Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

You had a fellow rightist recently exhibit his ignorance by posting that the US Constitution applies only to US citizens. “Period.”

Clearly conservatives are in no position to ‘correct’ anyone about anything.

You really haven't examined this thread, have you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My "case for LBJ being a racist" comes directly from the world's foremost expert on LBJ.
That would be his biographer, Robert Caro.


Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.” Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .


Need more?
His policies, though, were more polemics than philanthropies. His racial attitudes are suggested by his biographer, Robert Dallek, who quotes him defending the Supreme Court appointment of the very well-known Thurgood Marshall, rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, by saying to a staff member, "Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******."
http://query.nytimes.co/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED6163EF932A15754C0A967958260


Does that make clear the rationale for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?



Let's be clear here, Sloth....either you realize fully that the Democrat Party and LBJ was the party of slavery, and segregation for a full century after the Civil War....or, as I've described you before, you have an intellect the rival of garden tools.


I believe you fully recognize your vulnerability on this issue, and that is why you have attempted to slander Senator Goldwater.




Happiness will be seeing your picture on a milk carton.

I never said anything about Goldwater other than the FACT that he fits the description of the original quote that is the subject of your thread.

If Lyndon Johnson is a racist for not supporting a federal law against lynching, then anyone who ever opposed federal hate crime legislation is a racist, agreed?

When are you going to tell us whether or not you agree with Goldwater's position on the civil rights act of 1964?

Good to see you scooting off with your tail between your legs, and no longer suggesting some imaginary link between Goldwater and a desire for segregation.

So...we agree that LBJ was the racist and the same for 100 years of Democrats?



I understand your desire to recoup some saving of face.....but this is just as absurd:
"If Lyndon Johnson is a racist for not supporting a federal law against lynching, then anyone who ever opposed federal hate crime legislation is a racist, agreed?"


I am opposed to thought crime legislation.
Only a Liberal would support such, and base it on what a criminal was supposedly thinking.
Next...restrictions on free speech?


In your collective role as the 'white-warriors-against-racism,' I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

Then you oppose federal laws against lynching. That makes you whatever you seem to think LBJ was.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So, you are retreating from the position, the claim, that I equated corporatism with capitalism.

You attacked the attack on corporatism by interjecting capitalism into the debate. You countered attacked an attack on corporatism, by defending capitalism. You equated the two.

There was no such attack.

He attacked corporations.

Need me to explain the dif?

corporatism's fight is partly about the global rights of corporations. The poster mentioned 'global rights of corporations' and you responded to that as if capitalism was attacked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never said anything about Goldwater other than the FACT that he fits the description of the original quote that is the subject of your thread.

If Lyndon Johnson is a racist for not supporting a federal law against lynching, then anyone who ever opposed federal hate crime legislation is a racist, agreed?

When are you going to tell us whether or not you agree with Goldwater's position on the civil rights act of 1964?

Good to see you scooting off with your tail between your legs, and no longer suggesting some imaginary link between Goldwater and a desire for segregation.

So...we agree that LBJ was the racist and the same for 100 years of Democrats?



I understand your desire to recoup some saving of face.....but this is just as absurd:
"If Lyndon Johnson is a racist for not supporting a federal law against lynching, then anyone who ever opposed federal hate crime legislation is a racist, agreed?"


I am opposed to thought crime legislation.
Only a Liberal would support such, and base it on what a criminal was supposedly thinking.
Next...restrictions on free speech?


In your collective role as the 'white-warriors-against-racism,' I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

Then you oppose federal laws against lynching. That makes you whatever you seem to think LBJ was.

I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You attacked the attack on corporatism by interjecting capitalism into the debate. You countered attacked an attack on corporatism, by defending capitalism. You equated the two.

There was no such attack.

He attacked corporations.

Need me to explain the dif?

corporatism's fight is partly about the global rights of corporations. The poster mentioned 'global rights of corporations' and you responded to that as if capitalism was attacked.

1.Corporatism is the incestuous relationship between big business and big government.
One of those urban myths is that the Left battles big business on behalf of the ‘little guy’….those greedy ‘robber barons!’ Of course, as is true of so many ‘truths’….it is false.


2. The actuality is that big business knows that the greatest threat is not government or its regulation, but competition with smaller, more innovative firms. So, when the opportunity arises to cooperate with government in crafting new regulation, big business lobbyists, rather than opposing ‘reform,’ they write the laws for their own advantages!

a. The truth about the Left’s push for ever-greater regulation of private industry is that, rather than to protect consumers against big business…it is designed to make big business become part of their political machine.

b. And big business will pay whatever it takes to join.



3. Example: The regulatory reforms of the meat packing industry in the early 1900s, inspired by Upton Sinclair’s muckraking book “The Jungle,” were enacted with the enthusiastic cooperation of America’s largest meat packing corporations- because they knew that only the largest could afford to comply with the new regulations. Thus, the smaller ones were driven out of business.

a. Upton Sinclair: “The federal inspection of meat was historically established at the packer’s request. It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.” William J. Chambliss, “Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions,” p. 5


4. Another example is the Interstate Commerce Commission, demanded by railroad magnates, who wanted protection from smaller railroad lines. The first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was set up to regulate railroad freight rates in the 1880s. Soon thereafter, Richard Olney, a prominent railroad lawyer, came to Washington to serve as Grover Cleveland's attorney general, stated in an 1892 letter: "The Commission . . . is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. . . . The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it." Opinion: On 'Regulatory Capture' - WSJ.com


5. In "Three New Deals," Schivelbusch clearly identifies the corporatism of the nazis, the fascists, and the New Dealers.
Noting the areas of convergence among the New Deal, Fascism and National Socialism, all three were considered postliberal state-capitalist, or state-socialist systems more closely related to one another than to classic Anglo-French liberalism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Roosevelt were seen as examples of plebiscite-based leadership, autocrats who came to power by varying but legal means, with socially oriented policies of collective consolidation.

a. Were it not for the revelations of WWII, many of the Left today would still claim lineage with Fascists and National Socialists.

 

[there4eyeM]

It's possible someone who thinks of her/himself as a 'liberal' might think the same way. I can't speak for such people. I do enough of my own thinking to not immediately throw others into a class simply out of disagreement. If you want to go by things this hypocritical lackey wrote, go ahead. I go by what I witnessed.

What you were told to witness.

Is that supposed to be an intelligent comeback or something? What is its meaning? 'Told to witness'? You mean, like witness for Jesus?
I know what I saw at the time; a smarmy low-life Nixon boot licker. You demean yourself in defending the reprehensible creature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good to see you scooting off with your tail between your legs, and no longer suggesting some imaginary link between Goldwater and a desire for segregation.

So...we agree that LBJ was the racist and the same for 100 years of Democrats?



I understand your desire to recoup some saving of face.....but this is just as absurd:
"If Lyndon Johnson is a racist for not supporting a federal law against lynching, then anyone who ever opposed federal hate crime legislation is a racist, agreed?"


I am opposed to thought crime legislation.
Only a Liberal would support such, and base it on what a criminal was supposedly thinking.
Next...restrictions on free speech?


In your collective role as the 'white-warriors-against-racism,' I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

Then you oppose federal laws against lynching. That makes you whatever you seem to think LBJ was.

I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

That's idiocy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

And still, we have yet to hear one conservative say 'no' to the above question.

Have we?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body"....Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[10] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

Nonsense.

The judicial record indicates that liberals, not conservatives, have the more accurate understanding of the principles enshrined in the Constitution, where conservatives seek to expand the size and power of government by undermining citizens’ privacy rights, by denying the due process rights of immigrants, and by denying same-sex couples’ equal protection rights with regard to access to marriage law.

DOMA, for example, is a testament to conservative authoritarianism, where the right seeks to deny marriage equality in the states by using the power of government to single out a particular class of persons and subject them to discriminatory measures.

4. Liberalism/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

And here the OP exhibits her ignorance.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCullogh v. Maryland (1819). ‘But that’s not in the Constitution’ is a naïve and failed argument:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Indeed.

And, sadly, it is conservatives, for the most part, who stand in defiance of the Constitution, its case law, and the Framers’ principles it protects.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where PoliChic is wrong, wrong, wrong: Bull Connor was NOT voted out of office. Conservatives embrace of Corporatism goes to their defense world wide of Corporate rights, which hides behind a distorted free market mantra.

Democrats weren't the slave holders and segregationist racist bigots, Southern White Conservative Christians in the Republican Democratic, later in the Democratic party and now in the Republican party were. Some say the racist bigots as a sect in the current GOP are alive and doing well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

And still, we have yet to hear one conservative say 'no' to the above question.

Have we?

If conservatives were to be honest and consistent in the context of their support of state laws enacted to ‘nullify’ Federal firearms regulations, the answer would have to be ‘yes.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's possible someone who thinks of her/himself as a 'liberal' might think the same way. I can't speak for such people. I do enough of my own thinking to not immediately throw others into a class simply out of disagreement. If you want to go by things this hypocritical lackey wrote, go ahead. I go by what I witnessed.

What you were told to witness.

Is that supposed to be an intelligent comeback or something? What is its meaning? 'Told to witness'? You mean, like witness for Jesus?
I know what I saw at the time; a smarmy low-life Nixon boot licker. You demean yourself in defending the reprehensible creature.

You fail to understand context.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where PoliChic is wrong, wrong, wrong: Bull Connor was NOT voted out of office. Conservatives embrace of Corporatism goes to their defense world wide of Corporate rights, which hides behind a distorted free market mantra.

Democrats weren't the slave holders and segregationist racist bigots, Southern White Conservative Christians in the Republican Democratic, later in the Democratic party and now in the Republican party were. Some say the racist bigots as a sect in the current GOP are alive and doing well.

It's sickening to me, not only how wrong you are....but how you creeps rush to negs....even when you are dead wrong.


Again: "...Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. "


"Months later, Connor won another term, but was defeated in 1972, putting an end to his political career."
Bull Connor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is.
I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then you oppose federal laws against lynching. That makes you whatever you seem to think LBJ was.

I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

That's idiocy.

Well, you're the idiot who'd recognize it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then you oppose federal laws against lynching. That makes you whatever you seem to think LBJ was.

I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

That's idiocy.

"...simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime."




Why would anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate 'racist' oppose this idea?

Clearly, the offense involves two races....
...no denying that.

Don't you want to prevent racist attacks???

You do, don't you?
Or....


...you could be a closet racist.



Heck....don't you want to hold both races equally culpable?
Maybe you are a racist....

 

[Daktoria]

No offense, but the OP seems very naive.

Liberals aren't ignorant. They know what they're doing. Their point is they just enjoy seeing conservatives' heads spin in correcting them.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal, there are two things you need to remember:

One, burden of proof is on the affirmative, and

Two, possibilities are not necessities.

After that, you just ask a liberal to prove how facts imply values, and you remind a liberal that a possible interpretation of facts is not a necessary interpretation of facts.

After that, liberals usually call you impractical for just not getting it.

Then, you can call them psychopaths for ignoring how what's practical to someone isn't automatically practical to everyone.

 

[freedombecki]

Well no PC.

It seems you have no idea what Conservatism is..

In a nutshell, conservatives support a powerful government that favors the rich and assures that the population will be of the same ethnic, cultural and religious background.

They support tradition and are averse to change of any sort.

With all due respect, your definition of "conservatism," Sallow, is made-up and untrue.

Sallow is a lunatic delusional lying fake teet sucking brainwashed liberal. Oh and he deserves no respect.

Actually he is neither a lunatic nor delusional, and neither are conservatives. We favor citizens in business having authority over business matters, and Sallow favors a different perspective to give government that power.

We can't go back to 1964 in American History, but we need to delineate where one power stops and the other starts. I think federal power should stop at the Bill of Rights. Mr. Sallow will likely support his party on certain issues. Those issues are not an option out in the country lands where controling mammals that would otherwise raid the chicken house are a big issue for some who raise poultry. A vegan in a large city may have zero sympathy for those kinds of issues.

That's why we need a reasonably flexible central government in which regional and state rights are best governing their type of businesses.

Another thing we need is less polarity. Both sides have to yield at a certain point to another perspective.

A "myway or the highway" is bad politically for a nation as large as ours. The nation's ivy league colleges are not helping matters with all-or-none liberalism.

This post is not criticism of either side or any person. It is just to acknowledge that we are all in this USA together, and trouble starts when we marginalize people rather than concepts that do or do not work.

Just my perspective.

 

[Redfish]

I suggest you endorse what a former mayor of NYC countered with: simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime.
Far more objective.

You'll support that, won't you?

That's idiocy.

"...simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime."




Why would anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate 'racist' oppose this idea?

Clearly, the offense involves two races....
...no denying that.

Don't you want to prevent racist attacks???

You do, don't you?
Or....


...you could be a closet racist.



Heck....don't you want to hold both races equally culpable?
Maybe you are a racist....

why is it worse if someone kills you because he doesn't like your skin color than if he kills you to steal your money? either way you are dead and he is a murderer.

why does it matter what was in his mind when he killed you?

Do you really believe that you can legislate thought?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's idiocy.

"...simply make any crime committed by a member of one race against a member of another race a hate-crime."




Why would anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate 'racist' oppose this idea?

Clearly, the offense involves two races....
...no denying that.

Don't you want to prevent racist attacks???

You do, don't you?
Or....


...you could be a closet racist.



Heck....don't you want to hold both races equally culpable?
Maybe you are a racist....

why is it worse if someone kills you because he doesn't like your skin color than if he kills you to steal your money? either way you are dead and he is a murderer.

why does it matter what was in his mind when he killed you?

Do you really believe that you can legislate thought?

Are you suggesting that I support what Liberals call 'hate crimes'?

On the contrary.

In fact, the post which you've quoted suggests the more reasonable alternative to same.


I provided the idea so that our friend Sloth can explain his resistence to the plan.