Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[ConservaDerrps]

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.

His initial "list" of Segregationists didn't even INCLUDE Thurmond (Gee, I wonder why?) so his entire argument should be tossed out on its ass.

 

[Borillar]

We already have "Liberalland,"

We call it "North Korea."

We already have conservativeland. We call it Somalia.

Since the country is run by warlords, i.e. Government, who decides who gets what and who lives or dies. Gotta say Somalia is more like Liberalland. Govt, i.e. the warlords, are the decision makers. Not the people.

In Conservativeland the people rule. Not the Govt, as it should be.

Hey, Somalia is a conservative's wet dream. No pesky government. No burdensome regulations. No safety or environmental standards. Everybody packing heat. Well, actually Somalia is more of a libertarian's wet dream. Conservastan is more like Nazi Germany, which thankfully doesn't exist anymore. But you had all the elements that conservatives love - nationalism, exceptionalism (master race and all that), convenient scapegoats, religion & corporatism intertwined with government, corporations protected, labor power reduced, military worshipped, etc. In Conservastan, the people will be brought along to do their corporate master's bidding like the good little sheep they are.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Sure he did.......kind of like how Obama "inherited" Bush's economy and tripled down with failing policies. It was LBJ's fault, Nixon inherited it and had to deal with it. See how that works?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

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?

Sure he did.......kind of like how Obama "inherited" Bush's economy and tripled down with failing policies. It was LBJ's fault, Nixon inherited it and had to deal with it. See how that works?

Hmm. Yeah. No. Business has been improving pretty much since about half-way through Obama's first term. That's fact. Everything else you hear is bullshit spin from the Right. I will grant you it's not as fast as your side wants, but y'alls is some impatient motherfuckers.

 

[Borillar]

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?

Hey, segregation was all at the State level, not the Fed Gov. You're the ones always bringing up the 10th amendment. That's exactly what these former slave states used to justify slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, Black codes, etc. You said that In order to be free, you have to be able to order your society. You hate the Fed Gov, and think the States should be able to decide all these things. So segregation is the result of local folks ordering their society. All well and good in Conservastan.

 

[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.

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.

You are wrong in your defiition of modern day American Conservatiism who in no way wants to deny anybody the rights afforded to all society. Modern day American Conservatism wants the government to secure our unalienable rights--everybody's rights--and provide the glue that hold the union together and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and create whatever sort of society we wish to have.

The men you named in your post wanted government to deny rights to some people. That is not modern day American conservatism. That is statism and is antithesis to classical liberal aka modern American conservative values.

You cannot assign conservative or liberal labels to people based on political party. You CAN asign conservative or liberal labels to their actiions however. Short of violating somebody's rights, anybody who wants government to dictate how people shall live their lives or who is allowed to do what to the exclusion of others, you are dealing with modern American liberalism, not conservatism.

 

[Borillar]

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.

The way Conservatives mistrust government is exactly the way Liberals mistrust the moneyed elite and their powerful lobbying organizations. If Conservatives want to erode the effectiveness of government, do they realize they are ceding that power to faceless companies motivated only by keeping their stock prices high?

Conservatives are the ones calling for an end to burdensome regulations. They won't say which regulations are burdensome, so perhaps they all are. Just let the corporations pollute, strip mine, do whatever they want. WRT global warming, conservatives believe the Shell answer man rather than climate scientists. WRT tobacco, they resisted adding warning messages on the packages of cancer sticks. Now, they resist labeling food to let consumers know that is genetically altered. They always put industry before consumer. Always.

They think man's nature is evil, so they don't trust government. But then they contradict themselves in believing that the magical free market can self regulate, presumably out of the goodness of their black oil hearts.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You are wrong in your defiition of modern day American Conservatiism who in no way wants to deny anybody the rights afforded to all society.

Oh, so Conservatives are now in favor of gay marriage now? COOL!

GUYS!!

CONSERVATIVES ARE IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE NOW!! WE WON!!!!!!

 

[Borillar]

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.

Oh, no. They were fine conservatives who wanted to order their society.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The way Conservatives mistrust government is exactly the way Liberals mistrust the moneyed elite and their powerful lobbying organizations. If Conservatives want to erode the effectiveness of government, do they realize they are ceding that power to faceless companies motivated only by keeping their stock prices high?

Conservatives are the ones calling for an end to burdensome regulations. They won't say which regulations are burdensome, so perhaps they all are. Just let the corporations pollute, strip mine, do whatever they want. WRT global warming, conservatives believe the Shell answer man rather than climate scientists. WRT tobacco, they resisted adding warning messages on the packages of cancer sticks. Now, they resist labeling food to let consumers know that is genetically altered. They always put industry before consumer. Always.

They think man's nature is evil, so they don't trust government. But then they contradict themselves in believing that the magical free market can self regulate, presumably out of the goodness of their black oil hearts.

And you continue to define Conservatives quite incorrectly and dishonestly though I am quite sure you have been indoctrinated to the point you don't think you are being dishonest.

Wanting to end oppressive and unnecessary regulation is not the same thing as wanting to end all regulation. If you were honestly reading what is written even in this thread you would acknowledge that.

How is not trusting government the same thing as believing man's nature is evil? If we thought that we would trust government much more and would not trust the Founders' vision of a people who would govern themselves which is what we want for Conservativeland. If you were honestly reading what is written in this thread, you would acknowledge that too.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.



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.

You are wrong in your defiition of modern day American Conservatiism who in no way wants to deny anybody the rights afforded to all society. Modern day American Conservatism wants the government to secure our unalienable rights--everybody's rights--and provide the glue that hold the union together and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and create whatever sort of society we wish to have.

The men you named in your post wanted government to deny rights to some people. That is not modern day American conservatism. That is statism and is antithesis to classical liberal aka modern American conservative values.

You cannot assign conservative or liberal labels to people based on political party. You CAN asign conservative or liberal labels to their actiions however. Short of violating somebody's rights, anybody who wants government to dictate how people shall live their lives or who is allowed to do what to the exclusion of others, you are dealing with modern American liberalism, not conservatism.

So it's really Conservative groups spearheading the drive for marriage equality? It was the sterling conservative Phyllis Schlafly who pushed hard for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? It is really Conservatives who want to ensure voter's rights among the elderly, Hispanic and Black community by easing voter registration and eliminating a photo I.D. law? C'mon, Foxy!

 

[Borillar]

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.

The way Conservatives mistrust government is exactly the way Liberals mistrust the moneyed elite and their powerful lobbying organizations. If Conservatives want to erode the effectiveness of government, do they realize they are ceding that power to faceless companies motivated only by keeping their stock prices high?

Conservatives are the ones calling for an end to burdensome regulations. They won't say which regulations are burdensome, so perhaps they all are. Just let the corporations pollute, strip mine, do whatever they want. WRT global warming, conservatives believe the Shell answer man rather than climate scientists. WRT tobacco, they resisted adding warning messages on the packages of cancer sticks. Now, they resist labeling food to let consumers know that is genetically altered. They always put industry before consumer. Always.

They think man's nature is evil, so they don't trust government. But then they contradict themselves in believing that the magical free market can self regulate, presumably out of the goodness of their black oil hearts.

And you continue to define Conservatives quite incorrectly and dishonestly though I am quite sure you have been indoctrinated to the point you don't think you are being dishonest.

Wanting to end oppressive and unnecessary regulation is not the same thing as wanting to end all regulation. If you were honestly reading what is written even in this thread you would acknowledge that.

How is not trusting government the same thing as believing man's nature is evil? If we thought that we would trust government much more and would not trust the Founders' vision of a people who would govern themselves which is what we want for Conservativeland. If you were honestly reading what is written in this thread, you would acknowledge that too.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can keep misrepresenting what liberals believe in as socialism, communism, or whatever other isms there are (I think you guys have communism Tourrette's.) I will keep pointing out what I think of conservatism. I have also provided numerous examples to prove my points.

Your posts basically boil down to "Liberalism is the devil." I deny that and have pointed out what I believe to be liberal ideas and achievements. You seem to want to hijack any positive event, discovery, thought, or action as being because of conservatives. Sorry if this thread hasn't turned out to be the conservative circle jerk you seemed to be after, where everyone could chuckle and congratulate each other on being conservative. Fortunately, there are still those who will come to the defense of their country and ideals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The arguments proffered by the segregationists centered on state's rights.

Not particularly. You confuse segregation with the antebellum south. There was a valid argument that the union was voluntary and that dissolution was vital to the concept of a federation of states.

{"We shall get a finer, better balance of spirit; an infinitely more capable and rounded personality by putting children in schools where they are wanted, and where they are happy and inspired, than in thrusting them into hells where they are ridiculed and hated."}

W.E.B. DuBoise

Most of the arguments promoting segregation revolved around a supposed societal good.

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.

I've not seen any instance of such an argument being made. Do you have a cite?

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.

I specified the state, i.e. government mandated.

Theses are the basic tenets of the Conservative faith, are they not?

Conservatism is a set of ideals, not a religious cult as is leftism.

And most certainly those are not the tenets of conservatism, regardless of your attempt to rewrite history.

That the federal government is overstepping its mandate to say what laws the state's might enact for whatever reason.

You would have fit in nicely with Bull Connor and the other democrats. But the 14th renders your argument moot.

and that the federal government has no right to tell a private business owner who he can serve.

Separate issue. The constitution constrains the government, it does not compel alliance nor interaction between persons engaged in commerce. To demand that I sell to you based on the color of your skin is no different that dictating where you shall buy, based on the color of the business owners skin.

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;

Why would I agree to falsehood?

Your prejudice fails to compel agreement from me.

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.

I don't call on anything save the facts that the same big government ideas and hostility toward individual liberty are the foundation of segregation as are the foundation of progressive actions today. That the state who would arrest a black man for not sitting at the back of the bus is driven by the same state that would arrest an old lady for opposing abortion. The tendency of the left is authoritarian, to control the thoughts and actions of others. Whether the manifestation of this is political correctness, hate laws, or segregation, the root ideals of an elite who is empowered to dictate the interactions of people based on group membership remains the same.

Unless you expect us to believe that folks like Wallace and Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox were tie-dyed Liberals.

Yet they were. All of them supported bigger government, more power for the state and less for the individual, expansive regulation, etc.

Wallace was a classical big government leftist. There was nothing he didn't want the state to stick it's nose into.

These evil men believed in Conservative values and that meant no federal interference in their little fiefdoms of hate and bigotry.

Utterly false, these evil men were exactly what the professed to be, New Deal Democrats with a penchant for socialism. The evil men were no different than Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.

They were not in the least concerned with the freedoms and liberties of their constituents so long as those constituents were Black.

Nor are democrats today.

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'.

Utterly false, they held the tenet of leftists and progressives that the worth of an individual was dictated by the group that individual belonged to.

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,

Are you on crack?

I is the conservatives who promote rights and the leftists who crush liberty, are every turn.

these men felt they were righteously endowed to keep the social order repressive all for the sake of a few.

Just as all leftists do. They are no different than Algore, save that they sought to crush blacks instead of drivers or families who would heat their homes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, Somalia is a conservative's wet dream. No pesky government.

Yeah, we know that's what the hate sites trained you to bleat.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The arguments proffered by the segregationists centered on state's rights.

Not particularly. You confuse segregation with the antebellum south. There was a valid argument that the union was voluntary and that dissolution was vital to the concept of a federation of states.

{"We shall get a finer, better balance of spirit; an infinitely more capable and rounded personality by putting children in schools where they are wanted, and where they are happy and inspired, than in thrusting them into hells where they are ridiculed and hated."}

W.E.B. DuBoise

Most of the arguments promoting segregation revolved around a supposed societal good.

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.

I've not seen any instance of such an argument being made. Do you have a cite?



I specified the state, i.e. government mandated.



Conservatism is a set of ideals, not a religious cult as is leftism.

And most certainly those are not the tenets of conservatism, regardless of your attempt to rewrite history.



You would have fit in nicely with Bull Connor and the other democrats. But the 14th renders your argument moot.



Separate issue. The constitution constrains the government, it does not compel alliance nor interaction between persons engaged in commerce. To demand that I sell to you based on the color of your skin is no different that dictating where you shall buy, based on the color of the business owners skin.



Why would I agree to falsehood?

Your prejudice fails to compel agreement from me.



I don't call on anything save the facts that the same big government ideas and hostility toward individual liberty are the foundation of segregation as are the foundation of progressive actions today. That the state who would arrest a black man for not sitting at the back of the bus is driven by the same state that would arrest an old lady for opposing abortion. The tendency of the left is authoritarian, to control the thoughts and actions of others. Whether the manifestation of this is political correctness, hate laws, or segregation, the root ideals of an elite who is empowered to dictate the interactions of people based on group membership remains the same.



Yet they were. All of them supported bigger government, more power for the state and less for the individual, expansive regulation, etc.

Wallace was a classical big government leftist. There was nothing he didn't want the state to stick it's nose into.



Utterly false, these evil men were exactly what the professed to be, New Deal Democrats with a penchant for socialism. The evil men were no different than Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama.



Nor are democrats today.



Utterly false, they held the tenet of leftists and progressives that the worth of an individual was dictated by the group that individual belonged to.

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,

Are you on crack?

I is the conservatives who promote rights and the leftists who crush liberty, are every turn.

these men felt they were righteously endowed to keep the social order repressive all for the sake of a few.

Just as all leftists do. They are no different than Algore, save that they sought to crush blacks instead of drivers or families who would heat their homes.

Everything you just wrote was a total waste of time. What you should write for every one of your posts is this:

Hi, my name is Uncensored, and I'm a Right Wing sycophant. No matter how many times you present me with evidence and historical record, I will cling desperately to the idea that I'm right and Liberals are wrong. No matter what everyone else who is educated and intelligent says about who was in the segregation camp, I'm stubbornly attached to my ideologue behaviors so badly that truth and fact get confused.

If a Left Wing site says something, it's hate. If a Right Wing site says it, it's true. I am an intellectual coward, fraud and am detrimental to any political discussion because I will not even except the notion that ANYONE on my side of the fence could be wrong about ANYTHING.

I will waste all your time as I make pedantic responses that basically get boiled down to: CONSERVATIVE GOOD, LIBERAL BAD. In other words, I'm a dumb fuck waste of atoms. Sorry to waste your time!

Sincerely,

Grampa McSaggynuts, Head of the Moron Patrol, And Lead Viceroy of All That is Stupid, Esq.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

HATE SITES!
CLASSIC LIBERALISM!
HATE SITES!
CLASSIC LIBERALISM!

 

[Borillar]

Hey, Somalia is a conservative's wet dream. No pesky government.

Yeah, we know that's what the hate sites trained you to bleat.

Just pointing out sterling examples of conservative ideals in action today and in history. Hate sites are mostly conservative, and hate is mostly what the conservatives are putting out in this thread. If anyone is a sheep, it's you poor deluded fools on the right.

 

[occupied]

Wow the fantasy secession thread is still going. Anyone decide who gets the debt yet?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You are wrong in your defiition of modern day American Conservatiism who in no way wants to deny anybody the rights afforded to all society. Modern day American Conservatism wants the government to secure our unalienable rights--everybody's rights--and provide the glue that hold the union together and then leave us alone to govern ourselves and create whatever sort of society we wish to have.

The men you named in your post wanted government to deny rights to some people. That is not modern day American conservatism. That is statism and is antithesis to classical liberal aka modern American conservative values.

You cannot assign conservative or liberal labels to people based on political party. You CAN asign conservative or liberal labels to their actiions however. Short of violating somebody's rights, anybody who wants government to dictate how people shall live their lives or who is allowed to do what to the exclusion of others, you are dealing with modern American liberalism, not conservatism.

So it's really Conservative groups spearheading the drive for marriage equality? It was the sterling conservative Phyllis Schlafly who pushed hard for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s? It is really Conservatives who want to ensure voter's rights among the elderly, Hispanic and Black community by easing voter registration and eliminating a photo I.D. law? C'mon, Foxy!

It is not a matter of marriage equality. Currently every man, woman, and child is subject to exactly the same laws regarding marriage in every state regardless of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political leanings, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. You simply don't get any more equal than that.

The issue is whether the definition of marriage that has been in the vernacular throughout the world since the beginnings of recorded history will remain the definition of marriage. You cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something very different from what it is.

So freedom allows people to change the definition if they wish and to retain the definition if they wish. In Conservativeland that would be the expectation--those states or communities who wish to change the deifnition of marriage will do so. Those who do not will not do so. In Liberalland everybody will be expevcted to do so; therefore, there will be no freedom on that subject.

 

[Borillar]

Wow the fantasy secession thread is still going. Anyone decide who gets the debt yet?

Amazing, isn't it? I suppose it is only fair that conservastan gets the debt run up by republicans and libertopia gets the debt run up by democrats. The original premise of the OP was that they get the whole country minus California, Oregon, and Washington. I guess that would give them 47/50ths of the debt.