AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

you guys are both either missing, or intentionally not recognizing the point. i have no interest in tearing down the founders (not that taking responsibility for the bad as well as the good things they did is, in fact, a tearing down). so simply doing a c&p of the declaration (like we haven't seen it before) or a list of quotes from the founders really has no bearing. like us, they could say what ever they wanted about religion or anything else. it's what is written in the nation's freedom documents that matters. and what they do not declare is that the United States is a Christian nation. as i said, what i was trying to establish was a timeline of "americaness". is that even a word??

ican is trying to say that there was no "american" slavery in "the americas" carried out by "americans" before there was a "united states of america".

if the states, so united, were in the americas (as the name implies) previous to the formation of the usa, those states located in the americas would have necessarily been inhabited by a hell of a lot of americans. and a lot of them had.....slaves.

it is intellectually dishonest to say "i'm willing to take responsibility for my acts against slaves today and for all days forward, but i will not take responsibility for my acts against slaves occurring in all the many years before today. by saying that there was only american slavery after july 4th 1776 and ending 1865, that is what is being put forward in ican's assertion.

and it's untenable to say that anyone knows exactly how many slaves were bought, sold, harmed or killed in the few hundred years that slavery was in force the americas; before or after the formation of the usa.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

ohh, it isn't socialist after the age of 65, dude. ; )

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Pakistan certainly has failed to capture and kill ALL al- Qaeda in Pakistan.

That's a war crime, but it's telling how easily it spills off your tongue.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

if you insist on placing the ten commandments in public places, you violate the first amendment.

The 1st Amendment says nothing about whether or not religous artifacts can be placed in public places. What it does say about religion is underlined in the following quote of the 1st Amendment:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm well aware that some federal judges thought and think the underlined prohibits local government or even the federal government permitting religous artifacts on public property. But judges are not granted the power by the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

While Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean it separated church and state, Jefferson was also not empowered by the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

Jefferson or federal judges not withstanding, the 1st Amendment means exactly what it says about religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Allowing a religous artifact to be placed on, in, or alongside a government building--such as, In God We Trust, or the Ten Commandments--does not in any way shape or form establish a religion.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Yes, I would abolish Medicare and Medicade if I could, for the same reasons I oppose obamacracy health care.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

man. since you are not willing to address the main issue, and just want to keep playing cut and paste, i'll leave you to you're bits of paper and mucilage . have fun now...

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

if the states, so united, were in the americas (as the name implies) previous to the formation of the usa, those states located in the americas would have necessarily been inhabited by a hell of a lot of americans. and a lot of them had.....slaves.

Yes, there were "a hell of a lot of [north] americans ... and a lot of them had.....slaves." who inhabited the continent of North America before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, but they were not inhabitants of the USA. After the Declaration of Independence was adopted and before the Constitutional of the USA was adopted, they were also inhabitants of some united colonies but not inhabitants of the United States of America. Only after the Constitution was adopted in 1789 were they inhabitants of the United States of America and therefore Americans.

Only after the Constitution was adopted were Americans permitted to own slaves and deny them their unallienable rights by the Constitution of the United States of America. Permission by the Constitution of the United States of America for Americans to own and deny slaves their unalienable rights ended, respectively, in 1865 and 1868, with the adoption of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

1 Reply

@JTT,

CORRECTION
I wrote:
Pakistan certainly has failed to capture and kill ALL al- Qaeda in Pakistan.

I should have written:
Pakistan certainly has failed to capture OR kill ALL al- Qaeda in Pakistan.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You can recast your words but your spots tell a much different story.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Please tell me what story my "spots' tell you. Also, please advise me what is the nature of my spots.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

You didn't mention abolishing soc. sec. I guess you are getting it.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

He probably is. And he probably paid a lot of thousands into that fund that was structured so that you get paid back if you manage to live long enough. If you don't live long enough to get it back, however, anything you paid in that hasn't been paid to you becomes government property. You can't leave it to anybody else.

And, I believe Ican is still working as a flight instructor and, as such, is probably still paying into the system too. I am drawing social security too, but I am also paying 15.3% of everything I earn into the system. And those payments are not increasing his or my social security checks by a single penny. And if I actually earn a living wage, they tax my social security checks too.

And the other dirty little secret is that the government can abolish the program at any time it wants to and nobody who has ever contributed to it can do anything about it or collect a dime of whatever they paid into it.

When you look at it like that, private retirement accounts start looking a little better don't they?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, You really don't know what you are talking about. Your rhetoric comes from ignorance of the realities while trying to parrot the conservative-MAC meme of fear-mongering.

You shouldn't be making statements on topics you don't understand.

I've kept track of all of our social security payments into the system while my wife and I both worked. I started collecting my social security at age 63, and my wife waited until she reached 65; our benefits are now about two times what we paid into it, and our Medicare benefits have been many times the value of what we paid into it. The cost of my prostate cancer treatment alone was more than I paid into the system.

So quit your bull **** and get with the program.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

I forgot to tell you I also want social security terminated. And yes, I am getting it. And yes, I am still a flight instructor like Foxfyre said.

And yes, I plan to be a flight instructor as long as I can walk.

I was once asked by a member of a small group, how long did I plan to instruct. I answered then as now: as long as I can walk. A friend in another nearby group heard me say that and came rushing over with hands cupped around his mouth, shouting, "wusse, wusse, wusse!" I laughed and responded, "how could I possibly flight instruct when I could no longer walk. He answered, "call me to carry you into the airplane and call me to carry you out!"

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

My wife and I are more worried about the futures of our seven grandchildren than we are worried about our own futures.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

i'm not buying your assertion. not at all. owning slaves is owning slaves is owning slaves.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, You can meet your desires right away! The social security money you get can be saved for your grandchildren by opening a savings account for them at any bank, and make deposits to their account every month.

You meet your personal wish, and don't intrude on other people's lives who depend on their social security checks to survive.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

My wife and I are more worried about the futures of our seven grandchildren than we are worried about our own futures.

funny how you weren't worried about it in the least as you "mortgaged your children and your grand children's futures" making sure that iraqis had health care. and schools. and a soccer team.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

We all know the hypocrites that they are by what they didn't do as GWBush increased our debt and destroyed our economy. They now complain about everything that Obama does to help Americans and save our economy.

Their reality is so screwed up, they don't want universal health care even though health care premiums are becoming unaffordable for companies and private plans. They have bought into the scare tactics of the insurance industry to repeat the fear-mongering about government take-over of health care.

They wouldn't notice it if a atom bomb fell on them; they'll still say Obama's going to socialize our health care system. This after the many times Obama has repeatedly said people with private health plans will be able to keep them.

There's no cure for stupid.

0 Replies

It probably won't matter to those who think anybody who owned slaves at any time under any circumstances are disqualified to be admired or appreciated in history. I suppose that goes for the Native Americans too who owned slaves long before Europeans arrived here.

But for those who are thinking about that, one of my favorite economists and historians provides what I think is valuable insight:

Quote:

Senate Slavery Apology
Walter Williams

Last month, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 26 "Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans." The resolution ends with: "Disclaimer. " Nothing in this resolution (a) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (b) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States." That means Congress apologizes but is not going to pay reparations, as least for now.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have expressed concerns about the disclaimer, thinking that it's an attempt to stave off reparations claims from the descendants of slaves. Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said her organization is studying the language of the resolution and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss, said "putting in a disclaimer takes away from the meaning of an apology. A number of us are prepared to vote against it in its present form. There are several members of the Progressive Caucus who feel the same way."

It goes without saying that slavery was a gross violation of human rights. Justice would demand that all the perpetrators " that includes slave owners, and African and Arab slave sellers " make compensatory reparation payments to victims. Since slaves, slave owners and slave sellers are no longer with us, such compensation is beyond our reach and a matter to be settled in the world beyond.

Absent from the reparations debate is: Who pays? Don't say the government because the government doesn't have any money that it doesn't first take from some American. So which Americans owe black people what? Reparations advocates don't want that question asked but let's you and I.

Are the millions of Europeans, Asians, and Latin Americans who immigrated to the U.S. in the 20th century responsible for slavery and should they be forced to cough up reparations money? What about descendants of Northern whites who fought and died in the name of freeing slaves? Should they cough up reparations money for black Americans? What about non-slave-owning Southern whites, a majority of whites; should they be made to pay reparations? And, by the way, would President Obama, whose father is Kenyan and mother white, be eligible for a reparations payment?

On black people's side of the ledger, thorny issues also arise.
Some blacks purchased other blacks as a means to free family members. But other blacks owned slaves for the same reason whites owned slaves " to work farms or plantations. Are descendants of these blacks eligible and deserving of reparations? There is no way that Europeans could have captured millions of Africans. They had African and Arab help. Should Congress haul representatives of Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Muslim states before them and demand they compensate American blacks because of their ancestors' involvement in capturing and selling slaves?

Reparations advocates make the foolish unchallenged pronouncement that United States became rich on the backs of free black labor. That's utter nonsense. Slavery has never had a very good record of producing wealth. Think about it. Slavery was all over the South. Buying into the reparations nonsense, you'd have to conclude that the antebellum South was rich and the slave-starved North was poor. The truth of the matter is just the opposite. In fact, the poorest states and regions of our country were places where slavery flourished: Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was absent: Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

The Senate apology is nothing more than political theater but it could be a slick way to get the camel's nose into the tent for future reparations. If the senators are motivated by white guilt, I have the cure. About 15 years ago I wrote a "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent" that is available at:
www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html[/color][/b]

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/senate-slavery-apology.html

As Williams stated, slavery was a gross violation of human rights and a great injustice with nothing to commend it. Yet not all slave owners were terrible people. And there were all kinds of situations involved. And while our nation, as does every other nation, has slavery in its history, it is time to appreciate that we have learned and grown and evolved from that history, and it is time to move on.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know