The Liberal Way: Opposing Assimilation

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you may not know that the OP is a Korean immigrant. Get her to explain why her own people won't assimilate:

that's in New York City, not Seoul.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

 

[JumpingPete]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

Great example, thanks.
.

Can you defend the above courthouse scene, or are you anti-liberty like most here?

 

[jillian]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.



a. "assimilation definition. The process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group: “Waves of immigrants have been assimilated into the American culture.”
Assimilation | Define Assimilation at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/assimilation





2. I have boiled down a workable definition of 'conservative to a belief in individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.
In his latest book, "Scorched Earth," radio host, author, activist, and conservative political commentator Michael Savage uses this: borders, language and culture.

Either of these....or both of them.....are the views Americans have traditionally been assimilated to.

America was founded as a unique, singular experiment with the two definitions of conservatism as its parameters, and from much of American history, it was expected that immigrants came here respecting those views, and/or were ready to assume them.


In fact, due to the huge wave of immigration in earlier times, the nation took a breather, as it were, from immigration....and, from 1924 to 1965, immigration was almost completely discontinued.
That was the time allowed for new Americans to incorporate the views and values that would make them Americans....real Americans.
Not Liberals, or Progressives.



3. "Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/anti-americanization/



4. The great changes to this view took place under the control of the education industry by Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

Before the Left took over the Democrat Party, even liberals understood and objected. Arthur Schlesinger, jr.:
"The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture.” http://cla.calpoly.edu/~bmori/syll/316syll/Schlesinger.html


From the earlier Liberal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr...... The attack on the common American identity...
....his words for my title of this thread:


Liberals Oppose Assimilation


Real Americans subscribe to it.

assimilation isn't the problem.... it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them. and frankly, if assimilation meant I'd be like you, count me out.

thanks for playing, cut and paste queen.

 

[jillian]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

are you insane? the "founders" disagreed on slavery. if they were opposed to it, it would have been outlawed.

next you'll tell us they wanted women and people who weren't white aristocratic landowners to vote.

learn history dear..... and that means don't get information from the imbeciles at breitbart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The colloquial usage of 'Liberal,' as meant today, refers to the Socialist Party...

Stop making bullshit up, very few liberals support socialist party and most commonly associate with Democrat party.

That's like me claiming that "conservative" means theocrats or anarchists.

Why is it that Liberals immediately default to vulgarity?

A character trait of Liberals, huh?

Now..for the truth: "Liberal" is just a new name for 'Socialist"



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.
   

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum



Never doubt me....

 

[JumpingPete]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

So against slavery that they not only allowed it to stay legal, they even figured out a way to legally define slaves as 3/5ths of an actual human like themselves. That's nothing like being opposed to slavery, that's enabling and codifying it. They opposed slavery like a hooker opposes a John.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Assimilation is a right-wing fascist kind of thing that goes directly against Individualism, Freedom, and Liberty to be who you are. Mutual respect for those three concepts is what you need and not what you want, a mass of unthinking, xenophobic, nationalistic, flag-wavers afraid of free-thinking people with respect for their cultural heritage within the larger society.

It's no shock that free-thinkers scare the hell out of you, anyone who thinks at all scares the hell out of you since you are unable to.

Assimilation is not rightwing or fascist, of an important aspect of migrants integrating into American melting pot, but so is TOLERANCE and as with most things in life this is not a question of absolutes nutters want to make it about but balance between the two.

We are not a melting pot, we are a stew. And their version of "assimilation" is accept the same right-wing bullshit we do, including our God, and hate where you can from because this is the only good country to ever exist. If you accept the very premise of America, a premise based solely upon liberalism, then welcome. Funny thing is, the drones here don't accept that, they hate individualism as then there are men kissing other men in public, people running around saying Jesus is bullshit, and kids who discover that religion is for idiots and America isn't the greatest nation on earth. That doesn't fit in their Nazi version of America the Beautiful at all.

If they respected individualism they'd respect liberalism, the core philosophy that created the very idea of individualism, and they hate it instead. They are fascists, they just don't know it. All you have to do is ask them if it's perfectly fine not to stand for the national anthem, which is fascist in and of itself. They will never answer in the positive for the individual. They want happy flag-waving drones not people how might say boy does America suck on it _____.

Watch your language.

It reveals the angst of a lost argument.

Fuck you, bitch. See, yet again, you don't want individuals, they might swear, you want drones who do and say only what you approve of.

And....now you're proven exactly what I said.


Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument.
Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.


Don't ever change.....

....as though you ever could.

 

[edthecynic]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.

Funny how the Right does not require everyone to "assimilate," only the groups they hate!

Lakewood, NJ:

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Duh, people -- why can't you all get on board with PavlovPete and support those practicing gender slavery, anyway? Didn't you know that female genital mutilation, honor killings and arranged marriages between horny uncle Akhbar and little Fatima are now considered LIBERAL. It has to be liberal, right? I mean, all of Pete's little peeps say the exact same thing, and all of them will call you a fascist if you don't march in complete lockstep with them so it must be so.

 

[JumpingPete]

Some of you may not know that the OP is a Korean immigrant. Get her to explain why her own people won't assimilate:

that's in New York City, not Seoul.

Those goddamn unassimilated individuals and their Gook signs and respect for Gook culture and Gook food. They should be beaten and forced to eat hot dogs and french fries. Oh shit, those didn't come from here either. Will no one assimilate?

A stew, not a melting pot. Learn to love it if you respect the individual that is and, you don't. Not in truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.



a. "assimilation definition. The process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group: “Waves of immigrants have been assimilated into the American culture.”
Assimilation | Define Assimilation at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/assimilation





2. I have boiled down a workable definition of 'conservative to a belief in individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.
In his latest book, "Scorched Earth," radio host, author, activist, and conservative political commentator Michael Savage uses this: borders, language and culture.

Either of these....or both of them.....are the views Americans have traditionally been assimilated to.

America was founded as a unique, singular experiment with the two definitions of conservatism as its parameters, and from much of American history, it was expected that immigrants came here respecting those views, and/or were ready to assume them.


In fact, due to the huge wave of immigration in earlier times, the nation took a breather, as it were, from immigration....and, from 1924 to 1965, immigration was almost completely discontinued.
That was the time allowed for new Americans to incorporate the views and values that would make them Americans....real Americans.
Not Liberals, or Progressives.



3. "Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/anti-americanization/



4. The great changes to this view took place under the control of the education industry by Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

Before the Left took over the Democrat Party, even liberals understood and objected. Arthur Schlesinger, jr.:
"The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture.” http://cla.calpoly.edu/~bmori/syll/316syll/Schlesinger.html


From the earlier Liberal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr...... The attack on the common American identity...
....his words for my title of this thread:


Liberals Oppose Assimilation


Real Americans subscribe to it.

assimilation isn't the problem.... it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them. and frankly, if assimilation meant I'd be like you, count me out.

thanks for playing, cut and paste queen.

" ...it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them."

My point exactly.

Wedding cakes must be made as per Liberal government dogma....florists must bend to same.....

....or else.


And...the same applies to freedom of speech as well as thought.


Unlike you...here is an intelligent Liberal:
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,"
by Kirsten Powers

Imagine how much smarter you'd appear if you actually read books.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

are you insane? the "founders" disagreed on slavery. if they were opposed to it, it would have been outlawed.

next you'll tell us they wanted women and people who weren't white aristocratic landowners to vote.

learn history dear..... and that means don't get information from the imbeciles at breitbart.

Have someone read post #22 to you....


....then look up 'manumission.'


It might be your only intelligent achievement of the day!

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

are you insane? the "founders" disagreed on slavery. if they were opposed to it, it would have been outlawed.

next you'll tell us they wanted women and people who weren't white aristocratic landowners to vote.

learn history dear..... and that means don't get information from the imbeciles at breitbart.

"next you'll tell us they wanted women and people who weren't white aristocratic landowners to vote."

Wasn't it lucky for the two of us that Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster and got women suffrage???



Don't tell me you imagined that it was Democrats?????
They have always been the party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship.


You know that......don't you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.



a. "assimilation definition. The process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group: “Waves of immigrants have been assimilated into the American culture.”
Assimilation | Define Assimilation at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/assimilation





2. I have boiled down a workable definition of 'conservative to a belief in individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.
In his latest book, "Scorched Earth," radio host, author, activist, and conservative political commentator Michael Savage uses this: borders, language and culture.

Either of these....or both of them.....are the views Americans have traditionally been assimilated to.

America was founded as a unique, singular experiment with the two definitions of conservatism as its parameters, and from much of American history, it was expected that immigrants came here respecting those views, and/or were ready to assume them.


In fact, due to the huge wave of immigration in earlier times, the nation took a breather, as it were, from immigration....and, from 1924 to 1965, immigration was almost completely discontinued.
That was the time allowed for new Americans to incorporate the views and values that would make them Americans....real Americans.
Not Liberals, or Progressives.



3. "Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/anti-americanization/



4. The great changes to this view took place under the control of the education industry by Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

Before the Left took over the Democrat Party, even liberals understood and objected. Arthur Schlesinger, jr.:
"The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture.” http://cla.calpoly.edu/~bmori/syll/316syll/Schlesinger.html


From the earlier Liberal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr...... The attack on the common American identity...
....his words for my title of this thread:


Liberals Oppose Assimilation


Real Americans subscribe to it.

It's why the left hate English being the official language. A common language naturally unites people.

 

[JumpingPete]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.



a. "assimilation definition. The process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group: “Waves of immigrants have been assimilated into the American culture.”
Assimilation | Define Assimilation at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/assimilation





2. I have boiled down a workable definition of 'conservative to a belief in individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.
In his latest book, "Scorched Earth," radio host, author, activist, and conservative political commentator Michael Savage uses this: borders, language and culture.

Either of these....or both of them.....are the views Americans have traditionally been assimilated to.

America was founded as a unique, singular experiment with the two definitions of conservatism as its parameters, and from much of American history, it was expected that immigrants came here respecting those views, and/or were ready to assume them.


In fact, due to the huge wave of immigration in earlier times, the nation took a breather, as it were, from immigration....and, from 1924 to 1965, immigration was almost completely discontinued.
That was the time allowed for new Americans to incorporate the views and values that would make them Americans....real Americans.
Not Liberals, or Progressives.



3. "Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/anti-americanization/



4. The great changes to this view took place under the control of the education industry by Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

Before the Left took over the Democrat Party, even liberals understood and objected. Arthur Schlesinger, jr.:
"The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture.” http://cla.calpoly.edu/~bmori/syll/316syll/Schlesinger.html


From the earlier Liberal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr...... The attack on the common American identity...
....his words for my title of this thread:


Liberals Oppose Assimilation


Real Americans subscribe to it.

assimilation isn't the problem.... it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them. and frankly, if assimilation meant I'd be like you, count me out.

thanks for playing, cut and paste queen.

" ...it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them."

My point exactly.

Wedding cakes must be made as per Liberal government dogma....florists must bend to same.....

....or else.


And...the same applies to freedom of speech as well as thought.


Unlike you...here is an intelligent Liberal:
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,"
by Kirsten Powers

Imagine how much smarter you'd appear if you actually read books.

For a place with no free speech how come morons like you will never shut the fuck up? Right, because no one is stopping you, bitch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is forced to assimilate. That is a cultural phenomenon, something that all of us facilitate in agreement that this is such a unique country. People have always wanted to assimilate, knowing that it was in their best interests.

Unfortunately, that culture is changing, as people who aren't fond of our uniqueness have gained influence. These are the people who are far more likely to point at our sins of the past, as if we are the only country with sins in its history. They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution, to make it ripe for significant change.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. Or at least on life support.
.

"They'll say that the Founding Fathers were "rich white slave rapers" as a way to discredit our Constitution..."

No, but that just happens to be true, now isn't it? You don't want the truth spoken, that to be truly honest you have to deal with the fact that now long dead men wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" at the very same time they owned humans like livestock? Speaking the truth is just another example of how people might say they respect the individual but that's only true if they believe the same right-wing bullshit they do.

When they can defend a Muslim mass prayer on the courthouse steps, while two men kiss in the background and a Satanist holds a black mass, then I'll believe them. That is liberty and they can't stand the very idea of it.

The Founders stood in opposition to slavery.

Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

So against slavery that they not only allowed it to stay legal, they even figured out a way to legally define slaves as 3/5ths of an actual human like themselves. That's nothing like being opposed to slavery, that's enabling and codifying it. They opposed slavery like a hooker opposes a John.

1. "So against slavery that they not only allowed it to stay legal, they even figured out a way to legally define slaves as 3/5ths of an actual human like themselves."

"The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war."
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


2. "They opposed slavery like a hooker opposes a John."
Is this an attempt to point out some expertise in this area?

 

[Jackson]

Assimilation is a right-wing fascist kind of thing that goes directly against Individualism, Freedom, and Liberty to be who you are. Mutual respect for those three concepts is what you need and not what you want, a mass of unthinking, xenophobic, nationalistic, flag-wavers afraid of free-thinking people with respect for their cultural heritage within the larger society.

It's no shock that free-thinkers scare the hell out of you, anyone who thinks at all scares the hell out of you since you are unable to.

Just what made the "Melting Pot" such a success? The immigrants wanted to become Americans and find their success in the American Way, capitalism. They became owners of their own businesses and could not thrive had they not learned our language and our culture.

They found freedom and a safe place to live in America. The American Way was what brought them here, not to threaten innocent Americans. When they came here, they considered themselves Americans once naturalized, no African, Mexican or German Americans who honored their former flag more than the flag of their new home.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Often, there are supporting assumptions for one's beliefs that are required but, often, not consciously considered,....yet they are essential to the view in question.

Assimilation is the tradition of America; the very opposite is the case for Liberals/Democrats.

It is the Democrat way of dividing the population, encouraging a multifaceted grievance industry, and destroying the American tradition “E Pluribus Unum” which refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.



a. "assimilation definition. The process by which a person or persons acquire the social and psychological characteristics of a group: “Waves of immigrants have been assimilated into the American culture.”
Assimilation | Define Assimilation at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/assimilation





2. I have boiled down a workable definition of 'conservative to a belief in individualism, limited constitutional government, and free markets.
In his latest book, "Scorched Earth," radio host, author, activist, and conservative political commentator Michael Savage uses this: borders, language and culture.

Either of these....or both of them.....are the views Americans have traditionally been assimilated to.

America was founded as a unique, singular experiment with the two definitions of conservatism as its parameters, and from much of American history, it was expected that immigrants came here respecting those views, and/or were ready to assume them.


In fact, due to the huge wave of immigration in earlier times, the nation took a breather, as it were, from immigration....and, from 1924 to 1965, immigration was almost completely discontinued.
That was the time allowed for new Americans to incorporate the views and values that would make them Americans....real Americans.
Not Liberals, or Progressives.



3. "Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/anti-americanization/



4. The great changes to this view took place under the control of the education industry by Liberals, Progressives, Democrats.

Before the Left took over the Democrat Party, even liberals understood and objected. Arthur Schlesinger, jr.:
"The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture.” http://cla.calpoly.edu/~bmori/syll/316syll/Schlesinger.html


From the earlier Liberal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr...... The attack on the common American identity...
....his words for my title of this thread:


Liberals Oppose Assimilation


Real Americans subscribe to it.

assimilation isn't the problem.... it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them. and frankly, if assimilation meant I'd be like you, count me out.

thanks for playing, cut and paste queen.

" ...it's idiots thinking that everyone has to be like them."

My point exactly.

Wedding cakes must be made as per Liberal government dogma....florists must bend to same.....

....or else.


And...the same applies to freedom of speech as well as thought.


Unlike you...here is an intelligent Liberal:
"The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,"
by Kirsten Powers

Imagine how much smarter you'd appear if you actually read books.

For a place with no free speech how come morons like you will never shut the fuck up? Right, because no one is stopping you, bitch.

A defining characteristic: on my side of the aisle, facts and knowledge; on your side of the aisle, profanity and vulgarity.
Seems I've scored another point against ignorance, indoctrination and mythology.

Excellent.

 

[JumpingPete]

It's why the left hate English being the official language. A common language naturally unites people.

The left hates it because it's unnecessary, xenophobic, jingoistic, and fucking fascist. Besides that we love the idea.

Americans are too fucking lazy to even be bilingual like much of the world. You want seven billion people to speak your native language so you don't have to learn theirs. Fucking slobs.