Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Kids In Cages...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    When reduced down to meaninglessness, perhaps. But if we grant your proposal, then white supremacy is no different than black identity politics.
    In kind - I agree. White supremacists are simply voicing their ideal. Here's what I see as the difference:

    White identity/supremacy: We are the superior race and don't want our purity mixed with the inferior black/jew/mexican
    Black identity: we want black people everywhere to have the same opportunities and advantages as white people.

    That's not to say that there are no "black supremacists." I would find them as despicable as I find white supremacists.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And it is just as racist as white identity politics.
    Not necessarily. See above.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Nope. That wasn't my statement's intent. She was encouraging racial identity politics and said she didn't want anyone "at the table" that didn't play her racist game.
    Which is not what she said - it is how you've elected to interpret what she said.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yes, to politicians and aspiring politicians to use their race, and if they didn't, she didn't want them. Racist at its core.
    I guess all I can say is, "you're opinion is duly noted."

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And the left has made it nearly their entire platform.
    As noted - all politics are about identity, so I don't share your knee-jerk reaction to it.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Then you have no idea what identity politics are...
    ...or you don't realize you are engaged in them as the next person.

    And I think we've probably done as much as we can do. I'll leave the last word to you.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Thanks for another story time, but I ask again....

      “We don’t need any more white faces that don’t want to be a white voice".

      Racist?
      See my previous post.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        And the Democrats fielded a candidate so bad that she couldn't win against him - despite being the front runner.

        Mr. Pot, allow me to introduce Mr. Kettle...
        Losing an election is not a necessary indicator of the quality of the candidate, Teal. There are many other factors at work. For myself, I thought Clinton was a bad choice simply because she was so badly hated by the right, creating an unnecessary opening for Trump. I also thought she suffered from entitlement syndrome, and was not surrounding herself with the right people - which is not a good sign for a potential president.

        But, IMO, there is no comparison between the offal currently sitting behind the Resolute Desk and any of the other candidates in 2016, on either side of the aisle. Even Cruz was better - much as I shudder to consider it. The same is true of the slate of candidates for 2020. Heck...Zadok Rubin would be a better choice!
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-18-2019, 01:39 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Communism is the complete antithesis of our system of government carp. It couldn't be more unamerican.
          OK. I'll bite. Exactly how is communism the anti-thesis of our American form of government?
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            No you said: But the only unamerican thing I can think of is denying others the right to have and voice their opinion on how we should be structured and how we should function.

            So if the majority wanted to deny the minority the right to voice their opinion, denying free speech to the minority - that would not be un-american?
            It is not possible to have a government by/of/for the people if the people are not permitted to speak and participate, Seer. That would seem to me to be a given. The American experiment is based on that fundamental concept: government by/for/of the people in which the people can freely engage. The only "unamerican" thing I can think of is to undermine that foundation. There are several ways to do that. Government can ban speech. Government can exercise it's power to undermine the freedom of the press or trust in that press. Government can associate with specific media outlets or simply dominate them. And, of course, government can rally people to "send them back" when someone voices something they don't want to hear. The list goes on.

            As for minority/majority, I know you have expressed before your fear of the "tyranny of the majority." From where I sit, you simply want to replace it with the tyranny of the minority. The fact is, in any society, decisions must be made. The "american way" is for open debate, discussion, disputation of the issues and ideas at play. When it comes time to decide, someone is not going to get their way. Letting the minority rule the majority makes no sense to me. A "majority rules" approach is the cornerstone of all democracies - even representational ones.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-18-2019, 01:36 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              It is not possible to have a government by/of/for the people if the people are not permitted to speak and participate, Seer. That would seem to me to be a given. The American experiment is based on that fundamental concept: government by/for/of the people in which the people can freely engage. The only "unamerican" thing I can think of is to undermine that foundation.
              But you would say that voting out property rights is not un-american. Why call the loss of one right un-american and not the other? Another fundamental concept is property rights.

              As for minority/majority, I know you have expressed before your fear of the "tyranny of the majority." From where I sit, you simply want to replace it with the tyranny of the minority. The fact is, in any society, decisions must be made. The "american way" is for open debate, discussion, disputation of the issues and ideas at play. When it comes time to decide, someone is not going to get their way. Letting the minority rule the majority makes no sense to me. A "majority rules" approach is the cornerstone of all democracies - even representational ones.
              And if the majority decides to disenfranchise the minority that would be a perfectly American concept.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Carp, so in your view nothing could be considered un-american as long as the majority voted it in, or voted it out. The First Amendment? Freedom of the press, religion? The right of trial? If that is the case Carp, there is no definition of Americanism, anything could be labeled "American." Nothing un-American.
                Carp lives in his own little world with his own personal definitions of things. Like "all politics is identity politics" - "pregnant women are slaves to their fetuses", etc.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  In my view - Lincoln said it best. The heart of the American experiment is "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"
                  Which communism is not. It might claim to be "for the people" but it is in fact a totalitarian government that controls the people and everything else. It isn't democratic. Look at Cuba, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But you would say that voting out property rights is not un-american.
                    If the will of the people is to eliminate personal property, why should the people not get the kind of government they want?

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Why call the loss of one right un-american and not the other?
                    Because the loss of freedom of speech prevents government by/for/of the people. The abolition of person property does not.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Another fundamental concept is property rights.

                    And if the majority decides to disenfranchise the minority that would be a perfectly American concept.
                    And if the minority decides to disenfranchise the majority, that would be a perfectly American concept....?

                    Seer, what would you substitute for "majority rules" in a free society?
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Which communism is not. It might claim to be "for the people" but it is in fact a totalitarian government that controls the people and everything else. It isn't democratic. Look at Cuba, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba.
                      As far as I can see - the definition of "communism" has nothing to do with totalitarianism. All it has to do with is the existence of personal property and the distribution of wealth within a society. If every dictator in the world decided to base their decisions on the will of the majority - that wouldn't make them any less a dictator. If a totalitarian state decides "everything owned by the state for the people" doesn't make them any less a totalitarian state.

                      The U.S. is a representational democracy. If that representational democracy were to adopt communistic social/economic policies because that were the will of the constituents, it would not cease to be a representational democracy. It would simply be a representational democracy with communist social and economic principles. We already have socialist economic principles/policies at work, and a huge number of people like them.

                      Personally, I don't think communism is a workable economic or social model. I probably wouldn't stay if we headed that way. I'd advocate to NOT head that way. But I'm not going to call someone "unamerican" because they have the audacity to disagree with me on economic and social policy.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        OK. I'll bite. Exactly how is communism the anti-thesis of our American form of government?
                        Because it isn't about a government by the people. It starts out that way, promising the workers equality, but ends up a totalitarian dictatorship. The workers need a leader to guide them, a government to control the means of production to assure equality and so on. Can you name one communist country that is "by the people" that has free and open democratic elected officials?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          If the will of the people is to eliminate personal property, why should the people not get the kind of government they want?

                          Because the loss of freedom of speech prevents government by/for/of the people. The abolition of person property does not.
                          But so what? The abolition of person property takes away a freedom, why should freedom of speech remain, especially for a minority if the majority voted that way?

                          And if the minority decides to disenfranchise the majority, that would be a perfectly American concept....?

                          Seer, what would you substitute for "majority rules" in a free society?
                          That is not my point Carp, there are freedoms, that if the majority took away, you would not call un-american. So if the majority disenfranchised the minority when it came to petitioning the government, why would that be un-american in your world?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Losing an election is not a necessary indicator of the quality of the candidate, Teal. There are many other factors at work. For myself, I thought Clinton was a bad choice simply because she was so badly hated by the right, creating an unnecessary opening for Trump. I also thought she suffered from entitlement syndrome, and was not surrounding herself with the right people - which is not a good sign for a potential president.

                            But, IMO, there is no comparison between the offal currently sitting behind the Resolute Desk and any of the other candidates in 2016, on either side of the aisle. Even Cruz was better - much as I shudder to consider it. The same is true of the slate of candidates for 2020. Heck...Zadok Rubin would be a better choice!
                            She lost to Trump. She was the front runner, and lost to Trump. No one took him seriously - and she still lost to Trump.

                            It's hard to imagine a worse candidate - heck, she beat out Bob Dole's 'But He's a Bad Person' campaign for Worst Way to Lose an Election.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              As far as I can see - the definition of "communism" has nothing to do with totalitarianism. All it has to do with is the existence of personal property and the distribution of wealth within a society. If every dictator in the world decided to base their decisions on the will of the majority - that wouldn't make them any less a dictator. If a totalitarian state decides "everything owned by the state for the people" doesn't make them any less a totalitarian state.

                              The U.S. is a representational democracy. If that representational democracy were to adopt communistic social/economic policies because that were the will of the constituents, it would not cease to be a representational democracy. It would simply be a representational democracy with communist social and economic principles. We already have socialist economic principles/policies at work, and a huge number of people like them.

                              Personally, I don't think communism is a workable economic or social model. I probably wouldn't stay if we headed that way. I'd advocate to NOT head that way. But I'm not going to call someone "unamerican" because they have the audacity to disagree with me on economic and social policy.
                              Ah! I see you have your own personal definition of communism. Why am I not surprised. I can see there is no way to discuss this topic with you since we would be talking past each other. I will let you have the last word.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                As far as I can see - the definition of "communism" has nothing to do with totalitarianism. All it has to do with is the existence of personal property and the distribution of wealth within a society.
                                How do you institute Communism with out being totalitarian? You would literally have to use force of law to prevent me from selling my pig to my neighbor. It is government control from top to bottom, no freedom...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                367 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X