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 ...
OK then...you are that stupid.
Thanks, pal.
;-)
Thanks troll.
;-)
What true American conservatives are trying to preserve is a distinct American culture, based on individual freedom, which can be, and has been, adopted with enthusiasm by people of every ethnic group on Earth.
It is also, of course, hated by people of every ethnic group on the planet and in America, including people whose ancestors have been here since the 1600s.
The truly odd thing is the leftists agree with phony conservatives that culture is genetically carried. Thus any opposition to Islam or “black culture” is classified as racism.
I think conservatives are the most colorblind of any kind of folks.
Anyone who is focused on their race is a racist, not a conservative. This goes for the KKK, La Raza or any other race oriented group.
Jesse Jackson said he was grateful his ancestors were slaves. Otherwise he’d be in Africa.
Lol... just be sure you gut this one and cut its head off before you take it home to feed to the cat.
Well stated. I couldn’t agree with you more on this issue.
Pelham: "Lol... just be sure you gut this one and cut its head off before you take it home to feed to the cat."
It's in the well known nature of Lost Causers: they just love to do their little touch-down victory dances even when they've been pushed into their own end-zone.
But if you like fishing analogies, then let's say Moby Dick has just eaten our "fisherman" and his rowboat, mainly because -- rather than fishing or rowing out of the way -- our guy just stood there pointing, and saying: "stupid, stupid, stupid... ".
;-)
I have no idea what that was supposed to mean and I doubt that BroJoe does either. It’s just more of the habitual post-modern yankee attempt to denigrate even when it makes no sense.
Good humor is missing from their character, but then it notably was from the deracinated puritans that were the first yankees. So I suppose it’s to be expected.
I think Uncle Remus had that in mind when he spun the story about avoiding the tarbaby.
I think of them more as misguided Jeffersonians who can't quite get it, but are all tied up (still) in the ethnic and social divisions that The Man in the big white house at the good end of town has used since the days when "the Old Southwest" meant Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
Boss-men in white suits have played these guys for 180 years and they still don't get it, but regard the slaves as the problem, when it was their rich neighbors who created the problem by importing masses of slaves who, in 18th- and 19th-century terms, were unassimilable because still regarded as members of a separate, African society (n/w/s that many of the alienating African social markers had been assiduously stripped away and discouraged by slaveholders).
The historian of Texas, T.R. Fehrenbach, commented that it was "planter liberalism" and its use, and the use of slaves, to belittle yeoman whites that were the genesis of racist odium against the slaves, who were complete pawns in the social-distancing game being played by the planter class and their professional- and business-class supporters. (Example of "planter liberalism": treatment of e.g. black ministers and professionals as near-equals, allowing them to come to the front door of a plantation house, when freehold farmers would require them to come to the side door of their small, rough-cut houses.)
There has been little progress overall in ending the animus (other than official stompings, and occasional prosecutions, meted out to dissenters from egalitarianism and affirmative action), mainly because there are too few stakeholders in reconciliation and too many who benefit from continued social tension and hostility, including elite, brahmin "deciders" in Beacon Hill mansions and Newport cottages.
It's absolutely hilarious that you should post such a thing.
Even the early, fully-racinated Congregationalist Yankees were like that.
The late historian Richard Hofstadter, while compiling his last, posthumously-published book (America to 1750, which he intended to be the first volume of a heavyweight, multivolume manual history), found the smoking gun of Yankee truculence against the South in the private journal of a Congregationalist minister who paid an extended visit to Charleston and surveyed its successful, bustling society in the mid-1600's, and found it utterly, utterly wanting. The frost on his comments adumbrate the Civil War. The Carolinians were, after all, Beyond the Pale. Which, to a Congregationalist back then, just about the whole world was, who were not among the Elect of the congregation.
Aah, I see you and what’s his name both studied at the Pee Wee Herman school of debate. ;-)
I understood that it was malice pretending to be humor. Which is what passes for wit among the postmodern.
I'm not sure where this leads, but I do agree with your point here.
lentulusgracchus: "There has been little progress overall in ending the animus... mainly because there are too few stakeholders in reconciliation..."
We should be the "stakeholders in reconciliation," because it is both morally and politically (for us, if not Dems) the right thing to do.
Other Northerners reported similar experiences, including 22-year-old Abraham Lincoln in his 1831 trip down the Mississippi to New Orleans.
What they saw, in addition to slavery's cruelty, was that the more slavery dominated an area, the poorer it seemed -- to them.
In fact, most simply didn't understand the economics of what they were looking at.
Southern wealth was almost entirely tied up in its two biggest investments: land and slaves, and since land was quickly worn out growing intensive cash crops, there was a constant need to move on to newer frontiers, meaning the Southern landscape looked more "rough and ready" than more settled commercial ports of New England.
So the correct comparison should have been not frontier South vs settled Northeast, but rather Southern frontier vs Western frontier.
In that comparison, Southerners lived relatively more comfortably than their northern-western cousins.
But regardless of such early negative reports from Northerners, North and South got along well enough to defeat the British and write a new Constitution in 1787.
It's whole idea was to protect rights of individual states, while providing just enough Federal Government to insure a common defense and other minimum national necessities.
Point is: that North and South were different from the earliest days is not even debatable -- of course they were different.
But they were close enough to win the Revolution, establish a Constitution and survive as a nation for many decades.
What finally ended it in 1860 was fears by Deep South Fire Eaters, that Northern abolitionists would attack and destroy the "peculiar institution" on which their lives depended.
But abolitionism did not begin with Congregationalists ministers in the mid-1600s.
Abolitionism began centuries earlier, with the first English laws (i.e., 1102) and Papal Encyclicals (i.e., 1435) outlawing slavery in parts of Europe and the Americas.
So, abolitionism arrived in America before the first slaves did.
Yup. Trolling since 1999. That would be five years longer than you.
Guess that’s what I would say too if I had no ammo in the intellect department.
;-)
Tar baby is perfect description.
I think I sort of understood the other thing. I think he was going for Moby Dick Head.
LMAO.
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.