceive as the 'left'

This is more bullshit repackaged as something new and dished out to seemingly intelligent people. This 'collective' bullshit attack on all OTHERS -- others being liberals or progressives or leftists, demands people ignore that the left in America is often at odds with liberals, that progressivism in America has often come out from conservative circles as does populism, that Conservatism and Liberalism has historically existed side by side in both of the two major parties in America.

I could go on, but the bullshit about OTHERS facilitate government intrusion -- we need only look so far as conservatives demands that government intervene,,,and laws sponsored by conservatives that would facilitate the intervention.

The right has so mixed up conservatism, libertaianism, and other stuff as to have most of the right spouting shit all over the place

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

LBJ opposed anti-lynching laws very early in his political career, when he was much more conservative. He opposed them on the grounds that states already had laws against murder.

Is that your case for LBJ being a racist?

 

[Dante]

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.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.

2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

1. Amusing that you ended up all on your own equating corporatism with capitalism.
2. More amusing you chose to ignore the raging battle between corporations and individuals in society and went ad hominem

The very idea that American are indoctrinated in public schools is a fringe idea fed by the right

 

[Dante]

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

judging by their actions and deeds?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.

2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

1. Amusing that you ended up all on your own equating corporatism with capitalism.
2. More amusing you chose to ignore the raging battle between corporations and individuals in society and went ad hominem

The very idea that American are indoctrinated in public schools is a fringe idea fed by the right

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVDBtHeKIEM]Hail to the Fuhrer Obama: Children sing his praise - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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.

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.

I am not quite confirming your point. I believe that any business that discriminates on the basis of skin color or ehtnic background is morally wrong, and will suffer financially for such a stupid concept, but people have a constitutional right to be stupid and/or morally wrong. Government does not have any moral, legal, or ethical right to discriminate against, or for, any citizen, on any basis. Nor, does it have a right to insist that private citizens conform to its concept of morality.

I believe that government, at any level, has no business limiting individual freedom beyond what is necessary to ensure a relatively safe and harmonious social environment for the citizens of that place. Leave the social engineering to the churches, clubs, and universities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. '"modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties.'
I recognize this as the Liberal's pejorative description of conservatism, based on your hatred of capitalism.

a. As a result of an inordinate obsession with material equality, rather than equality before the law, the view of our (conservative) Founders, Liberals despise free market capitalism because it produces winners and loser.

b. Try to recognize that people not all the same; nor will results be.

2. "In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally."
Now, you've become irrational.

But it certainly burnished your Liberal credentials and validates the efficacy of government schooling.

Some are able to break free of the indoctrination....but you?

1. Amusing that you ended up all on your own equating corporatism with capitalism.
2. More amusing you chose to ignore the raging battle between corporations and individuals in society and went ad hominem

The very idea that American are indoctrinated in public schools is a fringe idea fed by the right

"Amusing that you ended up all on your own equating corporatism with capitalism."

Could you elucidate?

 

[Misty]

Bob Jones University was founded with the help of democrat governor Bibb Graves also a member of the kkk.

When bob jones jr became president of the school, he gave an honorary degree to George Wallace another racist democrat.

The IRS retroactively revoked the schools tax exemption and demanded 490,000 dollars in back taxes.

By this time the university had started accepting black males. Reagan initially supported the school because the IRS was trying to get taxes from a time when the school was exempt.

But because of public outcry Reagan switched his opinion.

The university now has no racial restrictions and has apologized for it's racial discrimination of the past.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

If you want to play that game, Reagan is Not Bowing...but look who is.

How the hell you know Reagan didn't? And what if he did? They bow to the queen also, Limbaugh Hair-Splitter.

 

[Erand7899]

"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?

No federal, state, or local government has the right to discriminate based on race, ethnic background, religion, or the color of one's hair. Individual private citizens within those states have the right to free association, and the right to discriminate against anyone, for any reason they choose.

They have never had that right under the US Constitution, although the supreme court did give them that right for a number of years. Just another of those dumbass decisions that the court has made.

I don't know of any conservatives (there may well be a few) that believe that states have the right to segregate based on race.