An Amicable Divorce?

#56
#56
sjt18 said:
Not really. Neither party questioned a limited role for the Federal Gov't. They differed by a matter of degrees. BOTH of those parties' ideals have been rolled up into the modern GOP. The modern Dems are nothing like either one.

No. Progressives/Modernists began in Europe as congruent political, scientific, and religious movements during the 1800's. By 1900, US colleges had been infiltrated. By 1925 or so, US colleges had been effectively converted and the press was well under way. By 1940 the elites of both parties were basically progressive.

In 1964, Goldwater began a movement to take the GOP back to American ideals. The modern GOP is a composite of those from both parties who rejected the leadership of progressive/statist elites. There is a problem though... many leaders in the GOP are still closet progressives.

What modern day Dems believe would not only be alien but repulsive to vast majorities of both parties 100 years ago.



Not really. Conservatives believe that people should have rights, freedoms, and be responsible for themselves. Dems then believed that but only for white people.

I was mistaken earlier. The one tie that the modern Dem party has with the American past is the idea that some in society exist to serve an elite power. In the old south, a relatively small number of masters controlled a large number of black slaves... they told them how to live, gave them what they wanted them to have, educated them the way they wanted them educated, supplied their basic needs,... They considered any wealth produced by the slave the property of the owner. Anything the owner allowed the slave to keep was supposed to be considered benevolent.

That's pretty much what modern libs/progressives want for all Americans except the masters are the political class, academics, union bosses, politically selected CEO's, and media kings.

Whether you call it feudalism, socialism, communism, statism, totalitarianism, private slavery, or anything else, the basic concepts remain the same... elites controlling and effectively owning the masses.

America freed its slaves... and almost immediately started enslaving everyone.
Click to expand...

That I can completely agree on as a major problem (as I said when editing earlier post, it sounds like we agree on a lot more than the initial posts would make it sound)
 
#57
#57
I think you're deluded if you think that either of two half countries would ever have or reach anywhere near as much power as the US currently has now.
Click to expand...
no question ... and the world would be much worse off for it ... w/o the buffer that the US represents in several troubled areas of the world, anarchy/despotism would surely break out ...

imo, it would be a question of the conservative americans deciding that they need to form their own country for the good of their children/grandchildren .... I understand that liberals think that their way is the best way ... conservatives disagree and the evidence is mounting that they're right ... unfortunately neither the R's nor the D's are willing to stand up for conservative ideals ...
 
#59
#59
The problem is with both sides. They both are "progressive" but in different ways. They both feel they know better than the population at large and the government needs to act out their view of how society should "behave." The Left Progressives find the idea of a man making his fortune while others starve morally abject and from there they use their weapons of Global Warming, Race Baiting, and Social "Injustices" to get their points across. The Right Progressives feel that we need to adhere to a strict moral code along with the Bible: Abortion (which I will openly admit I still can't just say "my body my choice"), Gay Rights, and the percieved Manifest Destiny that democracy should be spread across the world by our hand (with force if necessary) are their weapons to progress their vision.

I used to be on the Right but as I get older I realize I'm just as bad wanting my way forced in as the Left are really. And I believe that major chunk in the "middle" may feel largely the same way and just want the Government out of our lives on both angles.

I'm not trying to bash Christians with this but the problem is the politicians have picked up on this and Use all the above talking points to demagouge their way into office while they do nothing but line the pockets of their "doners." We are basically fighting over stuff that really should be left up to your own personal convictions or at the most your local municipality, NOT the Federal Gov't. As soon as people across the board start realising how they are being used on both that is when true change will take place in this country.
 
#62
#62
TrueOrange said:
I think you're deluded if you think that either of two half countries would ever have or reach anywhere near as much power as the US currently has now.
Click to expand...
The current ideals of one half are what made the whole nation great. The current ideals of the other half have failed throughout history everywhere they've been tried and have resulted in a return to totalitarian statism.

But to think that two half countries would be any better....it didn't work the first attempt for a reason
Click to expand...
Yeah... like one side having 3 times more soldiers and vastly more resources than the other.

Fact is that one half of the US now operating under our founding ideals would have a better shot at long term survival and prosperity than the two together.
Yes a major understanding of the Constitution, its ideals and how it works is very important (so you dont vote thinking an amendment for no gay marriage can end up there),
Click to expand...
Do what? Homosexual marriage is not covered in the USC. At that time, it was illegal in many states and punishable by death.
The world isn't that black and white; it's not just A or B and never has been.
Click to expand...
There is true and false in the world. Truth is white. Error is black. While the discernment of the two isn't always easy... there is no overlap between true and false.


Both parties represent various ideals of the founders.
Click to expand...
No. They really don't. If you would simply read the beliefs of almost all Dems you would find that they believe in a "living Constitution". IOW's, they believe they can manipulate it to say anything they want it to say even if it is the opposite of the original intent.
impressing their own party/benefactors than they are about making things better in this country.
Click to expand...
The USC does not grant power to the federal gov't to "make things better in this country". Read it. It expressly declares that its purpose is to LIMIT gov't and provide an incomplete listing of rights reserved to states and individuals. That is DIRECTLY contradictory to the modern Dem party.
It's been that way this entire decade, and it's extremely counter-productive to the way the system is supposed to work.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious. In the early years of the country, men dueled over political ideals. The Civil War saw 500K Americans die over political ideals.

Politics today are tame by comparison... partly because many GOP politicians are frauds.


As for your BTW point, I had just been pointing that out b/c your previous post was saying that it was the Republicans conservative ideals that liberated the slaves, etc, etc. I was pointing out that - and you seem to somewhat have accepted it in your response - the party's ideals were pretty drastically different back then than they are today: the more conservative party (the one who who be deemed "conservative" by today's standards still) were the Southern Democrats and their ideas/wants were a major part of the proponents pushing for secession.
Click to expand...
It WAS conservative ideals that freed the slaves. It was the belief that constitutional rights, freedoms, and responsibilities should be granted to everyone. There is nothing more conservative than that.

FTR sucession and states rights are much, much broader issues than slavery. While they were wrongly used to justify and grave injustice... trampling them has allowed even more injustice to occur.



also, are you using the Glenn Beck debating point? (asking due to the "progressives" point)
Click to expand...

I don't watch him very often but he usually agrees with me when I do. In short, no... my opinion is derived largely from history and what historical documents actually say.
 
#64
#64
sjt18 said:
Yeah... like one side having 3 times more soldiers and vastly more resources than the other.
Click to expand...

sorry it meant to say didn't and wouldn't have worked the first time

Do what? Homosexual marriage is not covered in the USC. At that time, it was illegal in many states and punishable by death.
Click to expand...

I meant that though the Constitution is not a document to be used for matters such as that - regardless of one's opinion - just as it wasn't the place for a prohibition law to be placed.

People want to put alot of things into it just because it's the highest law in the land, but at the same time there's a whole bunch that shouldn't be put into it as well, since that's not what it's for

There is true and false in the world. Truth is white. Error is black. While the discernment of the two isn't always easy... there is no overlap between true and false.
Click to expand...

But unfortunately there is alot of gray area, and the problem is that nowadays alot of people want to stick to their absolute ideals on every decision but it just can't work that way.


FTR sucession and states rights are much, much broader issues than slavery. While they were wrongly used to justify and grave injustice... trampling them has allowed even more injustice to occur.
Click to expand...

I know. there were a multitude of reasons really why the war started. It just gets dumbed down to slavery most times.




My beliefs on things (govt and real world) are just simply that one can never deal solely in terms of absolutes.


BTW, I wasn't trying to start an argument, just have a discussion; some of your response emphasis seemed to suggest that. I'm not trying to necessarily say you're wrong or you need to change, but I want to understand a bit better where you're coming from.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
I also don't get one of your responses....it seems like more than anything the last decade the Republicans are more concerned that the Democrats don't do anything that could be successful or good and the Democrats are just as concerned that the Republicans aren't able to accomplish the same
 
#66
#66
99% of the reason for the war was slavery.

The argument for states' rights went back to the 1810's. The main argument.... you guessed it.... slavery.........
 
#67
#67
TrueOrange said:
I also don't get one of your responses....it seems like more than anything the last decade the Republicans are more concerned that the Democrats don't do anything that could be successful or good and the Democrats are just as concerned that the Republicans aren't able to accomplish the same
Click to expand...

W and his congress was a miserable failure. I didn't think it would be possible to get worse but then the electorate put in the clowns in congress and in the clown in the white house.

I mean, Obama makes W and FDR look like Walter Mondale.

In the end, the best thing to live by is that gov't = failure.
 
#70
#70
OrangeEmpire said:
W and his congress was a miserable failure. I didn't think it would be possible to get worse but then the electorate put in the clowns in congress and in the clown in the white house.

I mean, Obama makes W and FDR look like Walter Mondale.

In the end, the best thing to live by is that gov't = failure.
Click to expand...

honestly seems that way a bunch, doesnt it
 
#71
#71
TrueOrange said:
also didn't our debt start exploding during the last administration and our war efforts?
Click to expand...
Obama doubled the deficit in his first year. Reagan while defeating the USSR in the Cold War was blamed for a horrible deficit of around $300 billion.

Our debt started with FDR... and became an inevitable problem with the Great Society programs of the 1960's progressives... of both parties.

Actually you could say it was destined to happen when we went off the gold standard and started printing credit currency that could be manipulated.

Interestingly, De Toqueville in the 1830's predicted we would only survive as a prosperous democracy until the politicians discovered they could bribe voters with the people's tax dollars.

I think a problem though with the current conservative idea and its party is that, as it currently, it seems to work to support these seemingly wealthy men and businesses first and everyone else second; both parties though have seemingly been pushed more towards their extremes the last decade
Click to expand...

Promotion of private education, entrepeneurship, property rights, low taxes, etc... may seem to benefit the wealthy more but as JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats". Similarly Lincoln said (strangely enough considering our debate) that you don't make a slave free by enslaving a free man... you don't make a poor man rich by impoverishing a rich man.

Don't fall into the progressive/marxist argument that an economy is necessarily a zero sum game where every gain must be matched by a loss.
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
sjt18 said:
TrueOrange said:
also didn't our debt start exploding during the last administration and our war efforts?



Promotion of private education, entrepeneurship, property rights, low taxes, etc... may seem to benefit the wealthy more but as JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats". Similarly Lincoln said (strangely enough considering our debate) that you don't make a slave free by enslaving a free man... you don't make a poor man rich by impoverishing a rich man.

Don't fall into the progressive/marxist argument that an economy is necessarily a zero sum game where every gain must be matched by a loss.
Click to expand...

I never really thought it was.

I have thought when those things get turned into something along the lines of Reaganomics that it can't work out
Click to expand...
 
#75
#75
TrueOrange said:
I also don't get one of your responses....it seems like more than anything the last decade the Republicans are more concerned that the Democrats don't do anything that could be successful or good and the Democrats are just as concerned that the Republicans aren't able to accomplish the same
Click to expand...

Why should that be a surprise? To the degree the GOP is true to its ideals or else afraid of its voters... their ideals are directly contradictory to Democratic ideals.

If one side wants limited, smaller, less intrusive gov't and the other wants a nanny state... they aren't going to go along with each other very much. Stopping someone you believe is terribly wrong is just as much a duty as advancing your own ideals.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top