My Photo

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

BlogStats


« Sandbox - 17oct17 | Main | Sandbox - 21oct17 »

21 October 2017

Comments

George Rebane

Apropos to the refinements presented above, I invite readers to also revisit the recent G-C Grid and Nolan charts to see where they may place themselves in these ideological spectra.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2017/10/the-g-c-grid.html
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/11/the-latest-volley-from-the-local-left.html

Scott Obermuller

There's a lot of meat in this post to sink one's teeth into. The article is paywalled, but I think I get the gist. One must always remember that the great American experiment started with a fairly homogeneous population. No matter what skin color, social status, occupation or previous nationality - America started off as a country pretty much bursting with folks that were through with the old ideas of aristocracy and the state (govt of whatever sort or social norms) providing one with a place and a vocation in life. This new country was full of folk that wanted freedom. Freedom to fail and die in the mud or maybe eke out a living based on nothing more than their own ideas and labor. For those who question the treatment of the native tribes, I'll point out that they had thousands of years to develop the natural riches of the North American continent to arm and defend themselves but instead squandered their opportunities to wage war on other tribes and invest in nothing more than warfare and slavery. Their treatment of women and the weak and ill do not do them any credit. Our govt treated them poorly, but they are greater in number than when the white guys showed up and their life expectancy has greatly improved since the 1500's. The USA did better by them than they would have by us if the roles had been reversed technologically.
We have only to go over the writings of our country's founders to see that they fully understood the coming issues and problems facing the new republic. They understood human nature and knew the pitfalls for a pure democracy.
For our country (or it's leaders) to think we can export the whole deal lock, stock and barrel to other countries is total folly. We can't even keep the deal going here as our type of govt was designed solely for a population consisting mainly of educated folks raised and schooled in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Since we are becoming (as a nation) less educated and more imbued with other beliefs we can expect the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution to have less of a hold on our nation's population.
We must remember that the modern liberals took that moniker as a way to disguise their true intentions and beliefs. They are not 'liberal' in any way as to their treatment of folk that don't hew to their beliefs. Only as to how they want to be treated.
Some conservatives are the true liberals - many who claim to be conservative are 'country club conservatives' and run pretty close to the establishment Dems in most regards.

BunBun

'"Our govt treated them poorly, but they are greater in number than when the white guys showed up and their life expectancy has greatly improved since the 1500's''',,,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1tRhC_QTpfY

Scott Obermuller

Booboo - since you provide no rebuttal or facts we assume you wish to revise your BS story.
We're waiting.
Or maybe you are asserting that the US govt treated them quite well and you wish to challenge me on that point. Hard to tell since you seem to be a bit slack with any relevant facts or points of view.
Not that that is anything new or different for you.

rl crabb

I don't know what history books you've been reading, Scotty, but maybe you should get your money back. Not that I prescribe to the notion that the white man is the source of all evil in the world like some of our liberal friends, but the record is all there. Nobody made this stuff up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres

Scott Obermuller

Hard to have a conversation with you lefties. All I get out of your posts is that you disagree with something I wrote, but beyond that there doesn't seem to be any sort of reasoning or facts.

George Rebane

It is a perennial quest of RR to solicit our friends on the Left to share their belief system, their ontology if you will, and put something of theirs on the table, instead of just attempting to denigrate or sweep away what others have placed there. So far we have come up empty, but the sincere invitation for them to share is still out there.

rl crabb

At least I offered a link to illustrate the benevolence of the U.S. government, which is more than Scott offered. The massacres were followed with bounties for Indian scalps, reservations on land that was useless, tainted food and clothing, and forced separation of parents and children. Of course we can't judge the actions of the army and settlers by today's standards, but we can, as a civilized people, acknowledge that the crimes occurred. Giving them fireworks, casinos and cigarette concessions was hardly an equitable trade-off for genocide.
I'm not suggesting (like some) that we give the country back. That's silly. But in some cases, like our local Nisenan, restoring federal recognition would go a long way in righting a historical wrong.

Todd Juvinall

Maybe if the left stopped living in the distant past they would become relevant to today's issues. There are enough things to fix on the planet today than worrying about things that cannot be rectified all these years later. Funny how the left is all about murdering the unborn by the millions and worries about the acts of people 150 years ago.

George Rebane

Hard to tell how regurgitating the white man's treatment of American Indians in the days of yore addresses the topic of the above commentary. This is not to say that the topic of more powerful cultures' historical impact on the less powerful is not worthy of review.

Scott Obermuller

"At least I offered a link to illustrate the benevolence of the U.S. government, which is more than Scott offered."
Uh - Bob, is everything alright in there? Your first post indicated you somehow disagreed with me, but provided no actual point of dispute. A list of American Indian massacres doesn't seem to dispute in any way anything I think or wrote. You then posted about how the American govt treated the Indians in the past and in modern times. Again, not with any point of disagreement with me.
Just feeling a bit ornery today?
I'm sure we can come up with a whole list of things the American govt ought to do, but maybe first get a little more back on track with the main topic.

Gregory

This has strayed greatly from the "Is Classical Liberalism Conservative?" question whose answer is "F**k no!", but folks on the left with minimal knowledge (and based on your recent 'toons that means you, RL) can't tell the difference.

Let's remember Wounded Knee, the worst mass shooting in American history. Perhaps as many as 300 men, women and children killed as a result of the US Army attempting to confiscate firearms illegally, or it would have been illegally had native Americans had the same rights as freed slaves of African descent. That said, white settlers also were killed and it's difficult to judge the terror that was in place at the time.

Going forward sometimes means letting go of past transgressions.

Scott Obermuller

The 'heroes' that the American lefties lift up today from the past would have been aghast at how the left would treat them today.
As Dick Gregory pointed out in his book 'From The Back Of The Bus' - "why do you blacks do so much cutting?" (knifings) "Because you don't sell us no damn guns".
The biggest complaint from the African background Americans before, during and after the civil war was that they were denied or hindered the purchase and ownership of fire arms. It was only later that this was changed to the complaint of voting rights. Blacks knew that voting rights didn't mean crap if they couldn't back up their rights with fire power.
I remember the first 'sensible' gun restriction laws in Kali in the 60's involved Saturday Night Specials. It was openly known at the time as a way of depriving poor N-words of fire power. Proper white boys didn't worry about the restriction because they could afford S&Ws and Colts.
Funny how the American left have a hard time understanding rights and privileges from the past and in the present. Modern libs are no such thing. They are all fascists.

Bill Tozer

Much food for though, indeed. I will skirt the self reflective question posed for further internal debate, save only to say I have wrestled with the US being the policeman of the world for years, yet the the lack of the US continuing such a role would create a vacuum...and who knows what and who would fill the void. Nature abhors a vacuum and the pavers to Hell are laid with good intentions. But, then again, with freedom comes responsibility. Much to ponder, thus these comments of mine are submitted prematurely.

This link just barely touches the periphery of Dr. Rebane’s post, but not on the topic of the post itself, “Is Classical Liberalism Conservative?”

http://buchanan.org/blog/liberalism-dying-faith-127769

Scott Obermuller

Modern Islam genocide of Christians started as soon as they realized America wasn't going to retaliate. Muslims lined up Christians and machined gunned them by the thousands and the American left boo-hooed about past American crimes.
R. Crabb is all distraught about what happened to humans that happened to live in the North American continent but I have yet to see any comparable concern from him about the current situation with humans that live in the middle east. Wrong color of skin? Or what? Hard to tell. Humans are apparently not all the same to the American left. Some are expendable and some are sacred. Maybe someday the American left can let us in on the secret of which humans are important and which are expendable.
Over to you, R. Crabb - tell us.

Scott Obermuller

Still waiting - classical liberalism vs the current liberalism.
Please let us know what humans are important to you.
Born or unborn - white or other - ?
Ball is in your court - let us know.

Gregory

The problem with the source material, the piece by Hazony, seems to ignore the Jeffersonian/Whig tradition and the Democratic-Republican party. There's a reason Hamilton and Burr had it out... and that's where the Conservative/"Classic Liberal" tradition is shown to be separate.

After the New Deal socialism with an American face taking over the Liberal label in the US, classic liberals were adrift. "Uncle Milty" Friedman chose to be a Republican as a matter of expediency as he felt increasing freedoms would be more likely with the GOP than the Democrats.

I do remember with some fondness Friedman telling his interviewer (Robert McNeil?) on PBS that of all the Presidential candidates that year, only Andre Marrou of the Libertarian Party was making any economic sense. McNeil, looking like he'd just been given a massive electric shock, woke up and said something like "Does he have any chance of winning?" ... had Friedman said "Only if PBS starts covering him as a serious candidate" in a small fib rather than "No, he doesn't", we could have had something going years ago.


Scott Obermuller

Almost everyone that runs for POTUS has to say absurd things regarding the economy and anything else that has to do with the budget in order to be considered a serious candidate. The farther left they are, the more absurd it gets. I doubt anyone could be honest about our national economy and debt and get the job.
There are plenty of fiscal conservatives that are quite liberal about almost everything else. The contrary with Dems is pretty rare.
There are some issues that cut across normal lines. Abortion is easily the thorniest to pin down going just by one's other political beliefs. There are plenty of very left wing Dems that are against abortion on demand and just as many Republicans and Libertarians who are very conservative about everything except abortion.
In fact, the abortion issue is causing some problems with the official line right now with the Dems. They love to consider themselves very open to all and love to brag about their 'big tent'. But the leadership stated that only pro-choice folks were Dems in good standing. A lot of lower ranking Dems complained that went against their being open to different viewpoints and would cost them votes when it counted.
I'm sure some sort of semantic acrobatics will be performed to take care of the issue.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad