AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

We need a bullet pointed platform list from the Conservative Party to know whether we can buy into most or all of their philosophy. What I have seen so far is intriguing.

Bottom line we need a national debate on every issue proposed by all these groups, including the Republican and Democratic parties to arrive at an updated social contract by which we agree that the nation be governed.

http://www.conservativepartyusa.org/platformbackground.html
Conservative Party
Platform Background

Sen. Barry Goldwater, in his book The Conscience of a Conservative, wrote that the framers of our government were not visionaries. "They knew that rules of government, however brilliantly calculated to cope with the imperfect nature of man, however carefully designed to avoid the pitfall of power, would be no match for men who were determined to disregard them."

The "rules of government" today are in a state of disarray because of the expanse of their disregard. The shame of their condition does not fall upon their abusers, but upon "We the People" who have permitted the abuse to occur. "We the People" have lost sight of the fundamental statement of the United States Constitution which expressly states that all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When there were infractions to the "rules of government" in our more distant past, it was possible to reverse the infractions. Political parties introduced "planks" to void the infraction and convinced the voters on the plank's merit. Simply stated, fewer infractions engaged fewer planks. Not so today, 2009. The number of infractions to our "rules of government" has become so great in scope that initiating political planks has become so complicated a subject that "We the People" are bewildered. We have lost the compass that our Founding Fathers used as their guide.

As of today, January 2009, there are probably some twenty-five various political party planks on education, one of which is (Democrat), "Reduce class size, modernize facilities, hire new teachers." And another (Republican) is "Promote school choice and home-schooling." It would be counter to the principles of the Conservative Party to add education planks to the mix when Congress is granted NO authority to maintain a system of education. For Congress to debate an education issue is a farce because the debate is the wrong forum since this is an issue "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Likewise is any action of Congress to attempt regulation of marriage and divorce, an issue current today.

For the Conservative Party to consume its energies creating political plank correcting individual present-day infractions of the "rules of government" would be an exercise in futility since all infractions in debate are unconstitutional. A more sensible use of energy would be to "Re-establish the limits and boundaries of Government as framed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America", thus addressing all these issues in one stroke.

This platform, the Conservative Party platform, is the most important national plank needed today!

Sure we can't read people's minds; but I just want to point out that someone can indeed be a racist, yet not act on those beliefs.

So, I'll amend my statement to be:

This includes blacks who claim that blacks are superior or deserve special treatment, right?

Oppression of blacks still happens today; when blacks are stopped more often than others, and are caught with whatever crime, that goes on their criminal record which makes it harder for them to go to college or find a job.

Racial profiling makes it tougher for them in this society where a criminal record tends to create more criminals later in life.

It certainly doesn't match the traditional definition of racism. That's why they came up with a new term for it.

Did you even click on the link? Apparently not -

Quote:

Reverse discrimination is denial of equal protection of the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs (a.k.a. reverse racism)

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It certainly doesn't match the traditional definition of racism. That's why they came up with a new term for it.

Did you even click on the link? Apparently not -

Quote:

Reverse discrimination is denial of equal protection of the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs (a.k.a. reverse racism)

Cycloptichorn

Because Wiki's definition is so incomplete by focusing reverse discrimination as related to race only, it in itself is inaccurate. Reverse discrimination also is applicable to women, age, the handicapped, etc. which has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It certainly doesn't match the traditional definition of racism. That's why they came up with a new term for it.

Did you even click on the link? Apparently not -

Quote:

Reverse discrimination is denial of equal protection of the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs (a.k.a. reverse racism)

Cycloptichorn

Because Wiki's definition is so incomplete by focusing reverse discrimination as related to race only, it in itself is inaccurate. Reverse discrimination also is applicable to women, age, the handicapped, etc. which has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

Fair enough, I agree with that; their definition should be expanded to include the things you list. However, this does not invalidate my argument in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Doesn't it? Reverse Discrimination is not an "AKA" for Reverse Racism.

Quote:

Doesn't it? Reverse Discrimination is not an "AKA" for Reverse Racism.

No, it doesn't invalidate my argument; Reverse Racism is a type of Reverse discrimination. The article not fully including other types of Reverse discrimination does not meant that Reverse racism=racism.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Doesn't it? Reverse Discrimination is not an "AKA" for Reverse Racism.

No, it doesn't invalidate my argument; Reverse Racism is a type of Reverse discrimination. The article not fully including other types of Reverse discrimination does not meant that Reverse racism=racism.

Cycloptichorn

No. Reverse discrimination is intended to give advantage to certain groups that were previously deemed disadvantaged and disadvantages certain groups that previously were deemed to have enjoyed advantages.

There really is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. Racism is racism and it is always defined as any attitude or action that elevates one person or group and/or denigrates, marginalizes, diminishes, or discrminates against another based on a person's race, skin color, and/or ethnicity.

Well, you can deny that the term exists if you like, but it clearly does; and it's inconvenient for you that it does, so your motivation to deny it's existence is somewhat suspect.

I have provided my documentation for my opinion. I await your documentation for your suspicions.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you can deny that the term exists if you like, but it clearly does; and it's inconvenient for you that it does, so your motivation to deny it's existence is somewhat suspect.

No one can deny it's existence....but it's obviously a form of double-speak; meant to confuse.

but instead, that the majority owes the minority something for past racist acts. It just isn't the same as the belief that race determines inherent inequalities between people.

Funny, I don't find it to be confusing in the slightest. What is confusing about the concept?

Foxfyre wrote:

I have provided my documentation for my opinion. I await your documentation for your suspicions.

My suspicions? How am I supposed to document those? Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Funny, I don't find it to be confusing in the slightest. What is confusing about the concept?

Easy.

"Racism" in the minds of most people = evil, bad, wrong, despicable, corrupt

"Reverse Racism" in the minds of most people does not contain the same connotations, and is thought of now where near as bad as "real racism".....when in fact, it IS REAL RACISM.

Reverse Racism = Racism

Reverse discrimination is denial of equal protection of the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs (a.k.a. reverse racism),[1][2] while proponents of racial quotas and affirmative action programs generally view it as discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in order to promote members of a minority or consistently disadvantaged group (benign discrimination).