Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[Uncensored2008]

Were the Segregationists, ideologically speaking, Conservatives or Liberals? Forget party affiliation, just concentrate of ideology. Was the whole notion of segregation something embraced by ideological Conservatives or Liberals?

They were leftists. The same attitude the left has today, that people are wards of the state, to be disposed of as they see fit, rather than free agents who make their own way.

 

[Foxfyre]

The absence of government results in a warlord class. They fill the vacuum.

When Conservatives wipe away consumer protection, workplace safety regulations, environmental regulations, fair pay legislation and other rules keeping the power elite in check, do you suppose those with the economic power will suddenly have a Road to Damascus moment and realize that keeping the environment, their workers and their neighborhoods safe and clean is a good thing to do? Or will they go for the gusto and turn back the clock so someone like Charles Dickens and Andrew Carnegie would feel right at home?

Are you really convinced that conservatives will wipe away consumer protection? Or will they make it something more in fitting with a free society? Is it really necessary to anticipate and spell out on packaging every single thing that could be a negative in the use of that product to keep the manufacturer safe from litigation? Or is it enough to state that any use of the product other than for what it is intended can be harmful or dangerous? Isn't it sufficient to put out the information on proper food handling and safety and expect the people to be intelligent and literate enough to read and comprehend it? WASH produce before preparing. Wash your hands after handling raw poultry and meat, etc. Do not serve undercooked poultry or pork, etc. Any product used at a temperature less than necessary to kill harmful bacteria, etc. can harbor harmful organisms.

Conservatives are not opposed to necessary standards for food processing, contents, and handling that the consumer has no way to deermine for himself/herself. We are not opposed to spot inspections to reasonably protect the public. Such promote the general welfare.

But must we have a 20 second recital of all the possible side effects of a pharmaceutical advertised on television? Or shouldn't a blanket statement that this, as do most medications, has the potention for unpleasant, dangerous, or fatal side effects. Shouldn't a "Read the label carefully and consult your physician before taking" be sufficient as to what the government requires?

Should a gowernment have the power to dictate to parents they can't pack a sack lunch for their kid? I would rather they focus on parents who send their kids to school without breakfast or lunch money and make sure those children don't need to be removed from that home for their own safety or welfare.

Conservativism is a careful balance to secure the rights of the people which would include regulations to keep people from intentionally selling products and services with hidden dangers that the consumer has no way of knowing but not regulation that dictates what choices the people will otherwise have. There is a careful balance to be maintained in what promotes the general welfare vs taking away the opportunities, choices, and options of the people who govern themselves.

I think that Conservatives will follow the dictates of industry over science where consumer protection is concerned. If big pharmaceuticals want to advertise on TV (and is this even a good idea?), then big pharma will direct their lobbying groups to tell the congressmen that they are being paid to do as they are told and roll over. Where does that leave the consumer? Without adequate protection of law, the money calls the tune and if that tune is a funeral dirge, so be it.

Calling the erosion of consumer protection "freedom" and "opportunity" is not only cynical, but it dangerously erodes the meaning of "freedom" and "opportunity".

Trial lawyers have been holding the reins so long that they must have callouses two inches thick. Someone overdoses on a prescription medication or some pharmaceutical company tweaks the results of their studies and voilà! A potential lawsuit and another big settlement (to be divided 70/30 in favor of the lawyer). If proper safeguards were in place, perhaps none of that would be necessary. But trial lawyers pay for congressmen just like other companies. In the end, they all make out well. Only the citizen is harmed.

As a conservatism I have long been lobbying for an iron clad law or constitutional amendment that prevents Congress or anybody in the federal government to make any law or special order or issue any regulation or allocate any funds that benefits any individual, entity, group, or demographic that does not also equally benefit all regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status.

I am fairly confident that few of my fellow conservatives will not agree to that law as it helps to defang the legal profession from predatory behavior, removes corporate funds that will no longer be able to buy favors, and takes the lobbyists mostly out of the equation.

Again we do not in any capacity intend to remove consumer protections that need to be there. In fact we will work harder to ensure truth in advertising in all respects in which people could be misled to their detriment and we won't back off any role of the government to promote the general welfare by protecting us or at least alerting us to dangers when we cannot do that for ourselves.

But apart from recognizing and protecting the unalienable rights of every man, woman, and child, we will not give government the power to dictate how we will or will not be allowed to organize our society and live our lives.

 

[kwc57]

Lordy I'll be glad when the children are put down for their naps so that the grown ups can have an adult conversation.

Look, you condescending fool. This entire thread was based on a bullshit proposition that your political ideology is so morally superior to ours that you deserve to be allowed to secede. Yes, that is what you're advocating, secession. Then you've spent page after page stupidly and blindly repeating the same condescending, bullshit arguments.

The Founders were not Liberals or Conservatives, because they didn't have the political spectrum quite so boiled down as we do now. But one thing is for certain: they would be appalled at the notion of corporations being treated equally to humans and given such a large stake in the electoral process. They would be appalled at your side's insistence to ignore climate change (because they were certainly all very much so into science).

They were also extremely Progressive in that they looked for not supernatural law, but natural law. They looked for things outside of the prism of the metaphyiscal realm. You've been shown time and again by Liberals in this thread to have flawed logic, and you're totally usurping the Founders for your twisted reasons.

You're also a history revisionist. You actually made the oh-so-cray-cray assertion that when we were in the olden times and Conservative thought was more prevalent, things were relatively non-violent. That's so untrue it's criminal of you to even imply that's the case.

So I gave you two very obvious examples of your flawed and bullshit logic. And you call me a child. You know who's acting like a child? You. You are.

My five-year-old is really good at ignoring facts when he wants what he wants. No matter how many times we tell him the truth of the matter, he can ignore it and go right on spouting the same fallacies that are TRUE in his head because he wants what he wants.

You think because I swear and I use very harsh ways of demonstrating your stupidity that I'm a child. But in fact, it comes down to me not wasting any more thought or civility on someone who clearly doesn't deserve it.

So I'll make you a deal. You quite hijacking the founders, you quit broken-record-styling the "CLASSICAL LIBERALISM" bullshit, and you quit making historically inaccurate assertions about what society was like back in the olden days, and I'll treat you like an adult.

Until then: Pfffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttt.

Hoooo-weee, ol butthurt deluxe still doesn't get it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Were the Segregationists, ideologically speaking, Conservatives or Liberals? Forget party affiliation, just concentrate of ideology. Was the whole notion of segregation something embraced by ideological Conservatives or Liberals?

They were leftists. The same attitude the left has today, that people are wards of the state, to be disposed of as they see fit, rather than free agents who make their own way.

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

 

[kwc57]

Things were much more Conservative during the 'Nam war too...and look how non-violent it was!

LBJ was a conservative? Who knew?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Were the Segregationists, ideologically speaking, Conservatives or Liberals? Forget party affiliation, just concentrate of ideology. Was the whole notion of segregation something embraced by ideological Conservatives or Liberals?

They were leftists. The same attitude the left has today, that people are wards of the state, to be disposed of as they see fit, rather than free agents who make their own way.

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I've come to the conclusion that Uncensored really is not worth discussing ANYTHING with. Anyone who honestly claims that Civil Rights movements were born of Conservatism is so incredibly wrong, it defies all logic. The very definition of Conservatism and Liberalism fly in the face of the bullshit he's spewing.

It's one thing to be an ideologue, but do so at the peril of your own intellect?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The vaunted Founding Fathers were not Anarchists.

Ah, logical fallacy. That is bound to work.

They believed in government.

But squirrels like acorns.

The absence of government provides the opportunity for warlords.

No, the absence of civil society provides the opportunity for opportunity for the strongest to seek power. A Somali warlord is no different than Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il, they simply haven't murdered all their rivals yet.

But the first hundred years of this nation proved that a free people can govern themselves, effectively.

Do you believe that if all forms of government disappeared within the hour someone, somewhere would not be conspiring to institute a form of government?

Anarchy is not a desirable outcome. I prefer strictly limited government in concert with the United States Constitution.

"That government is best which governs least."
Henry David Thoreau

And without consumer protections, what types of toys would be marketed?

The straw man fallacy.

I already demonstrated that not only is government not needed to provide consumer protection, but in fact does a shoddy job compared to private sector solutions.

Ones covered with lead-based paint and small enough to wedge themselves into a toddlers throat? What type of food would you be eating without safeguards? Mystery meat or lettuce picked from a field fertilized with septic tank remnants?

Do you think you have defeated your straw man?

Now reread what I posted regarding U/L

And before you go off and call this hyperbole, consider your Pol Pot meme.

Yet you claim that conservatives would create Somalia....

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Things were much more Conservative during the 'Nam war too...and look how non-violent it was!

LBJ was a conservative? Who knew?

So you're honestly claiming that Nixon didn't have anything to do with escalating the Vietnam War, huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

Were the Segregationists, ideologically speaking, Conservatives or Liberals? Forget party affiliation, just concentrate of ideology. Was the whole notion of segregation something embraced by ideological Conservatives or Liberals?

They were leftists. The same attitude the left has today, that people are wards of the state, to be disposed of as they see fit, rather than free agents who make their own way.

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

Segregation was a cultural blip and again it was those who valued individual liberties, i.e. mostly our ideological side, who worked to end it. Unfortunately liberalism got mixed up in the desegregation process with some unintended but very unconstructive negative side effects. Once government started ordering people around to accomplish government's idea of desegregation--bussing, quotas, etc,--it was no longer individual liberty at stake but raw government power dictating how we all, black and white, will live.

And, if you read the exhaustive research and analysis of such conservative historians as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Star Parker et al, they all agree that it was that process along with the Great Society welfare programs that slowed progress of black people to a crawl. Up until then, they had been the most rapidly advancing demographic economically.

Nobody and I do mean nobody is suggesting that there was anything with which to commend slavery and nobody and I do mean nobody is suggesting that there is anything with which to commend segregation. But how we went about ending it definitely did have some unintended negative side effects.

Conservativeland won't make the same mistakes. In fact, in Conservativeland we won't be breaking down people into demographic groups at all. People will just be people with skin color or ethnicity being of no more importance than eye color or hair color. In the view of the modern American conservatibve, that is the ONLY means by which racism will be ended once and for all.

 

[Nosmo King]

They were leftists. The same attitude the left has today, that people are wards of the state, to be disposed of as they see fit, rather than free agents who make their own way.

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I've come to the conclusion that Uncensored really is not worth discussing ANYTHING with. Anyone who honestly claims that Civil Rights movements were born of Conservatism is so incredibly wrong, it defies all logic. The very definition of Conservatism and Liberalism fly in the face of the bullshit he's spewing.

It's one thing to be an ideologue, but do so at the peril of your own intellect?

When faced with the fact that segregation was wrong, Conservatives have a tendency to hide behind the skirts of party affiliation and abandon ideology. If I were a Conservative, I too would be tempted to try this. But history has a way of pulling those skirts up only to reveal the scabby knees of an ideology that falls behind the curve of history.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I've come to the conclusion that Uncensored really is not worth discussing ANYTHING with. Anyone who honestly claims that Civil Rights movements were born of Conservatism is so incredibly wrong, it defies all logic. The very definition of Conservatism and Liberalism fly in the face of the bullshit he's spewing.

It's one thing to be an ideologue, but do so at the peril of your own intellect?

When faced with the fact that segregation was wrong, Conservatives have a tendency to hide behind the skirts of party affiliation and abandon ideology. If I were a Conservative, I too would be tempted to try this. But history has a way of pulling those skirts up only to reveal the scabby knees of an ideology that falls behind the curve of history.

In the history written by liberals for sure. But history that stands up under close scrutiny, no.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free? Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I've come to the conclusion that Uncensored really is not worth discussing ANYTHING with. Anyone who honestly claims that Civil Rights movements were born of Conservatism is so incredibly wrong, it defies all logic. The very definition of Conservatism and Liberalism fly in the face of the bullshit he's spewing.

It's one thing to be an ideologue, but do so at the peril of your own intellect?

When faced with the fact that segregation was wrong, Conservatives have a tendency to hide behind the skirts of party affiliation and abandon ideology. If I were a Conservative, I too would be tempted to try this. But history has a way of pulling those skirts up only to reveal the scabby knees of an ideology that falls behind the curve of history.

Exactly. These are people who largely believe a work of (likely) fiction is a historical record couched as a theological text though, so their grasp of what history really is probably isn't that great to begin with.

That said, I'm appalled that people like DumbFox would actually have the balls to say that her ideological side was the one fighting to end slavery and segregation. Again, it's that "Republicans vs. Democrats" thing that isn't really the point. It's about the ideologies behind the party names.

And yes, by definition only a LIBERAL movement, set on securing LIBERTIES for for people would march to Washington, etc. Like I said, it's why ultimately discussing anything with these political spittoons isn't worth it.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I've come to the conclusion that Uncensored really is not worth discussing ANYTHING with. Anyone who honestly claims that Civil Rights movements were born of Conservatism is so incredibly wrong, it defies all logic. The very definition of Conservatism and Liberalism fly in the face of the bullshit he's spewing.

It's one thing to be an ideologue, but do so at the peril of your own intellect?

When faced with the fact that segregation was wrong, Conservatives have a tendency to hide behind the skirts of party affiliation and abandon ideology. If I were a Conservative, I too would be tempted to try this. But history has a way of pulling those skirts up only to reveal the scabby knees of an ideology that falls behind the curve of history.

In the history written by liberals for sure. But history that stands up under close scrutiny, no.

History is not written with an ideological bias. HISTORICAL RECORD IS HISTORICAL RECORD.

But I get it now, this is why you're so free and loose with history. You have no fucking clue what it means.

Fuck, you're worthless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free?

Quite the opposite. State mandated segregation was the manifestation of the state's ownership of individuals. Rather than a free people determining their own interaction, the state dictated where one could ride on a bus, what drinking fountain to use, etc. based on group membership.

Racism, of which segregation is merely a manifestation of, is the ultimate assault on the individual. It is predicated on the concept that a person is not the sum of their own acts and ideals, but rather they are simply a projection of the group.

This is the same attitude today's left has. One is not an individual, nor does the individual have rights. Rather one is black, or gay, or hated Christian, Muslim, woman, etc. And the privileges granted by the states are based on the group that the person belongs to. The concept that rights are endowed by our creator are shat upon, with rights utterly stripped in favor of privilege endowed by group membership.

Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I am hardly muddled.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LBJ was a conservative? Who knew?

You have to excuse derrp; he's severely retarded.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free?

Quite the opposite. State mandated segregation was the manifestation of the state's ownership of individuals. Rather than a free people determining their own interaction, the state dictated where one could ride on a bus, what drinking fountain to use, etc. based on group membership.

Racism, of which segregation is merely a manifestation of, is the ultimate assault on the individual. It is predicated on the concept that a person is not the sum of their own acts and ideals, but rather they are simply a projection of the group.

This is the same attitude today's left has. One is not an individual, nor does the individual have rights. Rather one is black, or gay, or hated Christian, Muslim, woman, etc. And the privileges granted by the states are based on the group that the person belongs to. The concept that rights are endowed by our creator are shat upon, with rights utterly stripped in favor of privilege endowed by group membership.

UnC, this is the best explanation I have seen tying leftist concepts of government to the issue of segregation. Brilliant.

Can I steal it for use the next time I need it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

UnC, this is the best explanation I have seen tying leftist concepts of government to the issue of segregation. Brilliant.

Can I steal it for use the next time I need it?

Certainly, thanks for the complement.

 

[candycorn]

Warlords = Government now?

Holy shit folks, we've gone off the rails.

There were rails in this thread? When?

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you saying segregation was just a way to let people be free?

Quite the opposite. State mandated segregation was the manifestation of the state's ownership of individuals. Rather than a free people determining their own interaction, the state dictated where one could ride on a bus, what drinking fountain to use, etc. based on group membership.

Racism, of which segregation is merely a manifestation of, is the ultimate assault on the individual. It is predicated on the concept that a person is not the sum of their own acts and ideals, but rather they are simply a projection of the group.

This is the same attitude today's left has. One is not an individual, nor does the individual have rights. Rather one is black, or gay, or hated Christian, Muslim, woman, etc. And the privileges granted by the states are based on the group that the person belongs to. The concept that rights are endowed by our creator are shat upon, with rights utterly stripped in favor of privilege endowed by group membership.

Or that segregation was a way of making people wards of the state? You seem to be more than a little muddled on this.

I am hardly muddled.

The arguments proffered by the segregationists centered on state's rights. that it was the right of the state to enact laws that mandated some citizens be regarded as second class citizens. that the states held the right to deny voter's rights on any perceived prejudices they might hold. further, segregationists argued for the personal property rights of business owners. that private businesses had the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for whatever reason they liked.

Theses are the basic tenets of the Conservative faith, are they not? That the federal government is overstepping its mandate to say what laws the state's might enact for whatever reason. and that the federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who he can serve.

Now you have valiantly, albeit feebly tried your best to argue otherwise, but unless you are willing to concede these two cherished positions of Conservatism; that the federal government cannot dictate policy to the various states and that the federal government should never dictate policy to private business, you cannot call on Conservatism to save your argument.


Unless you expect us to believe that folks like Wallace and Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox were tie-dyed Liberals. These evil men believed in Conservative values and that meant no federal interference in their little fiefdoms of hate and bigotry. They were not in the least concerned with the freedoms and liberties of their constituents so long as those constituents were Black. They held, as a tenet of Conservative ideology, that things should not progress, but ossify and remain unchanged as a matter of 'cultural pride' and 'tradition'.

Much the same way the contemporary Conservative does not believe that all American citizens should enjoy all the rights afforded to the rest of America, these men felt they were righteously endowed to keep the social order repressive all for the sake of a few.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Warlords = Government now?

Holy shit folks, we've gone off the rails.

There were rails in this thread? When?

Ah, good point. Sometimes I get a little distracted by my blood boiling from being subjected to abject stupidity. I thank you for putting me back on the beaten path.