Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You failed to note that SLAVE blacks were not the "full persons" for purposes of proportional representation, and denied citizenship. However, there was no legal impairment to a free black man to enjoy sovereign prerogatives (natural and personal liberty). However, since citizenship is a step DOWN in status, and service is a privilege, the founding fathers were discriminating against free black men to serve in government.
"White Supremacy" of "white citizens" is an oxymoron.
All citizens, regardless of color, are subjects of government.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
If one wishes to be supreme, one need only change status from citizen to sovereign.
References:
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
Where the heck do you get THAT from? I never said that.
Well the truth of the matter is it all depends on the political model you subscribe to. I was referring specifically to the "traditional" political spectrum - and in that model ALL NAZI's and Fascists are on the Right and ALL Communists and Socialists are on the Left. This has been the traditional model since before WWII. Lately some folks have been pushing alternate models, some Republicans (such as Rush) have been trying to shove all the "bad folks" over to the Left in a blatant attempt to simply make themselves look better - others have more honest and valid reasons.
Certainly you can make a case that all the "totalitarian" folks belong on one side and the "Anarchy" leaning folks belong on the other. That is certainly a valid political model. In that particular model both Democrats AND Republicans are grouped together on the Left (along with the various flavors of "Totalitiarians" - who make up the extreme far end) while the Right is made up of Libertarians and (at the extreme end) Anarchists. I can accept that model if that is what you are proposing.
Generally speaking though when folks in American define Right and Left they mean Republicans and Democrats - and in THAT political model Fascists and NAZI's are on the Right and Communists and Socialists are on the Left. That's a fact - that's how the political spectrum as been defined for nearly 3/4s of a century now (see attached images).
Here is an interesting article arguing for the alternate political model:
While the article refers to the alternate model as the "True View" the fact is, either one can be true - depending on how you organize the groupings. Note however that NEITHER of these models pictures the Democrats, Communists, Socialists, NAZI's and Fascists all on one side with the Republicans on the other.
I don't need to listen to his speeches. I've heard lots of his speeches. I dare say I know far more about Hitler than you can ever hope to know since I'm a WWII History buff (and actually intended to teach it at one time) with a great uncle who was a high-ranking Wehrmacht General in the war. Sure Hitler hated the Jews, but the fact is no one is quite sure WHY he hated the Jews - certainly he didn't seem to hate during his youth. Most historians suspect that he simply got caught up in the NAZI rhetoric blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI and ended up buying into it lock, stock and barrel.
Ken
Lets forget about Hitler and go back to the first step. The guy who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum was in fact a Jew and black hater. That's the opposite of conservatism or the right, and I gave several examples why it's so, including the mention of US Christians and such. Christians lean right, and that's a fact that can't be denied, and Christians consider Israel and Jews as the God's chosen land and people.
I don't agree with you that the left and right translates to left = Democrat, and right = Republicans. It isn't so. For example, conservatives consider Bush a conservative in a couple of issues, but liberal on most (big government, spending, and a whole bunch of other issues). The same goes for McCain, which is viewed as follows: Obama, then Hillary slightly to the right of Obama, and then McCain slightly right of Hillary.
True conservatives aren't necessarily Republican. A lot of conservatives have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades now, and are "undeclared." Then there are some Democrats who are conservative compared to other Democrats. Lieberman, a former Democrat comes to mind, but there are others. The "progressives" seem to be to the left as they come.
Lets forget about Hitler and go back to the first step. The guy who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum was in fact a Jew and black hater. That's the opposite of conservatism or the right, and I gave several examples why it's so, including the mention of US Christians and such. Christians lean right, and that's a fact that can't be denied, and Christians consider Israel and Jews as the God's chosen land and people.
I don't agree with you that the left and right translates to left = Democrat, and right = Republicans. It isn't so. For example, conservatives consider Bush a conservative in a couple of issues, but liberal on most (big government, spending, and a whole bunch of other issues). The same goes for McCain, which is viewed as follows: Obama, then Hillary slightly to the right of Obama, and then McCain slightly right of Hillary.
True conservatives aren't necessarily Republican. A lot of conservatives have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades now, and are "undeclared." Then there are some Democrats who are conservative compared to other Democrats. Lieberman, a former Democrat comes to mind, but there are others. The "progressives" seem to be to the left as they come.
Then you are choosing to follow the 2nd political model then.
(Didn't I just post that model?) - and that's fine, but keep in mind that that is the "alternate" model - and not the one most commonly used here in the US. The common model is Democrat on the Left, Republican on the Right (and Communists on the Left, NAZI's/Facists on the Right). That is the political setup most people subscribe to. The fact that YOU don't buy into that model is a personal decision by YOU. It's not necessarily a BAD decision as the model DOES have it's strong points (in some ways it's actually BETTER than the Traditional model) - but that does NOT change the fact that your view is not the majority view. You are choosing to subscribe to a non-traditional political model. It's doesn't mean the model is wrong, it just means it's not the TRADITIONAL view.
In regards to Christians being on the Right - that again gets kind of murky - especially if you are using the "new" model you subscribe to. In that model folks who promote maximum personal freedom are on the Right while those who promote maximum state control are on the Left. In that particular political model pushing your Christianity into politics does not automatically place you on the Right - in fact it more than likely places you on the Left. I hate to break it to you, but Christianity has generally NOT been a force for freedom in this world. It's certainly been a force for TRADITION - but that's not FREEDOM, they are two different and distinct things. That's why the Founding Fathers didn't set up a state religion. They had seen too much of what a State Religion can do to CURB freedom. One need only look at all the early settlers in America who came here to ESCAPE persecution by other Christians to know that. Christianity has been GENERALLY (not entirely) a force for TRADITION - that's why it's one of the reasons Christians mostly are grouped Right in the traditional model (not because they promote FREEDOM, but because the promote TRADITIONAL values). Alternately, the fact of the matter is that in truth there are PLENTY of Christians who are Democrats. Is Rev Wright not a Christian? Oh, you'll argue of course that he's not a REAL Christian - as if YOU have any right to define what makes a "real" Christian (). The second reason that Christians are generally allied with Republicans in this country is simply the fact that the Republicans were better at ORGANIZING their religious members than the Democrats were - not that Democrats didn't HAVE religious members. They have plenty of religious members, they just didn't mobilize them the way Republicans did.
The Traditional political model generally emphasizes the difference between Traditionalists (ie Conservative - meaning "maintaining things the way they have been") and those seeking change to something different. THIS is why Christians tend to fall on the Right in this model. It's also the reason NAZI's, KKK members etc fall into that category as well - they want to return to "traditional" America - back in the days when White and Blacks didn't intermarry etc. All those people want a return to the "good old days". Left Wingers on the other hand push for a break from the past - for a new and different world. This is why they push for things like Socialized Medicine etc. The new model on the other hand, emphasizes the difference between Freedom and Control. This is why Totalitarians (of ALL flavors) are grouped together on ONE side, while the other side is built around those who want little or no control and more personal freedom (with THEIR extreme end being held by Anarchists). This is the view the Libertarians push - and I don't think too many of those Libertarians really want to be associated with Pat Robertson and the like - they certainly don't seem to on THIS board.
All of this brings up the fact that BOTH of these political models are imperfect - for a reason that is quite simple: these are JUST MODELS. They are graphic representations that ATTEMPT to organize various political philosophies into some kind of order. That's all the concepts of "Right" and "Left" are. Do you know WHERE the political terms "Right" and "Left" came from? They came out of the French Revolution where "Left" meant the Revolutionaries and "Right" meant the Monarchists - so by the original definition, folks on the Right believed there should be a king. This just goes to show that what is considered Right and Left is changing all the time - as are political parties. Prior to the Civil Rights movement, the south was dominated by Democrats - who espoused traditional Conservative views. Those people would be Republicans today.
Everything changes, nothing ever stays static. You say "I don't agree with you that the left and right translates to left = Democrat, and right = Republicans.". By that you are rejecting the traditional political model and are pushing for a non-traditional political model - and that's fine, just keep in mind that most folks don't subscribe to that model and when MOST PEOPLE in America talk Right and Left they mean Republican and Democrat. And that's a fact.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-13-2009 at 09:09 AM..
Note too that in the new model Rightwingers don't seem to favor strong support for Israel - certainly Ron Paul doesn't - nor does the general Libertarian Platform - that's a Neocon thing, not a Libertarian one. That's because Libertarians don't believe in US interventionist involvement overseas - so does this put Libertarians on the Left because they don't promote strong support for Israel????? Of course not.
This is why your singular focus on determining who is Right and Left by a "support for Israel" litmus test is flawed. The fact is, support, neutrality or hatred of Israel is NOT a determinant for whether or not someone is on the Right or the Left - not in EITHER model (not in the Traditional NOR in the New model).
You know I was listening to Bush Sr. talk about Sonia Sotomayor and I have to wonder if Rush Limbaugh will toss poppy Bush under the bus. I know some will chide me but listening to Bush Sr. was rather refreshing as the man spoke intelligently, well measured and rationally. I have to wonder how many of the elder Republicans in the party feel about the direction the party is headed.
You know I was listening to Bush Sr. talk about Sonia Sotomayor and I have to wonder if Rush Limbaugh will toss poppy Bush under the bus. I know some will chide me but listening to Bush Sr. was rather refreshing as the man spoke intelligently, well measured and rationally. I have to wonder how many of the elder Republicans in the party feel about the direction the party is headed.
Yeah, I agree. I suspect they are not too happy.
I also have to say that I've grown to like and admire Bush Sr much more over the years since he's no longer President - even though I didn't vote for him. I've been particularly impressed by the way him and Bill Clinton paired up on the humanitarian efforts they've led.
Ok, I'm a "left wing liberal" I don't have the slightest problem with disassociating myself from the ultra left, be they communist, eco-terrorist, or any fringe movement who advocates violence to advance their ideas, but it seems that time after time, conservatives have a real tough time doing the same regarding violent anti-abortionist, white supremacist, or general ultra right lunatics. I would think that an intellectually honest conservative wouldn't have the slightest problem with castigating the fringe elements of their political side of the aisle, so what's up with that?
From what I can see, you're the exception. Left-wingers look the other way at left wing extremists as well.
You know I was listening to Bush Sr. talk about Sonia Sotomayor and I have to wonder if Rush Limbaugh will toss poppy Bush under the bus. I know some will chide me but listening to Bush Sr. was rather refreshing as the man spoke intelligently, well measured and rationally. I have to wonder how many of the elder Republicans in the party feel about the direction the party is headed.
You know, even though I lean left, I respect Bush Sr. quite a bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). The second reason that Christians are generally allied with Republicans in this country is simply the fact that the Republicans were better at ORGANIZING their religious members than the Democrats were - not that Democrats didn't HAVE religious members. They have plenty of religious members, they just didn't mobilize them the way Republicans did.
