not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
are you seriously arguing that such a policy is being advanced to address Black concerns? Or is this merely a way of spinning another privatization scheme as being "good for the Black community"?
based on policy alone, there would be no reason for latinos to vote republican.
in fairness, I would say cultural conservatism/faith-based initiatives are possible reasons.
Yeah....that Christianity thing is a big thorn in the Left's side.
dude I'm not saying it's an inherently bad thing. I'm saying it's a difference between Latinos as voters and other voting blocs. and a possible reason why they may gravitate toward the Republicans. Latinos seem less threatened by faith-based programs and are [I could be wrong] more socially conservative than Blacks [/I could be wrong].
I'm not pointing at you personally, but certainly you know that a good chunk on the left does feel it is a bad thing.
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
are you seriously arguing that such a policy is being advanced to address Black concerns? Or is this merely a way of spinning another privatization scheme as being "good for the Black community"?
Isn't the bottom line whether or not it IS a good thing, and not who is spinning it one way or another.
I'd like to hear an argument as to why this is a bad idea for citizens in general, regardless of race.
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
are you seriously arguing that such a policy is being advanced to address Black concerns? Or is this merely a way of spinning another privatization scheme as being "good for the Black community"?
Isn't the bottom line whether or not it IS a good thing, and not who is spinning it one way or another.
fine. and we can argue whether it's good in general or not.
my point was that saba was offering this policy proposal up as evidence of the Republicans concern for Blacks . (I specfically suggested Republicans stop blaming Democrats for taking advantage of Blacks, and start addressing Blacks as voters themselves; in reponse saba offers this policy proposal).
fact is, that's a joke. these privatization schemes are not aimed at Blacks. at best Blacks are fringe benefactors.
so long as Republicans are not making a genuine effort to address the concerns of the Black community, they are just as bad -- if not worse -- than the Democrats-taking-Blacks-for-granted that were the original basis for this little debate.
freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity
I dont know what constitution your reading from, but the old one doesnt mention these "inflexible rights".
For christsakes you are a fucking lawyer, presumably you went to law. Our founding fathers wrote about "inalienable rights" in the declaration of independence. They codified these "inflexible" rights in the constitution through the bill of rights and the 15th amendment. You know the right to free speech and freedom from discrimination based upon race among others. The concepts articulated in those amendments come directly out of the "liberal" philosophical tradition (Locke, etc) that our Dolo mentioned earlier hence the connection. I used to think you were a bright guy who just wants a doorman but now I gotta wonder what the fuck you do with your day at the office.
Probably not coincidentally, these same people are often involved in a vigorous attempt to rewrite WWII history to make Hitler a leftist. Uh-huh.
Well, he was a National Socialist[/b], after all.
Hahaha! I see you've encountered this phenomenon before--that's exactly the rationale a lot of them provide. Hell, dolo himself pretty much offered it above. I didn't think he'd so enthusiastically jump in and prove my point, but there you go.
Why exactly do you find the description of those who called themselves socialists and acted like socialists as being socialists so risible?
Draw up for me a checklist of the behaviours you would expect of a socialist and lets see if the nazi's met them.
I call the klan a left wing organization, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truly regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre and disconnected pieces of literature ever perpetrated on the strut. Dolo while philosophically intact your argument does not bear the weight of history in any way. The "right wing" has never been in the forefront to protect the "inflexible rights" of the individual (freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity) in this country, going all the way back to Hamilton. It has always been the "collectivists" (Jefferson, MLK and others) who have fought for the rights of the individual. Which is odd given that philosophically they "view men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped." It was Adams and Hamilton (rightists in their day) who feared that the common folk would rise up like the Jacobian mob if given too much liberty. Ironically, they also advocated for a powerful central "state" in order to protect against the whimsies of the various former colonies. I can only imagine that your head must hurt trying to figure why the Republican party, like a bunch of so-called leftists, is so hell bent on keeping gays from marrying when this is clearly as case of a denial of "an inflexible right" that no card carrying "right winger" could possibly support.
Your philosophical view of the world is very laudable and forms the basis for much of what we hold dear in this country. But your scrutiny of history is incomprehensible.
1. How the fuck can anyone call jefferson a collectivist?
2. We're talking about right-left as its currently understood. If jefferson was alive today I dont think anyone would be reffering to him as left wing.
3. Where did I say I considered republican party right wing? I support them because on the whole they are less objectionable than the alternative and most importantly are down to stomp a terrorist.
I call the klan a left wing organization, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truly regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre and disconnected pieces of literature ever perpetrated on the strut. Dolo while philosophically intact your argument does not bear the weight of history in any way. The "right wing" has never been in the forefront to protect the "inflexible rights" of the individual (freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity) in this country, going all the way back to Hamilton. It has always been the "collectivists" (Jefferson, MLK and others) who have fought for the rights of the individual. Which is odd given that philosophically they "view men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped." It was Adams and Hamilton (rightists in their day) who feared that the common folk would rise up like the Jacobian mob if given too much liberty. Ironically, they also advocated for a powerful central "state" in order to protect against the whimsies of the various former colonies. I can only imagine that your head must hurt trying to figure why the Republican party, like a bunch of so-called leftists, is so hell bent on keeping gays from marrying when this is clearly as case of a denial of "an inflexible right" that no card carrying "right winger" could possibly support.
Your philosophical view of the world is very laudable and forms the basis for much of what we hold dear in this country. But your scrutiny of history is incomprehensible.
1. How the fuck can anyone call jefferson a collectivist?
2. We're talking about right-left as its currently understood. If jefferson was alive today I dont think anyone would be reffering to him as left wing.
3. Where did I say I considered republican party right wing? I support them because on the whole they are less objectionable than the alternative and most importantly are down to stomp a terrorist.
You may notice that I put collectivists in quotes because it is a false representation of liberal views. My point is that liberals, such as Jefferson and MLK, were far more active in securing the inflexible rights of men and women than your cronies on the right, like Reagan or Hamilton. If you don't know that Jefferson was a bit of liberal by his times' standard, I suggest that you crack a few books.
freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity
I dont know what constitution your reading from, but the old one doesnt mention these "inflexible rights".
For christsakes you are a fucking lawyer, presumably you went to law. Our founding fathers wrote about "inalienable rights" in the declaration of independence. They codified these "inflexible" rights in the constitution through the bill of rights and the 15th amendment. You know the right to free speech and freedom from discrimination based upon race among others. The concepts articulated in those amendments come directly out of the "liberal" philosophical tradition (Locke, etc) that our Dolo mentioned earlier hence the connection. I used to think you were a bright guy who just wants a doorman but now I gotta wonder what the fuck you do with your day at the office.
Declaration = Nice document not law.
Constitution = Law
the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights are not "freedom of expression." I suggest you get a copy of the Constitution and read actually read it. The XV amendment extends the franchise to black men. I think you meant the XIV that applies the federal bill of rights to the states. Either way, "inflexible," "ilalienable," "freedom of expression" none of these having any legal significance. Not even under the Court's extension of these rights through the use of "pnumbras" or some collective reasing of the bill of rights to suggest other unenumerated rights went so far as to create what your talking about.
So, if you dont know what your talking about, you should stfu. Me, I got A in Con. Law.
I love the argument that the only acceptable policy to benefit african americans that is acceptable to african americans is one that ONLY benefits african americans.
I love the argument that the only acceptable policy to benefit african americans that is acceptable to african americans is one that ONLY benefits african americans.
freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity
I dont know what constitution your reading from, but the old one doesnt mention these "inflexible rights".
For christsakes you are a fucking lawyer, presumably you went to law. Our founding fathers wrote about "inalienable rights" in the declaration of independence. They codified these "inflexible" rights in the constitution through the bill of rights and the 15th amendment. You know the right to free speech and freedom from discrimination based upon race among others. The concepts articulated in those amendments come directly out of the "liberal" philosophical tradition (Locke, etc) that our Dolo mentioned earlier hence the connection. I used to think you were a bright guy who just wants a doorman but now I gotta wonder what the fuck you do with your day at the office.
Declaration = Nice document not law.
Constitution = Law
the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights are not "freedom of expression." I suggest you get a copy of the Constitution and read actually read it. The XV amendment extends the franchise to black men. I think you meant the XIV that applies the federal bill of rights to the states. Either way, "inflexible," "ilalienable," "freedom of expression" none of these having any legal significance. Not even under the Court's extension of these rights through the use of "pnumbras" or some collective reasing of the bill of rights to suggest other unenumerated rights went so far as to create what your talking about.
So, if you dont know what your talking about, you should stfu. Me, I got A in Con. Law.
P.S. - I never thought you were a bright guy.
I've created a chart so you will be able to follow the line of reasoning.
Neo-liberal philosophical tradition of rights--->Declaration of independence articulates American vision of those rights----->US Constitution codifies certain rights
Freedom of expression (religious, personal and press) is one of many freedoms granted in the bill of rights. Whether jurists refer to it as such is irrelevant. I chose the 15th amendment because it is the only amendment that specifically bans discrimination based upon race.
I never suggested the inflexible or inalienable were legal terms. I did suggest that they form the basis for our own system of law. It remains a great conumdrum for right-wingers such as Dolo how it was liberals who have championed the adoption of such landmark civil rights.
It remains a great conumdrum for right-wingers such as Dolo how it was liberals who have championed the adoption of such landmark civil rights.
It poses no such conundrum for me since classical(real) liberalism and contemporary liberalism are two different things entirely. The great champions of liberalism past would be appalled at the filthy statists who today assume that monkier. Im thankful that increasingly you vermin are abandoning the term liberal and choosing to label yourselves progressives. A word with a legacy you assholes are actually worthy of inheriting.
note: The term neo-liberalism is a nonsense piece of historical revisionism which implies that what today stands as liberalism is liberalism in its original form and that REAL liberalism of centuries past is infact some kind of a modern origination. Please refrain from using it.
Comments
are you seriously arguing that such a policy is being advanced to address Black concerns? Or is this merely a way of spinning another privatization scheme as being "good for the Black community"?
I'm not pointing at you personally, but certainly you know that a good chunk on the left does feel it is a bad thing.
Isn't the bottom line whether or not it IS a good thing, and not who is spinning it one way or another.
I'd like to hear an argument as to why this is a bad idea for citizens in general, regardless of race.
fine. and we can argue whether it's good in general or not.
my point was that saba was offering this policy proposal up as evidence of the Republicans concern for Blacks . (I specfically suggested Republicans stop blaming Democrats for taking advantage of Blacks, and start addressing Blacks as voters themselves; in reponse saba offers this policy proposal).
fact is, that's a joke. these privatization schemes are not aimed at Blacks. at best Blacks are fringe benefactors.
so long as Republicans are not making a genuine effort to address the concerns of the Black community, they are just as bad -- if not worse -- than the Democrats-taking-Blacks-for-granted that were the original basis for this little debate.
For christsakes you are a fucking lawyer, presumably you went to law. Our founding fathers wrote about "inalienable rights" in the declaration of independence. They codified these "inflexible" rights in the constitution through the bill of rights and the 15th amendment. You know the right to free speech and freedom from discrimination based upon race among others. The concepts articulated in those amendments come directly out of the "liberal" philosophical tradition (Locke, etc) that our Dolo mentioned earlier hence the connection. I used to think you were a bright guy who just wants a doorman but now I gotta wonder what the fuck you do with your day at the office.
Why exactly do you find the description of those who called themselves socialists and acted like socialists as being socialists so risible?
Draw up for me a checklist of the behaviours you would expect of a socialist and lets see if the nazi's met them.
1. How the fuck can anyone call jefferson a collectivist?
2. We're talking about right-left as its currently understood. If jefferson was alive today I dont think anyone would be reffering to him as left wing.
3. Where did I say I considered republican party right wing? I support them because on the whole they are less objectionable than the alternative and most importantly are down to stomp a terrorist.
You may notice that I put collectivists in quotes because it is a false representation of liberal views. My point is that liberals, such as Jefferson and MLK, were far more active in securing the inflexible rights of men and women than your cronies on the right, like Reagan or Hamilton. If you don't know that Jefferson was a bit of liberal by his times' standard, I suggest that you crack a few books.
BTW great job at containing the terrorist threat.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/07/ap3493276.html
they keep pulling the IF U REVERSE "WHITE" AND "BLACK" bullshit
Declaration = Nice document not law.
Constitution = Law
the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights are not "freedom of expression." I suggest you get a copy of the Constitution and read actually read it. The XV amendment extends the franchise to black men. I think you meant the XIV that applies the federal bill of rights to the states. Either way, "inflexible," "ilalienable," "freedom of expression" none of these having any legal significance. Not even under the Court's extension of these rights through the use of "pnumbras" or some collective reasing of the bill of rights to suggest other unenumerated rights went so far as to create what your talking about.
So, if you dont know what your talking about, you should stfu. Me, I got A in Con. Law.
P.S. - I never thought you were a bright guy.
I love the argument that the only acceptable policy to benefit african americans that is acceptable to african americans is one that ONLY benefits african americans.
keep waiting for that to happen.
you "got A in Con Law"? wow, you very smart in law. you smartest and most brightest on board. you tell everyone right answer.
I keep telling but nobody seems to be listening.
I've created a chart so you will be able to follow the line of reasoning.
Neo-liberal philosophical tradition of rights--->Declaration of independence articulates American vision of those rights----->US Constitution codifies certain rights
Freedom of expression (religious, personal and press) is one of many freedoms granted in the bill of rights. Whether jurists refer to it as such is irrelevant. I chose the 15th amendment because it is the only amendment that specifically bans discrimination based upon race.
I never suggested the inflexible or inalienable were legal terms. I did suggest that they form the basis for our own system of law. It remains a great conumdrum for right-wingers such as Dolo how it was liberals who have championed the adoption of such landmark civil rights.
^^^pretty funny
yea it is a pretty funny name.
why, whats her name?
no, really, what's an idelogical supporter, is it like a sock garter? Cause I dont wear sock garters.
Are we talking about how funny people's birth names are? Scintillating and well worth our time, Sabadabada Raekwon Eno St. Claire Jones.
It poses no such conundrum for me since classical(real) liberalism and contemporary liberalism are two different things entirely. The great champions of liberalism past would be appalled at the filthy statists who today assume that monkier. Im thankful that increasingly you vermin are abandoning the term liberal and choosing to label yourselves progressives. A word with a legacy you assholes are actually worthy of inheriting.
note: The term neo-liberalism is a nonsense piece of historical revisionism which implies that what today stands as liberalism is liberalism in its original form and that REAL liberalism of centuries past is infact some kind of a modern origination. Please refrain from using it.