Skip to comments.Racists Have No Place in the Conservative Movement (ZO!)
Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
“We need a plan to wean them off of the free stuff. But no one will touch that with a 10 foot pole.”
I agree, only that the problem goes on at both the top and bottom and we need to wean both off.
America is the only country in the world that gives away trillions of dollars it doesn’t have, and gets and expects nothing for the average taxpayers in return.
Since most of the good paying jobs went to China and most of the corporations are now international, America doesn’t have as many average taxpayers so we must borrow the giveaways from China.
Why don’t we have policies that if we are handing out to those that need help with unemployment, disability, welfare, Section 8, free phones, that there would be programs in place that required those on the dole to work on the many things that actually need done from picking litter, to learn new skills or get a GED that would help them, and more importantly discourage them from staying on the dole. No - we just give it all away and get nothing back.
And it happens at the top end too and it is just as bad if not more costly. We should be requiring direct payback plus interest from all global corporations and banks for the USA taxpayer money (Fed Reserve handouts) that have gone to them as bailouts and incentives, etc. When did we the taxpayer become a fundamental part of a “capitalist” business plan?
This policy of giving taxpayer dollars needs to end for both the top and bottom. Sorry didn’t mean to highjack the thread ....just add some relevant thoughts that hit me at the moment.
How about the Socialist movement? Its ok there?
My grandfather said once that handouts are a narcotic. Once you take one, it becomes easier than working.
Now we have whole cultures in this country that are made up of people who haven’t worked in generations. And the majority won’t, if history serves as an example, even if it means they starve.
This is very well said.
The late William F. Buckley Jr. had very little patience for racists and anti-Semites. And I agree with that stance, completely.
Another thing that was disturbing is that Alex Jones even had a representative there, Luke Rudkowski. Who screens these people?
Sorry, Lee, but the simple, well-documented truth is that most if not all Founders, including Washington, Jefferson and Madison, well understood that slaves were not simply live-stock.
Indeed, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, slave-holders wanted to count their slaves as "fully human" for purposes of census and representation, equivalent to fully-human women and children.
But northerners scoffed that if Southerners could count all their slave "property", then Northerners should count their cattle too!
Finally, Southerners reluctantly agreed to only count slaves as "three-fifths human" -- not because they wanted it, but because that was the most Northerners would agree to.
As Sherman Logan and others point out, most Southern Founders in 1787 understood that slavery was wrong, and could be restricted.
So they agreed to outlaw the international slave-trade, and later banned slavery in the new "Northwest Territories".
Washington freed his own slaves in his will, and Jefferson even proposed a plan for the Federal Government to purchase freedom for slaves.
Jefferson's plan went nowhere, because slave-owners wanted no part of it, but Jefferson at least understood the moral problem with slavery.
However, by 1860 most slave-holders believed slavery was not only necessary to their economic well-being, but also morally justifiable and ethically good.
Indeed, they considered slavery such a good thing, they would tolerate no discussions of subjects like abolition or even lesser restrictions on their "peculiar institution".
Hence secession on Lincoln's election.
Lee'sGhost to Sherman Logan: "My explanation is based on facts makes perfect sense.
Your arguments, based on nonsense, do not."
Sorry, Lee, but you have it exactly backwards.
Anybody other that lying neo-comms have a comment?
The answer above speaks for itself...if you hear it over the belly laughs.
I am not an optimist. The current equilibrium will exist only so long as the government can borrow money. The current state of affairs cannot last forever. I don't see a soft landing for these people, or by extension for any of us.
In the end, when the game fell apart, they all died. The remnant welcomed the illegal immigrants (germans) who were doing most of the work anyway, as their new rulers.
I didn’t address corporate welfare because it is out of scope, but yes, you are correct. A significant difference is that the recipients of corporate welfare will not starve or riot if it is cut off.
When our Founders declared independence in 1776, slavery was legal in all 13 states.
It was not first abolished until 1777, in Vermont, then slowly, slowly throughout the North.
Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Founders considered slavery a necessary evil, which needed some restrictions, and might eventually be abolished.
Then as more and more Northern states did abolish slavery, Southern states more and more realized they couldn't live without it, and became adamantly opposed to even serious discussion of the subject.
So, in the end, slavery was not just about a few "greedy people", but rather about the entire economy and culture -- the way of life -- of nearly half of United States settled territory.
Beyond that, the Northern economy benefited too from Southern prosperity, and generally had no interest in abolishing it, so long as the South kept its slaves out of Free States and territories.
You are seriously distorting antebellum south. The majority of people in the south owned no slaves, worked their own farms, were carpenters tradesmen and lived lives that neither benefited from or were harmed by the "peculiar institution".
You only have half the story there. The Southerners wanted the slaves counted in order to increase their representation in Congress. Many Northern representatives at the convention made the offer that they would do that only if they were freed, giving them voting rights. The 'cattle' comment wasn't because they thought of them as sub-human but as a mockery to the slave owners wanting them counted but not treating them as human. The 3/5ths clause came from restricting slave owning state's representation until they freed the slaves. There was a lot of abolitionist sentiment among many of the founders.
iopscusa post #92: "Whats that WE kemmosabe?
You sound like the Leftist thugs that beat up the diners in IL.
The faux anti-racist, aka leftist skin heads."
Hildy's "we" would include me, kemosabe.
There is nothing guaranteed to reduce Conservatives to a tiny splinter group faster than welcoming known racists or "White Nationalists" into our Big Tent.
I'd say those folks are equivalent to Stalinists and Maoists among Democrats, except we try to keep ours out, they just appoint theirs to high government positions.
And like Hildy, I strongly suspect that some of those folks are just paid Democrat "false flag" operators. ;-)
in the USA, half of us work while the other half subsist on entitlements. The entitlements are paid for by borrowing money from foreign creditors who unlike the descendants of Carthage have the power-and eventually the obligation-to withhold funds and demand payment.
Your word "truth" is key to the whole thing.
We have to support it, and not let them drown out facts in whatever political spin they push.
More to the point, truth is very often not something for the weak of mind, or feint of heart, FRiend.
I see that you have your Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" memorized.
So, let's see, this would be, what, Rules #5 and #13, right?
Also falls under what I'd call Rule #14: "never let facts get in the way of a good narrative."
For anyone who doesn't remember all of Alinsky's rules, they are summarized here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.