Crazy Uncle of modern conservatism on the March on Washington

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. Bushmaster

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +658
    Human's DNA is something like 98% IDENTICAL to a gorilla. Think about that for a second. Would anyone think humans are gorillas?
  2. gatorjd95

    gatorjd95 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +113
    I'll answer that 996. Yes, I do have concerns that the gov't can force anyone (business owner, landlord, etc.) to conduct business with any person or group. For myself, I would rebuke and not engage in business with anyone who discriminated on the basis of race, color, religion, etc. I agree with Buckley's conclusion that the Civil Rights Act unconsitutionally expanded the authority of the Commerce Clause - a position also held by several notable black leaders (Sowell, Williams, Thomas, etc.). Holding those political, legal, philosophical beliefs does not make one, ipso facto, a racist. Failure to appreciate the distinction and difference only reveals one's partisan agenda to smear political opponents rather than engage in the substantive debate.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    That's cool.

    But you can support things like "state's rights" and "limited government" as terminology but those things have a historical meaning.

    One that may differ wildly from your own personal interpretation.

    Those two terms were used by conservatives to argue against the passing of the VRA & CRA of 1964. So when that language to used in a debate here it has meaning that user may not know what they are saying.

    The only thing I disagree with in your post to LittleBlueLW is that not agreeing with a fellow conservative or Christian is one thing....its another to not agree with the tenets of the people who defined the conservative political movement.

    If most of these people who call themselves conservative don't agree with the movement what's the motivation to call yourself 'conservative"?

    You don't have a problem not calling yourself a conservative.

    Why would others here call themselves conservative, use their terminology, but not identify with the movement that created those ideas when challenged?
  4. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,147
    Well said.
  5. baygator1

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,971
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,667
    Row - to be clear, are you implying that people who consider themselves conservative (in some fashion, to some degree) today are racists because Goldwater and Buckley were clearly wrong on the issues?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,345
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,429
    Here's a question for you:

    Is a person who calls themselves a liberal today the same as a liberal from the time of Classical Liberalism?
  7. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,147
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but are you essentially saying that, for example, people who currently label themselves as Catholic shouldn't do so unless the fully support everything the Catholic church has ever done or said?
  8. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    No
  9. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Yeah, but too bad its not upheld where constitutionality is actually tested...the SCOTUS.

    So the constitutionality of that argument is over.


    Are you in favor of a country where I have to give up my seat on the bus to you because the bus company has a rule that says so?

    When you're driving late at night tired and looking for a hotel to sleep and the only one for miles doesn't allow you to sleep there based on your race?

    That's history....that's reality.

    Unless of course you want to argue that segregation & discrimination are beneficial somehow [and constitutional]?

    What about equal protection under the law?
    What about all men are created equal and endowed with the same unalienable rights?


    Failure to admit to overwhelming evidence to the contrary of one's beliefs is called bigotry.

    And you're the one calling out agendas?
  10. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,188
    And he (they) never will, because calling you (or anyone with a dissenting political opinion) a racist is a powerful political weapon, an opiate that these types will never willingly give up.

    This is why all you see from these folks are nebulous claims of racism, always without one single actionable way to get past it. Notice how they never have a plan? It's by design.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    A new meme undoubtedly soon coming to a Row post.

    http://americanglob.com/2013/08/28/confederacy-the-new-democrat-talking-point-has-been-issued/
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Fortunately those days are over and it took a federal law to end it. There is no escaping those facts.
  13. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    No

    But if you don't agree with their core beliefs & tenets why would you call yourself one?

    Can you be Catholic if you don't believe in the bible, pope, catechism, and jesus?
    At some point you simply aren't a member, right?
  14. gatorjd95

    gatorjd95 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +113
    Your continued obtuseness is noted.

    Note that just because one particular SCOTUS decides an issue does not end the debate - even if in an academic sense. Otherwise, we would still be locked into the Dred Scott and Plessy world that was so unjust.
  15. CHFG8R

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,188

    Just trying to figure out what the point of the OP really is. Create a finger-waving moment for you towards your political opponents?

    If not for that, then who cares what the National Review's editorial said in 1963? I mean, while you're at it, perhaps you could share the comments of prominent (D)s like Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd re. the CRA during that same time.
  16. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,147

    In response to your first question: I'm not in favor of you having to sit in the back because of skin color, but I am in favor of someone else's rights to choose to run their bus-line like that if they choose to.

    I'm also not in favor of having to drive another 50 miles(or whatever), to another hotel because the color of my skin -- but I'm in favor of the owner of that hotel's right to do so to run his business that way if he chooses.

    Just because someone chooses to run their bus-lines or hotels in that manner, or whatever business, doesn't mean people are any less or any more equal - it simply means that's how the owner wants to run their business. The perspective of equality comes from within yourself, not because of some other individual. If you were to meet a current self-proclaimed racist and he were to tell you that you weren't equal to him, would that make it so?

    Segregation is incredibly beneficial actually, however, I don't believe government-forced segregation. As I said in another thread, human beings naturally segregate themselves all of the time, obviously to some kind of self-benefit or else we wouldn't do it. There's evidence literally everywhere to prove this, why are you ignoring that?
  17. baygator1

    baygator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,971
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,667
    Good. I'm glad your posts are not thinly veiled attempts to categorize today's conservatives as racists through a historical connect the dots exercise. It's good to know your posts illustrating how the Godfathers of conservatism were racists were really pointless, except to highlight that there are individuals through history who have been very wrong on very important issues. That is indeed groundbreaking perspective.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    What are you talking about?

    The CRA of 1964 didn't move this country in the right direction?

    It may not have changed your heart but it certainly governs your actions.
  19. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    So if a state decides to not let black people vote that should be allowed to?


    In your opinion, property owners have the right to deny rights enumerated in the constitution because they own property?


    Interesting interpretation of the constitution.


    Should business owners be allowed to have slaves to run their business if they can catch them and put them in shackles too?
    :crazy:
  20. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,147
    Would you rather someone who isn't a racist because the government told them not to, or rather someone who isn't a racist because their heart has changed? One of these is easier than the other and quicker, the other takes longer and may be more painful -- but which is truly better?

Share This Page