Conservatism

[Clover]

Yes, there is still racism. I said that. But it's almost non-existent unless people make it so by blowing stories up.

Racism was HUGE back then. You should know. I'm not going to explain that further, but that was then. This is now. Racism is near extinction.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Racism isn't as prevalent in the U.S. as it was back then... provided we're only talking about African-Americans. Islamophobia and homophobia are far more common in America nowadays, imo.

(Personally I think we need a term for prejudice against black people. Racism is a pretty broad term.)

 

[brandman]

Racism isn't as prevalent in the U.S. as it was back then... provided we're only talking about African-Americans. Islamophobia and homophobia are far more common in America nowadays, imo.

(Personally I think we need a term for prejudice against black people. Racism is a pretty broad term.)

 

[Pwnemon]

Hey, ..., you know that Fox Article you linked to? The one MediaMatters referenced? This is from that article-

that now has forced the official to resign.

It was written AFTER the resignation. kthx.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood. A guy (Not from my same neighborhood, but from a similar one,) was killed in gang violence last year. In fact, 86% of cities with more than 100,000 people have reported gang problems.

I didn't pick up colored people from my grandparents (Who live in Ohio), I was just trying to shorthand people of color, but I'll keep that in mind for future.

I wouldn't necessarily call ours a racist system any more than I would call the government a corrupt system. They both are suffering from (racism/corruption), but that's because people are inately (racist/corrupt), not because the system is. In black neighborhoods, it's pretty racist against white people. Since white people are the majority, they'll have the upper hand on the inevitable racism. I'm not saying it's right but that's how it is. The people are the problem, not the system.

Now that quote is coming back to me, but didn't Glen, like, apologize for that multiple times? Yes, he has. And, Obama /did/ go to a church of liberation theology.

 

[Phantom]

Since white people are the majority, they'll have the upper hand on the inevitable racism.

That's a funny joke!

Oh and glad you ignored my previous post.

Read the 2010 census.

 

[Pwnemon]

Umm, I didn't see something really possible to respond to.

Also, this thread has devolved into a discussion of racism. Great.

 

[Phantom]

Also, this thread has devolved into a discussion of racism. Great.

You started it.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

1) I am NOT against /all/ change.

I fully realize that the world was not perfect back in 1776. In fact, conservatives have been some of the staunchest supporters of change in the past! It's just nowadays, with progressives trying to change toward the left, that I'm in opposition. Given the chance Republicans have as many ideas for reform as Democrats, it's just that with a full democratic majority we're too busy trying to stop leftist change to enact rightwing change. The name conservative does not come from conserving what has been in the past, it comes from conservatively sized government.

You constantly argue that we should change things back to/keep things the way they were in 1776, without giving any reason why that would be a good thing, other than the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written then. It's only reasonable that we would infer from that that you are opposed to change in general; you never give any reason other than "1776 was awesome".

Which is retarded, because your apparently infallible document of law, the Constitution, was written in 1787.

Conservatives have never been staunch supporters of change. Anyone self-identifying as conservative and then advocating change is a moron who does shame to both the conservative and progressive ideologies.

You need to realise that Republican =/= conservative and Democrat =/= liberal, no matter how inconvenient that is to your arguments.

If you are opposed to leftist change but in favour of right-wing change, then you are a right-wing progressive. Also, you have not explained why right-wing economics are more favourable than left-wing economics (and yes, the left and right are economic positions, the political spectrum is totalitarianism/anarchism).

Finally, conservatism does indeed come from conserving things in the past, it's roots are in the Latin conservare, "to preserve". If you think otherwise, you need to re-educate yourself. Conservatives are in favour of conservatively-sized government because they are conservative, they are not conservatives because they are in favour of conservatively-sized government.

2) I am NOT a racist!

I've seen multiple times people say when I bring up a point, "Oh yes he wants to rewind the clock, to where blacks are slaves and he's rich lol!" This IS NOT true! Wilson, however, WAS a racist. If you want a good history of past race issues in the US:

1854: The Republican party is founded as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Its goal to prevent the spread of slavery, one of its mottoes, "Free Soil."

1860: Southern Democrats, so unwilling to compromise their slavery, split from Northern Democrats to form their own party and run a pro-slavery candidate.

Abraham Lincoln runs on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery and wins, the first Republican to be elected President. The south is so afraid that he'll abolish slavery they secede from the Union, forming their own government. While modeled off the US, it promises to protect slavery in any territories it may acquire.

1865: The North wins the Civil War. The same year, Republicans push and ratify the thirteenth amendment, making slavery illegal.

1870: Hiram Revels, the first Black Senator ever elected, is a Republican.

1913: Woodrow Wilson is elected. He segregates the navy and fires many Africans in the White House.

1965: The Civil Rights Act, passed after a 44 hour Filibuster by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, gets 80% of Republican votes and 64% of Democrat votes.

2008: Republicans dislike Obama for his policies.

Also, that's an example of when conservatives have pushed change.

You have simply provided a catalogue list of liberal Republicans doing good things and conservative Democrats doing bad things.

Also, when we say that you want to bring back in slavery, racial segregation, etc., it's not because we think your racists, we are simply following through on your "keep things the way they were when the Consitution was written" stance to its logical conclusion.

3) I don't get in bed with fat-cat wall streeters.

Everyone says that the bailout was under bush, and the economy tanked under bush, but um not really. That would be the equivalent of me saying DADT was under Clinton. The CONGRESS is what makes the laws, and the democrats have controlled Congress since 2007. The first bailout was under Democrats. The economy tanked under Democrats. And need I say that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both signed into law under Democrats? Democrat bailouts have actually been going on since the midnineties. First were the mexican, bonds, then the Southeast Asian Bonds, and the Russian bonds too. In fact, Goldman Sachs donated just under one million dollars to Obama's campaign in 08.

I don't see what relevance this has to the fact that you are financially well-off.

Now that I have those three things out of the way, what I believe in:

-I believe that the constitution is not a "living" document.

The founders intended the constitution to be the constant rule of law and to shape all of Congress's laws. Otherwise, they wouldn't have added an amendment section, could we interpret it as we saw fit.

So you believe that the amendment section (which enables the changing of Constitutional articles) is a sign that the Founding Fathers didn't want the Consitution to ever change?

And don't accuse me of misconstruing what you're saying when you respond, because I am asking a valid question based on a reasonable inference from the opinion you have just presented. If I have misunderstood your position, it is because you have not adequately explained it.

-I believe that too much government stifles the economy rather than helping it.

There's some like six minute video about the Rahn Curve. It details how the economy grows best when the government is just present enough to ensure basic liberties but not to intrude and regulate much.

Of course too much government stifles the economy. This is obvious to everyone. No one is disagreeing with you.

-I believe that private enterprise works better at nearly ANY job than government.

Part 2, nuff said.

Armed Forces?
Law Enforcement?
Emergency Services?
Water Supplies?

While private enterprise may provide a higher-quality service, it also doesn't give that service to people who can't pay for it, therefore the weakest and most vulnerable in society lose out.

Also, if you cannot give evidence in favour of your position in your own words, you have already failed at debating.

-I believe that government is a monopoly and nonchalant.

Part 1. I know I messed up the order.

You think the government is an organisation with absolute power over something (you haven't said what it is a monopoly of) that is also unconcerned and indifferent?

Again, I am just making a reasonable inference from the information supplied, please feel free to correct any misunderstanding I have made.

-I believe that the government is firmly limited to its duties in the constitution, nothing more, due to the ninth and tenth amendments.

If I forgot anything I will likely post it later.

So if the US was faced with a threat that could only be reasonably fought by the government but the government was not enabled to fight it because it was not covered in the constitution, then the government should sit back and do nothing and let the threat destroy the US?

Again, reasonable inference, feel free to correct misunderstanding.

Okay, so I do participate in my share of racist jokes. But my despise of Obama is not because I'm racist. And those are just for fun. Like the British situation.

Anyway, I've made more points than just about my not-racism.

Racism in the British Isles, is a joke is it?

Umm, I didn't see something really possible to respond to.

Also, this thread has devolved into a discussion of racism. Great.

You brought up racism in your first post, if you didn't want us to discuss racism, you shouldn't have dedicated your second point entirely to racial matters.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Um, there is still racism against black people. It's what I've spent a lot of this topic arguing about. Could you please elaborate what you mean by that?

I'm not saying that negrophobia is dead, I'm just saying that it's not as drastic as it once was.

 

[Dawn]

...And this is why you shouldn't follow any particular party like a herd of sheep. Every party has good points. Every party has flaws. Make your decisions based on research and reason, not whether someone is conservative or democrat.

Also, yes, racism is not as widespread as it used to be, but it can be very prevalent depending on where you live. There are places where racism (even reverse racism) is not only practiced but encouraged. We still have a long way to go as a society.

 

[Clover]

...And this is why you shouldn't follow any particular party like a herd of sheep. Every party has good points. Every party has flaws. Make your decisions based on research and reason, not whether someone is conservative or democrat.

Also, yes, racism is not as widespread as it used to be, but it can be very prevalent depending on where you live. There are places where racism (even reverse racism) is not only practiced but encouraged. We still have a long way to go as a society.

I agree. But I really hate the term "reverse racism".

 

[Pwnemon]

Did you see the one I mentioned written on July 19, a day before her resignation? The one taken down from Fox's website? Shirley Sherrod resigned a day after that article was written.

The article I quoted was written on 7/19.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood, too. I live near a place that's notorious for its gang violence. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I've never felt at risk living where I do. I don't live in a gated community.

You said that had they lived in a middle-class neighborhood there likely would not be color-related gang violence.

I'd call our government corrupt. :P

Well, our government is corrupt, but not the system.

In the early 20th century, discrimination against the Irish was a problem. The Irish were on the lowest rung of society, almost there with black people. They were considered no better than apes.

Nowadays, there is no discrimination against people of Irish descent, nor against newcoming Irish immigrants. There aren't any instances of it, there aren't people complaining about it, there just isn't anything. Meanwhile, racism remains a problem for black people.

If white people could change their attitude towards the Irish, then it shows that race is a construct. Well, race IS a social construct - there's no scientific evidence that points towards there being different races. What I'm saying is that racism and discrimination can change. It's not something that has to go on forever; it'll only go on forever if we let it. Blaming it on "human nature" is a very easy way out; however, racism is something that is taught. We learn to discriminate. We see how people talk about people not like us and pick up on that. It's no surprise that many black people that left the US in the 1800s for France found that the French were way more accepting of them; the French had no stereotypes of them, and that they had darker skin compared to Frenchmen was treated as a curiosity but they were not judged for it. If we can learn racism, however, we can also unlearn it. There is a solution. It's difficult and long and hard and it requires lots of soul-searching, but it's possible.

I absolutely do not disagree.

You constantly argue that we should change things back to/keep things the way they were in 1776, without giving any reason why that would be a good thing, other than the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written then. It's only reasonable that we would infer from that that you are opposed to change in general; you never give any reason other than "1776 was awesome".

Which is retarded, because your apparently infallible document of law, the Constitution, was written in 1787.

Conservatives have never been staunch supporters of change. Anyone self-identifying as conservative and then advocating change is a moron who does shame to both the conservative and progressive ideologies.

You need to realise that Republican =/= conservative and Democrat =/= liberal, no matter how inconvenient that is to your arguments.

If you are opposed to leftist change but in favour of right-wing change, then you are a right-wing progressive. Also, you have not explained why right-wing economics are more favourable than left-wing economics (and yes, the left and right are economic positions, the political spectrum is totalitarianism/anarchism).

Finally, conservatism does indeed come from conserving things in the past, it's roots are in the Latin conservare, "to preserve". If you think otherwise, you need to re-educate yourself. Conservatives are in favour of conservatively-sized government because they are conservative, they are not conservatives because they are in favour of conservatively-sized government.

That is true, TES, but it's impossible to really go farther to the right of the constitution without being anarchist, so "conservative" is basically the right end of the spectrum, not "Right-wing progressive." Again, as I said below, conservatives will support social change, and occasional government change (Amendment 20 as one example,) but we like the position at which the founders placed our government, so any large movement on the spectrum is away from where we find our ideal government. It's like the people talking about "the good ol' days of RBY, BW just aren't Pokemon," but with government. It is perfectly possible to believe that things were better back then.

As to why right-wing economics are favorable over left-wing, I pretty much explain this below, but the gist of it is that the government has no competition therefore it doesn't have to constantly be on edge, enhancing and providing its customers a better service. Private competition is what guarantees quality.

You have simply provided a catalogue list of liberal Republicans doing good things and conservative Democrats doing bad things.

Also, when we say that you want to bring back in slavery, racial segregation, etc., it's not because we think your racists, we are simply following through on your "keep things the way they were when the Consitution was written" stance to its logical conclusion.

Well, do you really think I want to take a baseball bat to my computer and live without lights? No. I just want government back to the size it was in 1787. Not the entire world.

I don't see what relevance this has to the fact that you are financially well-off.

It doesn't. It has relevance to the fact that people say conservatives are siding with wall street fat cats and not with average Joes.

So you believe that the amendment section (which enables the changing of Constitutional articles) is a sign that the Founding Fathers didn't want the Consitution to ever change?

And don't accuse me of misconstruing what you're saying when you respond, because I am asking a valid question based on a reasonable inference from the opinion you have just presented. If I have misunderstood your position, it is because you have not adequately explained it.

No, that isn't what I meant. Let's see if I can say this better: The founding fathers intended for us to interpret the constitution strictly. Had they believed that the constitution would be "a voice of its time" and require a loose interpretation, almost to the point of neglect (~30 seconds in), there would have been no need for a way to make amendments. Does that make sense?

Of course too much government stifles the economy. This is obvious to everyone. No one is disagreeing with you.

Yeah, but I think it starts stifling a lot faster than you do, apparently.

Armed Forces?
Law Enforcement?
Emergency Services?
Water Supplies?

While private enterprise may provide a higher-quality service, it also doesn't give that service to people who can't pay for it, therefore the weakest and most vulnerable in society lose out.

Also, if you cannot give evidence in favour of your position in your own words, you have already failed at debating.

Actually, had you watched that video, what was happening is the government collects taxes and ships out their service (Water system and the EMT were two examples used) using the taxpayers' money to the highest bidder. Everyone still gets equal service, taxes go down, and quality actually goes up!

You think the government is an organisation with absolute power over something (you haven't said what it is a monopoly of) that is also unconcerned and indifferent?

It is a monopoly, in whatever it does. No other organization has the scope of power that it does; it has no competition. If it screws up, it has no fear of losing business or a competitor taking its place (Excluding, of course, election or armed revolution, one of which is nearly impossible nowadays, the other which doesn't really change that much between each party anyway.) Furthermore, government jobs are basically 100% secure, so the workers themselves hardly have to fear being fired. A lack of negative effects for failure can lead to laxness and indifference.

So if the US was faced with a threat that could only be reasonably fought by the government but the government was not enabled to fight it because it was not covered in the constitution, then the government should sit back and do nothing and let the threat destroy the US?

Again, reasonable inference, feel free to correct misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure any type of threat to the US could be found under a category:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"To raise and support Armies,"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

and "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Not to mention "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

Racism in the British Isles, is a joke is it?

I was just going by what Dark Shocktail said about it.

You brought up racism in your first post, if you didn't want us to discuss racism, you shouldn't have dedicated your second point entirely to racial matters.

Yeah well it's a well circulated misconception that the tea party is largely race based and I wanted to combat it.

(I swear if I get postninja'd.)

EDIT: Would you believe the forums almost ate this? I was like GEWVIOEWJRRGUORWAHVWEAIHFOKJ and then I hit refresh and it magically brought me back to the post page and I went all :D.

 

[Dark Shocktail]

I was just going by what Dark Shocktail said about it.

I was talking about generally today. It's known that Ireland and Northern Ireland are very separate places and that there are extreme Irish (The RIRA, or Real Irish Republican Army) who want the entirety of Ireland to be united and separate from Britain. They've even performed terrorist attacks in the past and are still active to this day. But aside from that minority, relations between the general Irish public and the English are no worse than relations between the Welsh and the English (that being if you go to Wales and turn out to be from England, they'll speak in Welsh when you talk to him).

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

That is true, TES, but it's impossible to really go farther to the right of the constitution without being anarchist, so "conservative" is basically the right end of the spectrum, not "Right-wing progressive."

Read my post again; right-to-left is not the same thing as totalitarian-to-anarchist. Right-to-left is economic, totalitarian-to-anarchist is political. You can be a right-wing totalitarian or a right-wing anarchist.

Again, as I said below, conservatives will support social change, and occasional government change

Once again, if anyone identifies as conservative but then supports change, then they are doing shame to both real conservatives and the progressives that they're pretending not to be.

(Amendment 20 as one example,)

The primary author and sponsor of the 20th Amendment was a progressive Republican, George W. Norris.

but we like the position at which the founders placed our government, so any large movement on the spectrum is away from where we find our ideal government.

Then you're a reactionary. A conservative wants to maintain the way things are (status quo) while a reactionary wants to return to the way things were (status quo ante. You are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative.

It's like the people talking about "the good ol' days of RBY, BW just aren't Pokemon," but with government. It is perfectly possible to believe that things were better back then.

Of course it is, you just never provide reasons why you believe that things were better back then.

As to why right-wing economics are favorable over left-wing, I pretty much explain this below, but the gist of it is that the government has no competition therefore it doesn't have to constantly be on edge, enhancing and providing its customers a better service. Private competition is what guarantees quality.

Government providing welfare services =/= monopoly.

Well, do you really think I want to take a baseball bat to my computer and live without lights? No. I just want government back to the size it was in 1787. Not the entire world.

Then why don't you say that? All you ever say is that you want to change things back to the way they were when the Constitution without ever explaining why this would be a good thing.

It doesn't. It has relevance to the fact that people say conservatives are siding with wall street fat cats and not with average Joes.

I don't think anyone said conservatives side with Wall Street fat cats. Republicans certainly do, however. Because here's the big scoop;

All political parties side with Wall Street fat cats.

No, that isn't what I meant. Let's see if I can say this better: The founding fathers intended for us to interpret the constitution strictly. Had they believed that the constitution would be "a voice of its time" and require a loose interpretation, almost to the point of neglect (~30 seconds in), there would have been no need for a way to make amendments. Does that make sense?

I understand what you mean but you haven't justified why what the Founding Fathers intended makes a difference almost 250 years later.

Also, stop linking to videos. If you can't adequately explain your position in your own words, then you shouldn't be in the debating section.

Yeah, but I think it starts stifling a lot faster than you do, apparently.

Explain and justify.

Actually, had you watched that video, what was happening is the government collects taxes and ships out their service (Water system and the EMT were two examples used) using the taxpayers' money to the highest bidder. Everyone still gets equal service, taxes go down, and quality actually goes up!

As it happens, I can't watch videos on my computer right now because I can't afford a good quality computer that doesn't freeze when I open up GMail, let alone YouTube.

So you're going to have to explain your position properly to me.

It is a monopoly, in whatever it does. No other organization has the scope of power that it does; it has no competition. If it screws up, it has no fear of losing business or a competitor taking its place (Excluding, of course, election or armed revolution, one of which is nearly impossible nowadays, the other which doesn't really change that much between each party anyway.) Furthermore, government jobs are basically 100% secure, so the workers themselves hardly have to fear being fired. A lack of negative effects for failure can lead to laxness and indifference.

Actually, the government is not, in fact, a monopoly. You can get a privatised version of any service the government provides except for social welfare (because private enterprise doesn't have social concerns).

I'm pretty sure any type of threat to the US could be found under a category:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

"To raise and support Armies,"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

and "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Not to mention "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

A non-military threat?

I was just going by what Dark Shocktail said about it.

This is the entire reason that there are such problems when you debate; you don't go out and find the information yourself. You make arguments based on hearsay and then don't go out and get accurate information. You are, as I have previously noted, wilfully ignorant.

Yeah well it's a well circulated misconception that the tea party is largely race based and I wanted to combat it.

That's fine. Just don't complain later on that racism has become a topic of discussion.E]

 

[hopeandjoy]

Both:
Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

Princeton:
Now not big judgments, like who to hire or who to buy a newspaper from -

Kate Monster:
No!

Princeton:
No, just little judgments like thinking that Mexican busboys should learn to speak goddamn English!

Kate Monster:
Right!
/
Everyone's a little bit racist
It's true.
But everyone is just about
As racist as you!

Some words of wisdom. That have already been posted, but meh.

 

[Phantom]

I am seriously getting sick of seeing that song posted every freaking time racism is brought up.

Eh it's catchy.


And Pwnemon if you didn't want it to turn into a topic about racism than you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.