AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Please give me one of those illustrations again that specifically shows why you thnk MAC ideology is offensive.

I have never address this MAC ideology at all, Foxfyre.

I am addressing AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 (the subject of this thread)...which is, by the way, the only thing I can logically address. This creature you and Ican are trying to create is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to me.

But let's see though if I can make a start in where you are heading:

If whatever you are trying to build here is trying to make American conservatism "better" one of the things that I think has to be said in capital letters and in absolutely no uncertain terms is: WHATEVER THERE IS ABOUT AMERICAN CONSERVATISM AS IT NOW STANDS THAT APPEALS SO COMPLETELY AND OBSESSIVELY TO RACISTS...has got to be expunged completely, thoroughly, and forever.

If you are not searching for the reason for that appeal...none of the other stuff matters, because all the rest of that stuff is cosmetic.

4 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclopitchorn, as a far left winger from Berkeley, tries to define Selfish as the conservative viewpoint and goal. Scholars far more intelligent than he view that as nonsense.

Irving Kristol wrote:

Socialism did not succeed; it failed. The socialist impulse was, like all human impulses, a mixed thing. But it was--particularly in its original, pre-Marxian form, which was never quite extinguished--as much a philosophical ideal as an ideology. It set out to master man's fate, not rationalize it. It aimed at a community of virtuous men, whose dominant motive would be compassion and fellow-feeling. Whether or not this ideal is intrinsically utopian--i.e., unsuited to man's fallen nature--is endlessly arguable. But what is absolutely clear is that socialism turned out to be utterly unsuited to the nature of modern man. For, in this nature, concupiscence is stronger than compassion--a concupiscence that is constantly stimulated (even as it is fleetingly satisfied) by the unfolding promise of modern technology to create ever greater wealth. Socialists thought that the "abolition of poverty" would purify and ennoble human nature, and were therefore persuaded that technology worked ineluctably in its favor. They turned out to be wrong. In large areas of the world today, there is wealth enough for people to live full and contented lives in socialist equality and fraternity--if only people wanted to. They do not. What they want is--more. Though what they want more for, they do not know.

**************************************************************

Cyclopitchorn will never agree to the fact that has been shown to be true in all corners of the world--SOCIALISM TURNED OUT TO BE UTTERLY UNSUITED TO THE NATURE OF MODERN MAN.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves still doesn't understand the difference between capitalism and socialism. There's no cure for stupid.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I knew you would have trouble understand what Kristol wrote, Cicerone Imposter. Try reading it again. Your comment is not relevant to my post but then, you reasoning powers have always been suspect.

1 Reply

@genoves,

Kristol doesn't have any credibility left (I don't waste my time reading garbage):

Quote:

The Times Gives Kristol the Pink Slip

The New York Times has made it official: today is Weekly Standard editor William Kristol's final column for the paper. His career was brief, perhaps most noteworthy not for Kristol's conservative opinions, but for the errors he made. But hubris wasn't Kristol's problem. Rather the reverse. It seemed like his heart wasn't really in it any longer. Kristol's problem, I suspect, is that he's beginning to lose faith in the conservative movement itself, which is why his column today sounds a rather unusual note.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Please give me one of those illustrations again that specifically shows why you thnk MAC ideology is offensive.

I have never address this MAC ideology at all, Foxfyre.

I am addressing AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 (the subject of this thread)...which is, by the way, the only thing I can logically address. This creature you and Ican are trying to create is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to me.

But let's see though if I can make a start in where you are heading:

If whatever you are trying to build here is trying to make American conservatism "better" one of the things that I think has to be said in capital letters and in absolutely no uncertain terms is: WHATEVER THERE IS ABOUT AMERICAN CONSERVATISM AS IT NOW STANDS THAT APPEALS SO COMPLETELY AND OBSESSIVELY TO RACISTS...has got to be expunged completely, thoroughly, and forever.

If you are not searching for the reason for that appeal...none of the other stuff matters, because all the rest of that stuff is cosmetic.

The issue of racism is the only specific I've seen you address, Frank, and I have responded to your assertions re that in quite some detail. Each argument I have provided you have ignored thus far, but for you to say that I have ignored or dismissed you is both ludicrous and dishonest.

You say that MAC is my and Ican's invention, but I can assure you that it is not. It goes back to the classical liberalism of the Renaissance, but since so few are schooled in that period or the history of classical liberalism, it is relabeled as Modern American Conservatism here. You don't like that? We've asked for a different name and/or definition and have received zero response. I can't even get any of you liberals (that's modern liberals) to discuss any single concept within the whole. And that includes the issue of racism. Only a modern liberal thinks that calling somebody 'racist' is valid debate.

Now to the issue of racism, There is NOTHING racist in the MAC credo. That there are racists who label themselves 'conservative' is not something any of us have any control over. And we cannot change something about ourselves that does not exist.

I will argue that the liberal/Democrat attitudes toward people of color are far more racist in both substance and in effect than anything offered by the GOP/conservatives. That liberals/Democrats frequently use the word 'racist' to label anybody who opposes their own racist policies/practices is without substance or merit in the vast majority of instances this occurs.

If we are going to agree that there is something wrong with conservatism because some racists identify with that ideology, will you also agree that there is something wrong with liberalism because environmental wackos, vandals, saboteurs, irresponsible freeloaders, and law breakers are attracted to and/or identify with that ideology?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hey stupid- You obviously don't know the difference between Irving Kristol and WIlliam Kristol. Get your head out of y our ass and do some reading!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Mr. Apisa- I have read your post carefully Would you please be so good as to give me your definition of racism? As far as I am able to determine,most American Conservatives cannot be called racists. But perhaps I have a different definition than you do.

1 Reply

@genoves,

Oh, you mean the Kristol who made this quote:

Quote:

QUOTE: " Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo- that's all, neo dash nothing."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

WHATEVER THERE IS ABOUT AMERICAN CONSERVATISM AS IT NOW STANDS THAT APPEALS SO COMPLETELY AND OBSESSIVELY TO RACISTS ... has got to be expunged completely, thoroughly, and forever.

Frank, this statement reveals you to be terribly ignorant of what constitutes American Conservativism today.

Yes, there existed the kind of conservativism you describe. It existed in particularly large proportion among Southern Democrats before President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Law. It also existed among a majority of the Democrats in Congress when Congress passed that law. If it hadn't been for a majority of Republicans, that law would not have been passed by Congress at that time.

A very large majority of today's conservatives do not want to conserve that racism of Democrats. They want to conserve the rule of law. They want to conserve our Constitutional Republic. They want to conserve the inallienable rights of every law abiding person throughout the world. They want to prevent the Democrats from replacing our Constitutional Republic with a socialist republic.

Consequently, I recommend that those people who think modern conservatism APPEALS SO COMPLETELY AND OBSESSIVELY TO RACISTS, make close examination of themselves and their own racism/bigotry.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, I mean that one--Who also said---"The most interesting fact of contemporary intellectual life is the utter incapacity of so-called socialist countries to produc e socialist intellectuals--or even--for that matter to tolerat e socialist intellectuals"

That mirrors the b igotry of the left who, contrary to President Obama's mantra about INCLUSION, reject every movement from the right.

However,it looks as if political reality is forcing President Obama toheavily dilute the pork package the left wing Democrats have presented. He is being faced with a revolution from his own party--See Sen. NelsonD, who is working with a dozen or more Democratic senators to dilute the massiv e and pork laden spending bill.

1 Reply

@genoves,

Quote:

Mr. Apisa- I have read your post carefully Would you please be so good as to give me your definition of racism?

If I have to define racism for you...you really don't belong in this discussion. I know what I mean...you know what I mean. Don't play games.

Quote:

As far as I am able to determine,most American Conservatives cannot be called racists.

Oh really. Isn't that a coincidence. You want American Conservatism not to appeal to racists....and as far as you are able to determine MOST American Conservatives cannot be called racists.

Amazing!

Not all American Conservatives are racists, Genoves...but every racist I personally know proudly proclaims his/her conservatism. And, as a matter of fact, MOST proudly proclaim their racism.

Quote:

But perhaps I have a different definition than you do.

Perhaps. I can't help you with that.

0 Replies

@genoves,

How does that relate to the US of A? We are not a "socialist country." Is that news to you? LOL

That you think that Obama "reject every movement from the right" shows you neither listen or read the popular media. Ignorance supreme.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

This is one of those issues that no matter how the words come out...it is going to seem like flaming. I don't mean anything I say that way. I respect you, Foxfyre...but I disagree with you to a degree that even astonishes me.

Quote:

Now to the issue of racism, There is NOTHING racist in the MAC credo.

I didn't say there is anything racist in the MAC credo...I said AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 (which I pointed out is the subject of this thread)...appeals obsessively and compulsively to racists.

AND IT DOES.

And I suggested that this new thing of yours should state unequivocally that “WHATEVER THERE IS ABOUT AMERICAN CONSERVATISM AS IT NOW STANDS THAT APPEALS SO COMPLETELY AND OBSESSIVELY TO RACISTS...has got to be expunged completely, thoroughly, and forever.”

I do not expect you to do that...I do not expect American Conservatives in general to do that. In fact, I would bet huge sums American conservatives will never even come close to doing that.

When the Democratic Party was the party of American conservatives...it was also the party of the racists. Now the Republican Party is the party of American conservatives...and it now is the party of the racists.

You and Ican want to dance around that with all this (as respectfully as possible) blather and smoke and mirrors...but the only people you are fooling are yourselves.

MY GUESS: If you were to poll all the people in America who CALL THEMSELVES racists...and ask if they are conservative or liberal...my guess is 100% of them would claim to be conservative.

I think you folks realize that, too...but I am sure you are going to talk and talk and talk and pretend that is not the case.

Okay by me.

Really!

I want American conservatism to be as far down on the totem pole as possible...and this blindness and compulsion to rationalize and deny...helps that cause.

Stick to your guns.

You are doing a service to our country...and by extension, the world.

1 Reply

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In order to circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Passage_in_the_House_of_Representatives
By party

The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

HOW does it appeal to racists Frank? What is there within all those conservative principles we have thus far identified that is in any way comfortable specifically to racists? What do you suggest MACs do to repel the racists? What CAN or SHOULD Modern American Conservatives do that would make themselves unattractive to racists?

But again, if you are going to judge Modern American Conservatism on the fact that you think it includes racists, are you as willing to condemn Modern American Liberalism because it seems to appeal to environmental wackos, socialists, young communists, vandals, saboteurs, Anti-Americans, Holocaust deniers, and racists?

You've made the accusation. Please back it up with a least a specific or two.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

HOW does it appeal to racists Frank? What is there within all those conservative principles we have thus far identified that is in any way racist? What do you suggest they do to repel the racists? What CAN or SHOULD Modern American Conservatives do that would make themselves unattractive to racists?

And again, if you are going to judge Modern American Conservatism on the fact that you think it appeals to racists, are you as willing to condemn Modern American Liberalism because it seems to appeal to environmental wackos, socialists, young communists, vandals, saboteurs, Anti-Americans, Holocaust deniers, and racists?

Oh, I dunno, perhaps you could start electing leaders that don't use racial, gender, and sexual issues to divide people and win election.

Perhaps you could stop exalting media personalities who use racism, gender, and sexual discrimination as large parts of their rhetoric.

Perhaps you could stop the demonization of foreigners and immigrants.

Perhaps the over-emphasis on the primacy of the Individual, to the exclusion of all other concerns, should be, yaknow, de-emphasized.

Or, to put it in terms you'll like, perhaps you should go about electing people who match your definition of Conservatism, Fox. You may have noticed that none of the leaders in Congress or the WH recently have done that, and who do you think is to blame for that?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

You're more than welcome to join with Frank in backing up your accusations Cyclop. All I've seen from either of you are ugly accusations. I've seen nothing to support them.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It is of no concern to me if you want to ignore the things I listed, Fox. I decided long ago that you consider yourself and your arguments to be Infallible. I don't weigh my success by your acceptance, but instead by the matching of my statements to events I have witnessed - and been a part of - my whole life.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn is ridiculous. First of all, he makes unsupported generalizations.

Who uses racial gender, and sexual issues to win election- SPECIFICITY PLEASE.

But, since he is imprisoned in his Ivory Tower at Berkeley where everyone thinks alike he does not know that the last election was FILLED WITH RACISM ON THE PART OF THE DEMOCRATS.

Does Cyclo not know that the inner city Blacks went door to door and often used Obama's race as a talking point.

Now,Cyclo does not think that is racist. BUT IT IS!

Does Cyclo not know that the radical Hispanic organizations went door to door to press for someone who was not "white"?

Now, Cyclo does not think that is racist.BUT IT IS!

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know