Zone1 USS John C. Stennis?

[Mikeoxenormous]

The only accurate statement in this farce of an OP is that Stennis was a Democrat from MS and a racist.

You only have to look at his positions and extensive record to see he was far from being a liberal, so why do you need to lie?

This description says all that needs to be said about him: Mississippi Senator John C. Stennis was the heart, soul, and brains of the white supremacist caucus in the 1948 Congress.

He has a lot of stuff named after him…let’s get moving.

Because Democrats back in the day were KKK members who terrorized blacks and burned their businesses. Today BLM(another 3 letter acronym) terrorized blacks and burned minority businesses. Nothing has changed with the Democrat party, which is why, normal people hate people like you.

 

[IM2]

Biden's BFF, the late Senator Stennis was a Mississippi ultraliberal and a racist.

Should a significant naval ship like this be named after Stennis?

How about renaming it the USS H. Rap Brown or USS Stokely Carmichael?

Something less racist.

After all, America is renaming other military facilities.

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)

Neither Brown or Carmichael were racists.

 

[IM2]

Nah, he was a solid conservative, from back in the days when Democrats were the conservatives.

Then the parties flipped, and all of the hardcore racists became Republicans, a situation that holds right now.

As this thread so clearly demonstrates.

Stennis was indeed a racist segregationist which is what solid conservatism was in those days and apparently today.

 

[IM2]

99% of the people who profess to be a ''liberal'' are far from being a liberal.

Speaking only for myself, I, for one, am offended that, as a true and fundamental liberal, I'm expected to carry an adjective in order to placate confused statists.

Classical liberalism is basically conservatism.

 

[IM2]

So when did the Gores and Clintons suddenly switch from conservative to lib so they could stay in the Democrat Party?

Just stop. We all see what the republican party has become. Fix your party and shut up about Democrats. Because Clintons and Gores don't control the Democratic Party.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Classical liberalism is basically conservatism.

While I reject the expectation of the adoption of the adjective in order to placate the rabid statists who have hijacked and bastardized the modern perception of liberalism, it is true that liberalism is conservatism. Historically and fundamentally speaking.

Same could be said for the modern bastardization of the term ''conservatism.''

There are very, very few fundamental conservatives left in America today. Very few.

But I think that's the strategy.

To remove the fundamental principles that define the philosophy historically and then you end up with two factions that really aren't very different at all misrepresenting the philosophy and basically argung over who benefits from the fruits while disregarding and bastardizing the fundamental principles and primary foundation for moral code.

Unfortunately, in today's society, so many ignore that the principles and the fruits must be accepted or rejected indivisibly. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece meal. To do so only ensures the erosion entirely.

And that's actually what's happening if we're observant. The erosion of virtue in modern society is probably the most unrecognized threat to Individual liberty today.

I could probably express that much better and more thoroughly. But I'm just posting on the fly here.

 

[Coyote]

Because Democrats back in the day were KKK members who terrorized blacks and burned their businesses. Today BLM(another 3 letter acronym) terrorized blacks and burned minority businesses. Nothing has changed with the Democrat party, which is why, normal people hate people like you.

Democrats, “back in the day” consisted of two wings, one conservative in the south, one more liberal in the north. The history of political parties and their associated ideologies is far from simple and clear, which is why it is idiotic to go on as if the two parties today are same as then. The desire for political parties to expand their leverage is greater than any desire to maintain a coherent platform or consistent standards. The south still represents a substantial geographical voting block that is largely conservative.

Your obsession with BLM and Antifa is pathetic considering they haven’t done much in a while beyond hiding under your beds while your MAGA Brownshirts have been quite busy.

I doubt you are a reliable source for what constitutes “normal people”, just saying.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Democrats, “back in the day” consisted of two wings, one conservative in the south, one more liberal in the north. The history of political parties and their associated ideologies is far from simple and clear, which is why it is idiotic to go on as if the two parties today are same as then. The desire for political parties to expand their leverage is greater than any desire to maintain a coherent platform or consistent standards. The south still represents a substantial geographical voting block that is largely conservative.

Your obsession with BLM and Antifa is pathetic considering they haven’t done much in a while beyond hiding under your beds while your MAGA Brownshirts have been quite busy.

I doubt you are a reliable source for what constitutes “normal people”, just saying.

Stop with the fucking word games, it all goes back to the Democrats who wanted to keep slaves, while the Republicans wanted to set them free. Today, the Democrats want to enslave the illegals who are crossing the border, and you do nothing but blame everyone else.

 

[IM2]

While I reject the expectation of the adoption of the adjective in order to placate the rabid statists who have hijacked and bastardized the modern perception of liberalism, it is true that liberalism is conservatism. Historically and fundamentally speaking.

Same could be said for the modern bastardization of the term ''conservatism.''

There are very, very few fundamental aconservatives left in Americ today. Very few.

But I think that's the strategy.

To remove the fundamental principles that define the philosophy historically and then you end up with two factions that really aren't very different at all misrepresenting the philosophy and basically argung over who benefits from the fruits while disregarding and bastardizing the fundamental principles and primary foudation for moral code.

Unfortunately, in today's society, so many ignore that the principles and the fruits must be accepted or rejected indivisibly. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece meal. To do so only ensures the erosion entirely.

And that's actually what's happening if we're observant. The erosion of virtue in modern society is probably the most unrecognized threat to Individual liberty today.

I could probably express that much better and more thoroughly. But I'm just posting on the fly here.

I understand what you're saying and agree with you totally.

Don't faint!

 

[Natural Citizen]

I understand what you're saying and agree with you totally.

Don't faint!

Well. Nobody will agree or disagree about everything. Sometimes people will find agreement. Other times, they'll disagree. The latter most often being the case.

But I look at the conundrum in this way. That it's not necessary that we all agree on everything. That it's only necessary that we all agree that we should all be free. If we can achieve a more firm grasp on what the latter actually means in scope, fundamentally speaking, then I think we'll stand a better chance at changing the course of history in a positive way for everyone. Thats why maintaining, rather than bastardizing fundamental principles of the natural law are so important. These are what define proper man-to-man/government-to-man relations.

 

[IM2]

Well. Nobody will agree or disagree about everything. Sometimes people will find agreement. Other times, they'll disagree. The latter most often being the case.

But I look at the conundrum in this way. That it's not necessary that we all agree on everything. That it's only necessary that we all agree that we should all be free. If we can achieve a more firm grasp on what the latter actually means in scope, I think we'll stand a better chance at changing the course of history. Thats why maintainingg, rather than bastardizing fundamental principles are so important. These are what define proper man-to-man/government-to-man relations.

I agree. I definitely am for freedom for everyone. Responsible use of freedom.

 

[Coyote]

Stop with the fucking word games, it all goes back to the Democrats who wanted to keep slaves,

Try learning some history because your bumper-sticker knowledge base is failing you.

while the Republicans wanted to set them free.

Still too simplistic. Try again.

Today, the Democrats want to enslave the illegals who are crossing the border, and you do nothing but blame everyone else.

I don’t know what rock you are living under….but bless your little heart, honey.

 

[Coyote]

I agree. I definitely am for freedom for everyone. Responsible use of freedom.

I think freedom incurs responsibilities.

 

[IM2]

I think freedom incurs responsibilities.

It does, but some people see freedom as a way to practice bad behavior.

 

[Coyote]

It does, but some people see freedom as a way to practice bad behavior.

…ya, that’s how they justify it. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I agree. I definitely am for freedom for everyone. Responsible use of freedom.

Exactly.

Though I'm guilty of it myself, it is true that the words liberty and freedom should never really be spoken or written absent the term responsibility.

So there we get back to primary foundation for moral code and the erosion of virtue in society, which really only serves to thwart the former.

That's a deep discusion that will almost always end up misguided and misdirected, though. At least when it comes up out in the wild of the www. Mainly because someone is always gonna come along and generically pop off about what morality means or doesn't mean and then it turns into an atheist vs theologist squabble, and then the whole discussion runs off course from the duty/self-discipline factor of Individual liberty-responsibility and the fundamental idealism of free man.

Ah well. What are you gonna do...

 

[IM2]

Exactly.

Though I'm guilty of it myself, it is true that the words liberty and freedom should never really be spoken or written absent the term responsibility.

So there we get back to primary foundation for moral code and the erosion of virtue in society that really only serves to thwart the former.

That's a deep discusion that will almost always end up misguided and misdirected, though. At least whe nit comes up out in the wild of the www. Mainly because someone is always gonna come along and generically pop off about what morality means or doesnlt mean and then it turns into an athiest vs theologist squabble, and then the whole discussion runs off course from the duty/self-discipline factor of Individual liberty-responsibility and the fundamental idealism of the free man.

Ah well. What are you gonna do...

Virtue has to exist before it can erode and in our society we need to have some serious discussions.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Virtue has to exist before it can erode and in our society we need to have some serious discussions.

Yes, I agree. And that's why I always pop off about being expected to accept an adjective.

If I'm a blue guy I don't want a green guy putting on a blue costume and selling everyone green fundamentals by misrepresenting them as if if they were blue fundamentals when they fundamentally aren't.

That's how the gradual erosion occurs.

That's a lazy analogy but, like I said, I'm just posting on the fly here. Plus I've been on here too long today with all of this rain. I need a break from here for a while.

 

[IM2]

Yes, I agree. And that's why I always pop off about being expected to accept an adjective.

If I'm a blue guy I don't want a green guy putting on a blue costume and selling everyone green fundamentals by misrepresenting them as if if they were blue fundamentals when they fundamentally aren't.

That's how the gradual erosion occurs.

That's a lazy analogy but, like I said, I'm just posting on the fly here. Plus I've been on here too long today with all of this rain. I need a break from here for a while.

I understand your analogy completely and you have described America at this present moment. What gets called conservatism is right wing extremism and liberalism is neo liberalism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I understand your analogy completely and you have described America at this present moment. What gets called conservatism is right wing extremism and liberalism is neo liberalism.

Largely speaking, yes.

It's a sad state of affairs.

But I just refer to it as indivisible factions of authoritarianism. Occam's Razor, basically, in that if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler...