i am in agreement, erowe1 --- sometimes Mister Donald Trump's semi-literate supporters
are wiser than his fully literate ones, sometimes the reverse can be patchwork quilt said...
I'm from Goldwater Country, and I have never seen "Goldwater" expressed as AuH20 (30+ years of living in the Grand Canyon State, too) until I came to RPFs.Originally Posted by Aratus
AU = GOLD
H two O = WATER
GOLD plus WATER = Goldwater!
AuH2O became a reporter's
shorthand in 1964!
the RPFs = fun!
http://oldpoliticals.com/goldwater__...-lot28444.aspx
I'll tell you what they "know".
They know that the South and States Rights were treason. That these small government conservatives were, and still are racist to the core, and the North, especially the glorious President Lincoln was the only President of Value in the 19th Century. This is truly when American History began (outside of those Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution in 1776 to declare a democracy, free from the tyranny of the king and of the christian religion. America, because of its institutional form of government, and all of its checks and balances, and "We the People", never have to fear tyranny. Thank the environment for America.
History, from the Founding, jumps straight to the Civil War...where the North did no wrong. To reconstruction...which would have worked completely, if the North didn't pull out the troops. Because then Jim Crowe started. Only government could save them.
Meanwhile, everyones favorite president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a macho man, who was in the Rough Riders and was a Bull Moose. He broke up those nasty monopolies that are caused by capitalism. Teddy truly is the standard bearer for what Republican Party should have been...because both Democrats and Republicans love him (god this is hard to type). Then we go to Wilson, he made the world safe for democracy, but the League of Nations failed because they were too weak. Just like the articles of confederation. Because of that, and because of american isolationism,...ooh, and appeasement...Hitler rose to power. Japan and Hitler wanted to take over the world, so the Japanese did Pearl Harbor. Hitler was stupid and had a 2 front war...but don't worry, if you mess with 'murica, you're gonna lose pretty quick. We won the war with Germany...and we needed to use nukes to save millions of Americans from having to invade Japan.
Did i mention that the New Deal saved us from the Great Depression...yea, the one that capitalism caused.
The next important thing that happened was JFK, truly the greatest president in the world, ever. He got shot, and he prevented the Russians from nuking us by embargoing them in the bay of pigs.
THis of course, if after the 1950s, the worst decade in American History, because both women and black people were oppressed, and everyone was super fake and stuff.
Then LBJ came, and he worked with MLK jr to finally defeat those stupid southerners and white people and racist republicans. He also did the great society, which is just as good as the new deal.
Then we had nixon, who gave us vietnam, which we hate because of sex, drugs, and rock n roll. No other reasons. But its okay, because we won.
Then there was Reagan, who defeated the Russians by outspending them in an arms race. Luckily, our government outspent them.
Just as the Russians fell to American Exceptionalism, the terrorists in Iraq started threatening us, so we invaded them under Bush Senior. We had a perfect economy and peace under Clinton. He was impeached because of politics. W. Bush is satan incarnate, he gave Iraq by lying...(or)...the Iraqis did 9/11 and we won the war.....
then there is Obama who is either:
Saint/Hero or Satan/Muslim
And that. That is the education level of the typical young American. I $#@! you not, that is for real. Because that is what i learned in school....it could have only gotten worse since. Having knowledge of the losers of elections...get real. They don't even read anymore.
How would you know? You don't agree with either. You advocate for no borders at all and thus no national sovereignty.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
they do not have the intellect to connect up the party planking Bernie Sanders wants to inflict on Hillary "C" and people
to a great American, who ended up in prison because he got Woodrow Wilson the Virginia Segregationist rather PO'ed
almost a century ago. i pause for a moment and think of Eugene Debs, who once headed the Socialist Party as he did a
classic third party POTUS run. later on, FDR's New Dealers did borrow many of his ideas, but not totally his socialism!
You can bury them as the last two, but when they get 90% of the emphasis from the ideology's supporters, we can tell what the real deal is.
here is PBS's take on him! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/...ts/p_debs.html (enjoy)
am i wrong in comparing donald trump on his good days to huey long of louisiana i pensively ask?
You're probably right. I am being Jaded to some extent. I'm Old Right, you're Old Right...shades different, sure. But I could work with most of the non-trumpians on here...even some of the trump guys when they are being reasonable.
Paleo-Conservative and Old Right are very different. Yes. But I think we can work with them to some extent. To me, the Paleo-Con Platform is basically the John Birch Society, or the Constitution Party. Both of which I respect...I'm not in full agreement all of the time...but I can work with those guys.
The Old Right, to me, much more similar to the Paleo-Libertarians. I mean, Ron Paul, regardless of if he called himself one, was essentially a Paleo-Lib. The shoe fits...he often spoke to the John Birchers and endorsed CP Party candidates. But he, as much as anyone, is the poster child...grandpa....for the Old Right.
And you are COMPLETELY CORRECT, that the paleo-con support is for Immigration and Trade.
Trade wise, Trump and Paleo-Cons are totally wrong on. I shouldn't need to elaborate. But i do appreciate their hostility to NAFTA ect.
Immigration, my issue with them is they are totally statist in their means to their ends...of which I am personally very sympathetic towards. I'm not very sure how to maintain Rule of Law, national sovereignty, and to secure the priviliges of citizenhood while the country is being invaded by overstayed visas, poor migrants, and hordes of welfare leeches....
No, I don't. Feel free to try and find a quote of me advocating either of those things.
Can you clarify, I hate to be rude by misunderstanding what you are meaning here.
Hmm..It is an interesting comparison that I haven't put much thought into. Just by scratching the surface...there seems to be some pretty solid parallels
When the suggested methods of preservingwhitewestern culture involve harming the free market, expanding the state, and depriving people of their property rights, the implication is that values 9 and 10 are more important than the other 8.
Cool story, bro.
Thanks for sharing. Barry is a generation or 2 before my time, but he's always been a rather popular topic on local radio and media. There's a Goldwater memorial in Phoenix/Paradise Valley, ya know. I'm pretty sure there are streets and parks and such named after him too.
Well, lets cut the cutesy stuff. White culture. Sure. That is fair, Europe and America (the West) are disproportionately white. I make no apologies for believing white/western civilization to be "superior". This obviously does not mean only whites or westerners can take part in it, nor does it mean that somehow it works better for "us" than for "others". Simply that comparatively, Western Civilization is Superior. You can disagree, but I think you'll be hard pressed for examples.
Harming the Free Market (Adam Smith, Western), expanding the state (Thomas Jefferson, Western), depriving people of their property rights (John Locke, Western),.....I'd say that perhaps you have a misinterpretation of Western Civilization...and the difference between Social Institution and Governmental Institutions.
Their philosophical roots go all the way through Western History, to the Ancients....but I contend that the Enlightenment is the pinnacle of Western Civilization. Marxism and its corresponding Egalitarianism drove the first nail in the coffin of Western THought...followed by the fall of the European Empires, and the rise of the 3rd world against civilization.
Virtue has all but died in this world. And with it. Liberty.
IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense. (This means to defend the culture that has been building for over 2,000 years, since the Ancient Greeks...Classical Education could truly demonstrate the importance of this to you. )
X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order. (Simply means, law is based off of western traditions...there is right and wrong. And those truths do not change in time or culture. They are fixed....take the Christian Just War Theory as example)
That's quite a lot of pretty words saying nothing while nobly fighting several strawman arguments. I did not mention my opinion of white or western culture, or whether or not I felt it was superior or worth defending. All of that is completely irrelevant to my point.
Between your values #1-8 and #9-10, which carry the greatest weight in decisionmaking?
If defending culture requires harm to the free market, is that a worthwhile trade?
If defending culture requires expanding government, is that a worthwhile trade?
If defending culture requires infringing upon personal property rights through means such as eminent domain, is that a worthwhile trade?
Do the ends of defending culture (values #9 and 10) justify the means of violating the other supposedly important values you listed?
You've said many times you are for completely open borders. You have stood against any and all efforts to stop illegal immigration. That's the equivalent of no borders whatsoever and no national sovereignty.
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 03-29-2016 at 11:32 PM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
He more than just talked to them. He has been their poster boy sent he first went to Congress.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Very true, though he proclaims to not be a member himself....where do you think the birches fall in all of this? I want to say they are Old Right instead of PaleoCon...is that accurate? Honest question, I'm not being witty
If I misunderstood your assertion, allow me to make up for it in a few more pretty words.
Last edited by Libertas Aut Mortis; 03-30-2016 at 06:23 AM.
So, in your view, there is no border between Indiana and Michigan, and the separate states are not sovereign?
By that standard, Ron Paul wouldn't believe in borders or sovereignty either. That's the problem with you closed border folks. You use the right words, but twist their meanings into all the wrong things.
Don't really know. I haven't really been interested in distinguishing between the two. To my knowledge, Ron is not a member, but he does speak at their annual meetings and there is a youtube somewhere where he's said he subscribes to The New American and hasn't found them to be wrong on anything yet.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Ron believes in national sovereignty. You don't. It's as simple as that.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
I don't think borders are necessarily an impediment to a free market. However, if preference is given to entry of goods or people based upon a measure of the "westernness" of their point of origin, that would create a less free market than would otherwise exist.
I don't understand the general obsession with sharia these days, but sure, let's go there. You would have a problem with individuals voluntarily subjecting themselves to a religious authority of their choosing? This seems to be in direct contradiction to values 8 and 10. Doesn't this concept go against part of the judeochristian tradition? Aren't there myriad christian communities which currently engage in this sort of self-policing behavior? Would your government eliminate these other voluntary authorities as well?
The government cannot police a territory that it does not own unless it infringes on property rights. This means either taking the property from its owner, or allowing the owner to retain ownership but restricting what the owner can or cannot do on their own property. For example, the proposed "stronger southern border", which is supported by many identifying as paleo*, requires the use of eminent domain to implement, as the government does not currently own all of the land adjacent to the border. In the case you suggested of the government preventing sharia law from existing, I cannot imagine how such a thing could be enforced without infringing on property rights, as all of the proceedings would take place in private homes and places of worship.
Could you give me a list of countries where those principles are a defining part of the culture? I would like to move there.
You're seeing what you want to see through a lens focused on culture war above all else. What I'm saying has nothing whatsoever to do with western culture and everything to do with liberty.
There is no way to enforce or protect western culture while also eliminating or even reducing government's involvement in markets, individual liberty, and property rights. If you prioritize liberty over culture, then the paleo in paleolibertarian is a distinction without a difference, so far as I can see it. If, on the other hand, you allow government to regulate action in order to protect culture, then the result is paleoconservatism of a non-libertarian flavor.
I think the key difference here is that the States have given up their Sovereignty to a Central Government. The Constitution disallows barriers such as closed borders between the States.
We have no such agreement with Canada or Mexico.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...uous-behavior/
Check out out this article to see how a Libertarian Government creates conditions for s Virtuous Society.
Yes I do, in the same way he does. But that's totally different than what you mean when you say it.
So the Constitution doesn't obligate us to have free movement across those borders, but it doesn't prohibit it either. And we did have that when the Constitution was ratified and for most of the nation's history. My point was that that doesn't mean there's no border or no national sovereignty.
Constitution
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
Articles of Confederation (My inner Anti-Federalist is showing)
"Elaborates upon the intent "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union," and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extricated to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us