55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 05:15 pm
@parados,
ican is so stupid, he thinks everybody else is as ignorant as he is. How many reasons has he given to justify our attack of Iraq? Did he know mickey mouse was seen in Iraq before we invaded?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 05:25 pm
@Amigo,
Amigo wrote:

..And when they get cought they move to a Arab country because they don't give a **** about America. ..


funny how that worked, huh? almost like somebody told them trouble was comin' their way..
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 06:47 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence concluded in 2006, "Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

I assume that is true. But how does that show that the USA DID NOT INVADE Iraq because the Iraq government did not agree to try to subdue al-Qaeda in Iraq? Trying and failing to locate and capture Zarqawi--only one of the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq-- is not equivalent to trying to subdue al-Qaeda in Iraq.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 07:23 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
No, I do not see any difference for Jefferson. My point was not about Jefferson. I am unaware of his killing any of his slaves.

My point about the 100 year period July 4, 1776 to July3, 1876 was that Americans killed less than 600 thousand slaves in that period, not 60 or even 6 million. While that is horrible enough, it is no where near as horrible as the millions of civilians European and Asian governments killed in the 20th century.

Furthermore, more than a 600 thousand American soldiers died freeing American slaves by December 6, 1865, and granting them equal legal rights by July 9, 1868. Also, more than 100 thousand American soldiers were killed in WWI helping to protect European civilians from murder and oppression, plus more than a 400 thousand American soldiers were killed in WWII helping to free Europeans and Asians from murder and oppression.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp


parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 09:39 pm
@ican711nm,
Trying and failing to capture Al Qaeda in Buffalo and Pakistan counts as what? Or in their cases was it equivalent?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 07:00 am
There was a rather lovely example a few days ago of the way in which ideological extremism (let's do an ad hoc definition of this as when someone imagines a theory or proposition to be an axiomatic and eternal truth) disallows the individual to perceive the world in any manner other than as his/her ideology permits.

Writing at the National Review, Larry Kudlow, good personal friend of Dick Cheney, looked at the positive economic indicators arising presently and concluded that what these indicators demonstrated was capitalism so remarkably resilient that it was now beating back the financial mis-steps of Obama's stimulus program.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:27 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
There were al Qaida members in Pakistan too. Hell, according to the Bush administration there were al Qaida members in Buffalo and Detroit. Did that give us sufficient reason to invade those places?

Also there were al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan.

The USA invaded Afghanistan because the Afghanistan government did not agree to try to subdue al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The USA invaded Iraq because the Iraq government did not agree to try to subdue al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There wasn't much of an al Qaida presence in Iraq to subdue. Remember, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. There were no Iraqis among them. Using your logic, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 11:09 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

There was a rather lovely example a few days ago of the way in which ideological extremism (let's do an ad hoc definition of this as when someone imagines a theory or proposition to be an axiomatic and eternal truth) disallows the individual to perceive the world in any manner other than as his/her ideology permits.

Writing at the National Review, Larry Kudlow, good personal friend of Dick Cheney, looked at the positive economic indicators arising presently and concluded that what these indicators demonstrated was capitalism so remarkably resilient that it was now beating back the financial mis-steps of Obama's stimulus program.


I can see how some would call that extreme. Perhaps as extreme as those who will give Obama's stimulus program much or all the credit for any improvement in the economy despite competent opinion that it has done little or nothing to help the economy; also opinion that irresponsible swelling of the deficit, has slowed economic recovery.

Such perceptions are frequently ideological:

Quote:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters say that, generally speaking, increased government spending is bad for the economy.

Thirty-five percent (35%) believe more government spending will help the economy, and seven percent (7%) say it’s likely to have no impact, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Democrats have a fundamentally different perspective than Republicans or unaffiliated voters. By a 63% to 23% margin, Democrats say more government spending is likely to help the economy. By a 77% to nine percent (9%) margin, Republicans take the opposite view and believe more spending will hurt.

As for those not affiliated with either party, 52% say more government spending generally hurts the economy while 25% believe it helps
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/february_2009/48_say_increased_government_spending_hurts_economy
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 11:46 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

No, I do not see any difference for Jefferson.


then you missed the entire point of the rebuttal to your assertion. here's a clue. jefferson was not the main idea.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 11:58 am
@parados,
I didn't bring up al-Qaeda in Buffaloe and Detroit. Joefromchicago brought them up along with Iraq and Pakistan.

I simply could not resist the temptation to have fun and to treat them equivalent when they obviously are not.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:02 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I actually wrote:
No, I do not see any difference for Jefferson. My point was not about Jefferson. I am unaware of his killing any of his slaves.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

I actually wrote:
No, I do not see any difference for Jefferson. My point was not about Jefferson. I am unaware of his killing any of his slaves.


let's try it this way. is The United States of America founded on christian values?
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:09 pm
@joefromchicago,
More than 300 al-Qaeda fled the USA invasion of Afghanistan to the Northeast section of Iraq in December 2001. By March 2003 when the USA invaded Iraq, there were more than a 1000 al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq. Al-Qaeda continued to flee Afghanistan for Iraq after the USA invaded Iraq. But by the end of 2008, almost all al-Qaeda has been killed or chased out of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:23 pm
@ican711nm,
Why are they not equal? Unless you are admitting that failure to capture or kill Al Qaeda is not reason to invade?

Pakistan certainly has failed to capture and kill Al Qaeda.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:24 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


DTOM, you decide whether or not the USA is founded on Christian values.

The original states when adopting the USA Constitution March 4, 1789, fell short of its founding values--they permitted slavery--in order to include the southern states in the United States. They later ended slavery December 6, 1865. "Better late than never!"

Do you, DTOM, never forgive yourself for your transgressions that you have corrected?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:37 pm
@parados,
First of all, the USA doesn't have to invade its own cities containing al-Qaeda to remove al-Qaeda from those cities. Don't you understand that the cities, states, and nation of the USA already have adequate police forces at both the city, state, and national levels to make progress to rid them of any al-Qaeda without the USA military invading them?

Pakistan certainly has failed to capture and kill ALL al- Qaeda in Pakistan. But it continues to make progress accomplishing that goal with our help. We did not and do not now have to invade Pakistan for that progress to continue.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 03:32 pm
@ican711nm,
founded on freemasonic values, perhaps. christian, no. if you are saying that jesus is god, you break more than one of the ten commandments. and if you insist on placing the ten commandments in public places, you violate the first amendment.

in any case, what i was trying to point out was a timeline.

the problem i have with your assertions is that you want to artificially indemnify the early americans and, late, the founders from a few hundred years of slavery and it's atrocious behavior, including but not limited to outright murder, by the stroke of a pen. that was what i was getting at with the day before and day after approach.

in other words, the same people, or type of people, perpetrated the crimes against humanity regarding american slavery before and after the establishment of a formal american nation.

in any case, you have no more hard number on how many slaves were killed in the american slavery system than i do.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 03:46 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
A brief, pertinent, and mostly factual short essay on the Founders and slavery:

Quote:
Were all of America's Founding Fathers racists, pro-slavery, and hypocrites?

One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:


“Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”


These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington

Notice a few additional examples of the Founder's strong antislavery sentiments:

"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."
-John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."
-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."
-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."
-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Numerous similar quotes could be cited.
Yet despite the progress made by many of the Founders to end the institution of slavery and to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misportrayal of the truth.

The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:


"It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South." (emphasis added)

The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.

Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address entitled "To the People of Color," Allen reminded them:
"Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal."
-Richard Allen
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html


One of the first things my favorite college history professor drilled into us was his conviction that previous generations and civilizations should never be judged by the standards of the present one lest we miss the great and important contributions of each.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 03:54 pm
The obamacracy healthcare plan is an abomination: discriminatory, expensive, corrupting, and illegal. It is discriminatory in that it bases coverage of medical expenses on age. It is expensive in that it will cost trillions of dollars. It is corrupting in that it entices participants into heavy dependency on government giveaways. It is illegal in that it compels participation by those who do not want to participate.

A majority of Americans oppose it!
Quote:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121814/More-Disapprove-Than-Approve-Obama-Healthcare.aspx
July 21, 2009
More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on HealthcarePresident is rated higher on international than on domestic issuesby Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- As the debate over healthcare reform intensifies, the latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds that more Americans disapprove (50%) than approve (44%) of the way U.S. President Barack Obama is handling healthcare policy. There is a tremendous partisan gap in these views, with 74% of Democrats but only 11% of Republicans approving. Independents are more likely to disapprove than to approve of Obama's work on healthcare.


Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 04:09 pm
@ican711nm,
Based on your statement, I assume you believe that Medicare is discriminatory because coverage is based on age. One cannot participate until age 65.

Universal is of the same nature as Medicare and social security. Would you abolish those programs if you could?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 05:29:41