AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Before the establishment of the USofA, America existed and the people living there were referred to as Americans. They may have been British subjects but they were still Americans.

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Your silly post is duly noted!

Naturally, you realize that America is the name of the Continent, and Parados is 100% correct. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

People who owned slaves were not Americans until the United States of America was established when all 13 states adopted the Constitution of the United States of America March 4, 1789. Therefore, Americans did not own slaves until March 4, 1789. But some north americans owned slaves prior to March 4, 1789. All Americans who owned slaves prior to December 6, 1865, stopped owning slaves December 6, 1865.

wrong. born into and/or adopt a domicile on the american continent prior to 1776? you are american.

own slaves? you are a slave owner.

do both and you are an american slave owner.

You and Ican are both right and both wrong. He is a little late with the dating of the "Americans"; you are way early.

A good essay on the subject here:
http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol5/ziegler.pdf

But using your definition of what is an "American slave owner", you will have to include various Native American tribes who owned slaves prior to arrival of the Puritans and up to and through and beyond the Colonial Period. As with "white' and the few 'black' slave owners, some were pretty humane to their slaves and some were extremely cruel. And in judging the dynamics of slavery in America, you will need to consider peoples on every inhabited Continent throughout pre-medieval, medieval, and through much of the post-medieval period as slavery was a common fact of life for at least some of all peoples of the world.

But if we allow the people through history the culture in which they were born and raised, we cannot condemn them without being hypocrites for such would require that we assume that future generations will not improve on what we consider to be right and wrong now.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=marriage&x=26&y=7
Main Entry: mar·riage
...
1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=pairage&x=15&y=5
Main Entry: pair·age
...
: a quantity of pairs of shoes being manufactured or sold ...

I'll add an additional definition to the definition of pairage:
the state of being united to a person of the same sex, the institution whereby two men, or two women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

I am opposed to redefining or adding a definition to marriage, because I am married and I do not want the meaning of marriage to change. I am in favor of adding to the definition of pairage, my definition of pairage.

Some people qualify to be medical nurses. Some people do not qualify. Do people have an equal right to be nurses regardless of whether they qualify or not. Of course not! So let's pass a law permitting my definion of pairage so two men, or two women can qualify to be pairaged.

Do you have a problem with that? If you do have a problem with that, say why!

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Separate but equal was a post Civil War doctrine DTOM, not a Colonial one.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=American&x=20&y=7
Main Entry: 1amer·i·can
...
1 : an Indian of No. America or So. America
2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America -- usually used with a qualifying adjective <Latin Americans> <North Americans> of all except inhabitants of the United States
3 : a citizen of the United States

The American colonies existed before March 4, 1789.
The American colonies declared their independence July 4, 1776
The United States of America did not exist until March 4, 1789.
American citizens did not exist until March 4, 1789.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

There were Republicans several years after 1789, prior to 1861, and after 1861.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I am opposed to redefining or adding a definition to marriage, because I am married and I do not want the meaning of marriage to change. I am in favor of adding to the definition of pairage, my definition of pairage.

Some people qualify to be medical nurses. Some people do not qualify. Do people have an equal right to be nurses regardless of whether they qualify or not. Of course not! So let's pass a law permitting my definion of pairage so two men, or two women can qualify to be pairaged.

Do you have a problem with that? If you do have a problem with that, say why!

Yes, I have a problem with that. Mostly because it's completely insane.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

There were Republicans several years after 1789, prior to 1861, and after 1861.

like 60+ SEVERAL years later. jezzuz. what is your malfunction, dude?

and wtf does that have to do with price of grits? try to focus. yer all over the map.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

it seems to be a pattern.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Separate but equal was a post Civil War doctrine DTOM, not a Colonial one.

you are still missing that i don't care about any of that.

i am talking about taking responsibility for the whole of truth of events. not only the ones that we can proudly strap on our heads and march around singing songs about every fourth of july and then slap ourselves on the back and feel like super patriots.

it is a very simple thing. i have explained it ad nausea. if you guys are not getting it, go back and re-read my posts. i can't pursue it any further on this line.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

It's not only insane, but bigoted and ignorant. Or should that be ignorant and bigoted?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But if we allow the people through history the culture in which they were born and raised, we cannot condemn them without being hypocrites for such would require that we assume that future generations will not improve on what we consider to be right and wrong now.

Yet you parade all over that you invade sovereign nations to 'save' various groups from all sorts of evils found in "the culture in which they were born and raised" in.

No, you surely can't evade being called a hypocrite, Foxy, but you and those like you do it with a panache without equal.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Southern Democrats were the racist supporters of slavery and, subsequently, racist supporters of the rotten principle of "separate but equal." Southern Republicans were in the minority then. They opposed slavery and the rotten principle, "separate but equal."

True, in a general sense. And a scuzzy crowd they were. But of course scuzzy isn't established by an R or a D self-identification but by behavior and ideas.

Quote:

The number of southern Republicans has increased substantially since then.

Well, those additional folks probably didn't condense out of thin air. Your party pulled our ugly people to your very bosom. We'd like to thank you for this mass adoption.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Separate but equal was a post Civil War doctrine DTOM, not a Colonial one.

you are still missing that i don't care about any of that.

i am talking about taking responsibility for the whole of truth of events. not only the ones that we can proudly strap on our heads and march around singing songs about every fourth of july and then slap ourselves on the back and feel like super patriots.

it is a very simple thing. i have explained it ad nausea. if you guys are not getting it, go back and re-read my posts. i can't pursue it any further on this line.

But what you don't seem to be getting is that we HAVE acknowledged the sins of our past, denounced them, have made no attempt to defend them, have raised them ourselves when appropriate to do so. And you seem to wish to focus only on those and ignore any of the virtues that were also present.l

We don't see the sins as wiping out everything good that was accomplished. And unless one is willing to think that there were no virtues then and that there are only virtues now, intellectual honest requires admission that as bad and unjustifiable as the bad was and how much it can be condemned, there were also virtues worthy of acknowledgment and praise and that continue to benefit and bless us even to this day.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And you seem to wish to focus only on those and ignore any of the virtues that were also present.

you joined this one late. the original thing was about "how many slaves were killed during american slavery". he stated that he knew for certain that there was no way that a stated number of deaths ever happened.

i told him that there was no way that anybody could absolutely know for certain how many were killed. ican then proceeded to do his usual cut and paste of any and everything about what ever "patriotic" rigamaroll floating around in his head answered to a question that i wasn't even asking.

if nothing else, PURE LOGIC tells us that record keeping has always been and continues to be inaccurate. just more so then, than now.

but in a nutshell; if we are to include stuff like plymouth rock and the elusive pre 1776 Thanksgiving as "traditional american values", then we also have to accept that slavery conducted by those pre 1776 people is also "american".

ya can't have it both ways.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

North America and South America are the names of continents.

No inhabitants of North or South America were American citizens of the United States of America before March 4, 1789.

American citizens did not exist prior to March 4, 1789, because the United States of America did not exist prior to March 4, 1789.

Slavery did not exist in the United States of America prior to its existence, but did exist in North America.

Slavery was not legal in the United States of America until the United States of America existed.

Slavery was legal in the United States of America from March 4, 1789 to December 6, 1865.

Slavery ceased being legal in the United States of America on December 6, 1865.

2 Replies

Don't know about the rest of you conservatives out there, but I'm increasingly encouraged by the growing backlash against Obama's over-reach. There's an emerging feeling of resurgence and confidence in the GOP as Obama's initiatives fail, his policies go down in flames and his popularity sinks.

Obama campaigned on a platform of non-partisanship and disbanding the old-boy congressional network..."hope and change" was the battle cry. However, now, as President, he is failing to lead and instead allowing the old-boy network to drag him around by the nose. I guess he assumes leadership is merely making broad and flowery statements and vision. From the stimulus bill of 6 months ago to the most recent healthcare reform bill, Obama is completely abdicating the definition of the details to liberal congressional leaders and the extreme left of his party. Bush did the same and eventually lost the middle of the road voters (who disdain extremes on either end of the spectrum). Now, I'm happy to report that history appears doomed to repeat itself with Obama.

Now if only the Republicans would learn this lesson as well so they can hold the presidency and seats they will recoup over the next four years ....but I surely won't bet my paycheck on it.

3 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Don't know about the rest of you conservatives out there, but I'm increasingly encouraged by the growing backlash against Obama's over-reach. There's an emerging feeling of resurgence and confidence in the GOP as Obama's initiatives fail, his policies go down in flames and his popularity sinks.

I wonder, which of his initiatives have failed?

Quote:

Obama campaigned on a platform of non-partisanship and disbanding the old-boy congressional network..."hope and change" was the battle cry. However, now, as President, he is failing to lead and instead allowing the old-boy network to drag him around by the nose. I guess he assumes leadership is merely making broad and flowery statements and vision. From the stimulus bill of 6 months ago to the most recent healthcare reform bill, Obama is completely abdicating the definition of the details to liberal congressional leaders and the extreme left of his party. Bush did the same and eventually lost the middle of the road voters (who disdain extremes on either end of the spectrum). Now, I'm happy to report that history appears doomed to repeat itself with Obama.

The phrase to describe this is 'full of ****.' Though I wish you were correct.

Quote:

Despite confronting near absolute opposition from the Republican side of the aisle on health care, President Obama and Senate Democrats stressed during a lunch on Tuesday that reform still needed to be done in a bipartisan fashion, a White House aide said.

With nearly the entire Senate Democratic Caucus at the White House for lunch, the president spoke for ten to fifteen minutes on insurance reform. He also insisted, according to an administration aide, that he remained committed to working with the Republican Party to get reform passed.

"I think there was just really a sense about the importance of making progress and getting a bill done," the aide, who was in attendance, said. "And that they are committed to working with Republicans to do it. The president believes that that is important."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/obama-told-dem-senators-t_n_251287.html

I know that after years of watching the Bush WH and the Republicans in Congress collude on each and every action they could, you may have the false impression that the Executive branch writes legislation. It does not.

Obama could have instructed them to pass Health Care reform under the Reconciliation rules - the Dems certainly could have done so. Instead, he has done the exact opposite, even though it empowers Republicans to a far greater degree than they deserve. You are 100% incorrect in your assessment.

Quote:

Now if only the Republicans would learn this lesson as well so they can hold the presidency and seats they will recoup over the next four years ....but I surely won't bet my paycheck on it.

Smart man. You should realize that, even though Obama's numbers have dropped some, the Republicans have not seen gains, and certainly not enough to gain many seats in 2010 or 2012.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM wrote:

he stated that he knew for certain that there was no way that a stated number of deaths ever happened.

Who "he"? Sure as hell wasn't me. The only thing I know for certain is that I don't know anything else for certain.

I wrote that among the various estimates--100 thousand to 60 million--for how many slaves were killed by American citizens, I thought--but knew I did not know for certain--the correct number was less than 600 thousand following the adoption of the USA Constitution March 4, 1789.

My point was that USA governments were not ever responsible for killing millions like european and asian governments.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

I too am "increasingly encouraged by the growing backlash against Obama's over-reach. I perceive "Obama's over-reach" to be pure gangsterism. He must be lawfully removed from office as soon as practical.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know