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 element of the Teas you come from -- the libertarians out West -- didn't have a home in the 70s. They were fighting for one in the Republican Party, and they eventually won, but they by no means were the dominant force at that time. They managed to get Goldwater at the top of the presidential ticket in 1964, but remember he went down in flames ... even many Republicans voted against him that year. True believing libertarians were just as likely to be independents as Republicans. Figures like Rand Paul would have been third party at that time.
Fast forward to now. If you're a pragmatic, non ideologue who is pro-business and pro-Science and you favor a sensible foreign policy (in that you support using military force if necessary, but it's not your first choice), who do you vote for? Well, in 1979, you were probably a Republican because kooks like Carter were a bit too doe-eyed for you. In 2015, you support Clinton. You're not looking for a revolution -- those are for children and fools -- you just want someone who sail the ship of state to a safe harbor. If that's your goal, Hill's your gal. She's quite moderate in pretty much everything.
Not so; Goldwater was largely the product of an intellectual conservative faction led and exemplified by William Buckley. Buckley's criticisms, embodied in the book God and Man at Yale, alienated the old, fence-straddling Republican establishment.
Buckley's new coalition recruited heavily among two groups: (1) young campus conservatives, who usually read Ayn Rand more than the Bible, and (2) the traditional Republican clientele of small businessmen and farmers, many of whom were squeezed by increasing government regulation such as rising costs for "employment peripherals" (workmens comp and unemployment insurance, for example). That message played well in rural and smaller communities where the Democrats' traditional big-city and labor union base was promising too much.
There are, for better or for worse, millions of people who stand by religious and nationalistic values; the vast majority of them are nothing like the crude, oversimplified stereotypes sold to impressionable Millennials swaddled in oversensitized classrooms, but it only takes a few idiots to convey the impression the Lefties want.
But the behavior of ACORN, OWS, BLM and various other militants at the bottom of the Democrats' compost pile is every bit as revolting to many people on the other side of the fence. The real problem is that the blue-collar right's resentments over immigration and the breakdown of the consensus that shaped industry (sometimes unionized) outside the large cities can't be addressed by either party -- a return to the mercantilism that fueled the two World Wars and endured because of the devastation in every place that counted except North America simply isn't going to happen; neither Trump nor Hillary can deliver what the "casualties" are seeking, and Sanders would simply accelerate the process that leads those with more economic knowledge to run things short-term -- "to cause Atlas to shrug".
Those of us who understand the rules and have the education will get by -- easily. But economically, we are likely to be "stuck in second gear" for a long time, and conditions (from a relative, and envious point of view) will continue to worsen among the malcontents who, with the help of the demagogues, will go looking for scapegoats. And that threatens not only the potential targets, but the principles which have underwritten our progress. New opportunities are emerging in other parts of the world, often under some of the values we're discarding. But the losses here are are a sad testimony to the power of liars and manipulators.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-08-2015 at 01:28 AM..
See this is like social Marxism, Everything is the same no matter what. It certainly does matter per world and American history and the state of affairs. We've already agreed the person was being insulting, but you are taking it out of context. If someone doesn't want a muslim as their president in their western European based majority Christian nation, who are you to say they're wrong. Some people don't or do want a devout Christians, agnostic, atheist, jewish etc President. You don't get to decide for them.
I get you want everyone to be PC and if they're not they must be stupid hicks. The liberals get to decide what's PC and what's not. No thanks. Many liberals openly say Christians should not be President.
You know the Constitution strictly forbids religious tests as a prerequisite for holding office, right? So what "some people" want in regards to the President's religion is irrelevant. If a Muslim or an atheist or an agnostic or Jew were elected, there is nothing preventing them from being President.
And I want to see some citation on that last sentence, because most liberals count themselves as Christians.
You know the Constitution strictly forbids religious tests as a prerequisite for holding office, right? So what "some people" want in regards to the President's religion is irrelevant. If a Muslim or an atheist or an agnostic or Jew were elected, there is nothing preventing them from being President.
Not the point. The constitution doesn't tell people what prerequisites they can use in deciding to vote (or where immigration is allowed from for that matter). Liberals and progressives can't tell people what yardstick they should use or not use deciding to vote for a candidate either.
Quote:
And I want to see some citation on that last sentence, because most liberals count themselves as Christians.
There's a lot of hostility to Christianity from the left. The left is really tearing it Carson for that reason. Obama claims he's Christian but many Christians considered him hostile.
Not so; Goldwater was largely the product of an intellectual conservative faction led and exemplified by William Buckley. Buckley's criticisms, embodied in the book God and Man at Yale, alienated the old, fence-straddling Republican establishment.
Buckley's new coalition recruited heavily among two groups: (1) young campus conservatives, who usually read Ayn Rand more than the Bible, and (2) the traditional Republican clientele of small businessmen and farmers, many of whom were squeezed by increasing government regulation such as rising costs for "employment peripherals" (workmens comp and unemployment insurance, for example). That message played well in rural and smaller communities where the Democrats' traditional big-city and labor union base was promising too much.
I'm not sure why you say "not so" here. I think your comments are cogent and factual and do not contradict what I said. The libertarian movement, which is national but has its strongest hold in the West, overlaps with Buckley -- who referred to himself as a libertarian sometimes and a conservative other times. BUckley and his acolytes were broader than just libertarians, but the two worked together to form the intellectual wing of the Republican party, which is still part of today's conservative coalition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
There are, for better or for worse, millions of people who stand by religious and nationalistic values; the vast majority of them are nothing like the crude, oversimplified stereotypes sold to impressionable Millennials swaddled in oversensitized classrooms, but it only takes a few idiots to convey the impression the Lefties want.
The underlined sentence is too overstated in my opinion, but I basically agree with this too. I'd modify it to read: "The majority of whom are not the crude, oversimplified stereotypes.." Instead of being "nothing like" the stereotypes -- they do somewhat resemble them hence their persistence, but you're right -- there are a lot of religious, nationalist conservatives who are nowhere near the cartoon boogeymen made up to scare the millennials. My father was a conservative Christian who voted Republican from Reagan on. He was a good man. My only real issue with his politics was his ignorance about how much the people and policies he supported benefited the wealthy, powerful and secular and how little they did for the issues he really cared about. He voted for freedom from government and the right to practice his traditional faith without harassment - what he got was deregulation of business and super monopolies which drove small business men like him out of the market place.
Small businessmen do not have representation at the moment. Policies that favor small business do not usually favor its biggest competitor -- big business. If you run a small mom and pop hardware store in Middletown, Indiana, the Democrats are not your enemy - Home Depot is. Home Depot's has plenty of friends in both the Democratic and Republican parties. When it comes to elections, corporations are in the very favorable position of heads they win, tails they win even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
The real problem is that the blue-collar right's resentments over immigration and the breakdown of the consensus that shaped industry (sometimes unionized) outside the large cities can't be addressed by either party -- a return to the mercantilism that fueled the two World Wars and endured because of the devastation in every place that counted except North America simply isn't going to happen; neither Trump nor Hillary can deliver what the "casualties" are seeking, and Sanders would simply accelerate the process that leads those with more economic knowledge to run things short-term -- "to cause Atlas to shrug".
I disagree here. You think if Sanders won the all powerful rich people would take their ball and go home or "shrug the globe" to use your analogy. The problem with that is that they don't own the ball and they sure as hell don't shoulder the world. The people do. They always have and they always will. Power lies with the majority. The majority is and will forever be comprised of humble men and women. If they voted for someone like Sanders for president and for Democratic Socialist majorities in the House, Senate and state legislatures, billionaires and Koch brother types would hate it, but they would shut up and do as their told. They have no other option. One billion is better than no billion. They need access to the American marketplace to make money. The government, acting on behalf of the working and middle classes, could and should restrict access to that market in ways that benefit the majority of Americans. That, and pretty much that alone, would help the American people - not Trump, not Clinton.
Not the point. The constitution doesn't tell people what prerequisites they can use in deciding to vote (or where immigration is allowed from for that matter). Liberals and progressives can't tell people what yardstick they should use or not use deciding to vote for a candidate either.
Correct, people can use any reason to decide who they want to vote for, no matter how foolish or irrelevant it is. Such as the color of their skin, their religion or their gender. But if those are your primary reasons for choosing one candidate over another, your reasons are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
There's a lot of hostility to Christianity from the left.The left is really tearing it Carson for that reason. Obama claims he's Christian but many Christians considered him hostile.
No, there isn't. There's some hostility from some people on the left toward Christians who hold certain beliefs, but guess what? There's plenty of liberal Christian denominations that don't hold those beliefs. They're not facing any hostility and they're still Christians. Most "leftists" consider themselves Christian. See, your type of Christian is not the ONLY type of Christian.
One thing I've noticed about your posts in this thread... You seem to have the idea that people have to tolerate intolerance because no one has the right to criticize racists for their views. Like bigots should have some kind of protected status because their viewpoints are just as valid as everyone else's. Except they're not. Be as bigoted and backwards as you want, but that doesn't mean people have to respect your viewpoint and it doesn't make you exempt from criticism.
Any anti-racist is in reality an anti-white.Anti-racist is a code for anti-white.Where is diversity in Africa, Asia, lefts desire diversity only in white Christian countries and flood them with Muslim immigrants.
Africa is for the Africans, Asia is for the Asians, White countries are for everybody?Chinese immigration and forced assimilation in Tibet is called genocide.Merkel's flood with tens millions of Muslim immigrants is called diversity!
A True Conservative must firstly care for own folk, not for those from countries.
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-08-2015 at 08:06 AM..
Reason: language
Any anti-racist is in reality an anti-white.Anti-racist is a code for anti-white.Where is diversity in Africa, Asia, lefts desire diversity only in white Christian countries and flood them with Muslim immigrants.
Africa is for the Africans, Asia is for the Asians, White countries are for everybody?Chinese immigration and forced assimilation in Tibet is called genocide.Merkel's flood with tens millions of Muslim immigrants is called diversity!
A True Conservative must firstly care for own folk, not for those from countries.
Guess that means North America is for the Native Americans and you'll be heading back to Europe soon?
Correct, people can use any reason to decide who they want to vote for, no matter how foolish or irrelevant it is. Such as the color of their skin, their religion or their gender. But if those are your primary reasons for choosing one candidate over another, your reasons are stupid.
That's your simplistic and closed-minded opinion. The very definition of bigotry. It doesn't matter what you think is stupid. I think progressive liberal beliefs are stupid and we have proof from observing them in action.
Quote:
No, there isn't. There's some hostility from some people on the left toward
Christians who hold certain beliefs, but guess what? There's plenty of liberal
Christian denominations that don't hold those beliefs. They're not facing any
hostility and they're still Christians. Most "leftists" consider themselves
Christian. See, your type of Christian is not the ONLY type of Christian.
Yeah you can be a good little Christian as long as you reinterpret Christian beliefs inline with what liberals dictate. Must accept homosexuality, must except Islam as equivalent, must accept abortion, feminism etc.
Quote:
One thing I've noticed about your posts in this thread... You seem to have the idea that people have to tolerate intolerance because no one has the right to criticize racists for their views. Like bigots should have some kind of protected status because their viewpoints are just as valid as everyone else's. Except they're not. Be as bigoted and backwards as you want, but that doesn't mean people have to respect your viewpoint and it doesn't make you exempt from criticism.
You liberals like to label. You like to declare liberal beliefs and agendas as if they are unquestionable science or religion and laws. You don't see the hypocrisy in calling someone else the bigot whose ideas you just can't tolerate lol.
That's your simplistic and closed-minded opinion. The very definition of bigotry. It doesn't matter what you think is stupid. I think progressive liberal beliefs are stupid and we have proof from observing them in action.
Why should I care what someone who tolerates and sticks up for racists thinks of me? I think racist beliefs are stupid and we have proof from observing them in action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Yeah you can be a good little Christian as long as you reinterpret Christian beliefs inline with what liberals dictate. Must accept homosexuality, must except Islam as equivalent, must accept abortion, feminism etc.
Pfft. You're the one taking the position liberals aren't Christian. Or do Christians who accept homosexuality, Islam, abortion or feminism not count as real Christians? I'll make this really simple for you: There is no hatred of Christians as a whole coming form the left. They're not being criticized for being Christians. They're being criticized for certain beliefs and actions liberals find offensive. Which is their right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
You liberals like to label. You like to declare liberal beliefs and agendas as if they are unquestionable science or religion and laws. You don't see the hypocrisy in calling someone else the bigot whose ideas you just can't tolerate lol.
Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. Not accepting your stance that racism and racist viewpoints are beyond criticism because people have the right to an opinion does not make me a bigot. I'll accept they have the right to an opinion. But I have my own right to an opinion, and my opinion is their opinion sucks.
Yes, she should have corrected him. Obama is not black, he's mixed race. Still, many Dems make the same mistake.
Except that Obama ONLY claims his blackness, "If I had a son he would like like him".
Why hasn't he EVER said that when a white kid was shot?
Why did he ONLY attend a "black" church?
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.
