Trump Says 'More White People' Killed By Police, 'People Love' The Confederate Flag

[JonNC]

So with these amusing definitions of “conservative” and “progressive”, is trying to outlaw abortion a “conservative” or “progressive” position?

According to done on the revisionist left, it must be progressive.

 

[WingedHussar]

Which is why I dislike using those labels.

1. Because conservatives have failed to conserve anything, even the ladies’ room.
2. Because it implicitly acknowledges the Marxist principle of assuming that everything inevitably leads towards communism.

Nationalism is the way.

 

[Rubee]

Simple. I don’t want to see any relics of the Democrat Party left standing.
Not their flag. Not statues to their leaders. Not their images on a dime or a twenty.
If we are going to hold Americans accountable for slavery 155 years later, it is the political party that was responsible for it and the Confederacy.
If reparations should be paid, the Democrat Party should pay them. Republicans has nothing to do with it except defeat it. Then Republicans defeated Jim Crow.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Democrat Party. They should own it.

Your insistence on idiosyncratic definitions of conservative/progressive aside, you at least are not out here trying to defend confederate symbols.

But if we are going to push on the “Dems did slavery/Jim Crowe” lets also be willing to admit that the South did slavery/Jim Crowe.

 

[JonNC]

Your insistence on idiosyncratic definitions of conservative/progressive aside, you at least are not out here trying to defend confederate symbols.

But if we are going to push on the “Dems did slavery/Jim Crowe” lets also be willing to admit that the South did slavery/Jim Crowe.

Push it? No. That’s not my goal. My goal is to push back against the revisionist history.
Think about this, when Biden got into trouble for saying he worked together with southern senators who were segregationists. How many media outlets mentioned that the senators he was talk about were Democrats?
I’m pushing by against that kind of biased reporting of history.

As far as I’m concerned, there are few Americans alive today responsible for segregation in the south. There are zero Americans alive who are responsible for slavery. There hasn’t been for a century and more. But if we are going to talk about it, let’s be accurate.

I hope that’s clear.

 

[JonNC]

Nationalism is the way.

You have to be clear what you mean by nationalism.
If one proposes a nationalism that insists on strong central government and limited individual rights, I’m absolutely opposed.
If one proposes a nationalism that simply states we take care of our nation and our people first, that’s great, but it doesn’t speak to the issue of how are we governed.

 

[Nepperhan]

I do. Here’s an example of his greater record on civil rights.

I can’t open it. State Reagan’s record on civil rights; not his pious platitudes. Remember how (when president!) he called the single most important and effective civil rights law, the Voting Right Act, “insulting” to southerns? I’m sorry for their hurt feelings!

As far as I’m concerned, there are few Americans alive today responsible for segregation in the south.

Think of how many Americans are alive today who suffered racial discrimination! And, were those who were responsible for immoral and often illegal segregation ever held accountable?

 

[JonNC]

State Reagan’s record on civil rights; not his pious platitudes.

His “pious platitudes” are far more reliable than some of the virtue signaling I’ve witnessed here.

Think of how many Americans are alive today who suffered racial discrimination! And, were those who were responsible for immoral and often illegal segregation ever held accountable?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed to end this practices. Again, as has been the case throughout most of our history, the illegal actions are typically (not always) from Democrats.
The fact remains as I said. Nobody is guilty because of their skin color alone. Find the perpetrators and prosecute under the law.

 

[Nepperhan]

His “pious platitudes” are far more reliable than some of the virtue signaling I’ve witnessed here.

Well, I posted what he said and did. Its hard to get around that.

Again, as has been the case throughout most of our history, the illegal actions are typically (not always) from Democrats.

Nevermind. I’m done.

 

[twf]

The word “progressive” in the context of 1850 does NOT apply to slave holders. This is historical revisionism plain and simple.

The need to project the current American right vs left dichotomy into the past as some sort of eternal struggle is absurd. I’ve seen people argue that the Founding Fathers were conservatives and the British progressives. Absolute nonsense. By any rational use of the words, within the context of that time, the founding fathers were radical liberals…with radical new enlightenment ideals that the Church was very skeptical of… loyalists / monarchists were conservatives / traditionalists.

 

[WingedHussar]

By your logic defenders of legal abortion are conservatives then.

 

[twf]

I don’t think so. The abortion agenda has been promoted for the past 50 years or so and while it has become established law in Western countries, it hasn’t yet become a traditional value. It’s still being fought by those who hold to the older Western traditional values.
Slavery was a traditional value with a long history… a conservative position.

 

[WingedHussar]

So do you mind enlightening us as to what your purely arbitrary and subjective timeline for abortion becoming a conservative value is?

 

[twf]

I don’t know. I certainly think it’s the greatest evil on the planet right now… and that won’t change. But the terms conservative and progressive are completely arbitrary. What I’m taking issue with is this absurd and irrational idea that anyone who was “good” in history was a “conservative” and anyone who was “evil” was a progressive. It’s nonsense. On this thread, it’s been asserted that slavery proponents were progressives, not conservatives. That’s just nonsense.

It’s all contextual. In 16th century Aztec society, human sacrifice was a conservative value. The progressive Christian position was to value all life…
In 21st century America, valuing life is a conservative position, and the progressive value is to promote abortion. It is contextual to the time and place. I’m rejecting this absurd notion that conservatism is always good and progress always bad.
In the case 19th century, slavery was a conservative value, progressives fought against it. In the 18th century, monarchy was a conservative value… radical progressives, inspired by the post-Christian Enlightenment, founded a republic…

 

[JonNC]

The word “progressive” in the context of 1850 does NOT apply to slave holders. This is historical revisionism plain and simple.

Then you agree the application of the word conservative to slave holders and segregationists is equally revisionist, plain and simple?

The need to project the current American right vs left dichotomy into the past as some sort of eternal struggle is absurd.

Good. I didn’t start that. I’ve heard it applied for my entire s adult life against conservatives.

By any rational use of the words, within the context of that time, the founding fathers were radical liberals

No. There were classical liberals. Their belief was as stated in the Declaration. If anyone today is willing to accept their view that individual rights are antecedent to government, that government doesn’t create rights or provide for them, I’m with them regardless of what they call themselves.

 

[WingedHussar]

It means doing whatever is best for your nation’s people. It will differ according to the character and culture of the nation implementing it.

 

[JonNC]

It means doing whatever is best for your nation’s people. It will differ according to the character and culture of the nation implementing it.

With this caveat: If it doesn’t protect inherent individual rights, it isn’t doing what’s best for its people.

 

[Rubee]

I’ve seen people argue that the Founding Fathers were conservatives and the British progressives. Absolute nonsense.

Complete and utter nonsense. Whoever is introducing a new state of affairs is the progressive. Whoever is fighting to maintain the traditional status quo is the conservative. Both can be good or evil from a Catholic lens (or even some other moral paradigm) depending on whether the old or new state of affairs is more compatible with the values of that catholic/other paradigm. American founding fathers were radical progressives and the abolitionists 100 years later were radical progressives. Period.

The problem I see is the weird view that progressivism is by definition evil: But that is completely absurd unless one believes old societies did not need progress in any way or believes they always had the same values deemed good today. Both are crazy assertions, to be honest. Jon is a very reasonable poster and I have no idea why gets so caught up in definitions and redefinitions that don’t change the past.

Same thing with insisting that the party of slavery and Jim Crowe was the Dem party. Sure, but they served and represented the conservative South that held those “values” while the Republicans represented the North that did not. The parties are just outfits and vehicles; it’s the people who populate them that determine their “values.” Insisting on this doesn’t change which regions and populations practiced, pushed, and fought for slavery and Jim Crowe. Whether they organized those anti-human “values” through the DNC or the RNC, it was the conservative South that did those things and that cannot be sanitized. The pro-slavery and Jim Crowe states still exist today as do those two parties.

Today, it’s the “North” that pushes the anti-human “value” of abortion but the fact that the new thing here is evil doesn’t change the fact that those who introduced it are progressives and those fighting to maintain the old status of things are conservative.

 

[GKMotley]

As Gentz showed (THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS COMPARED), the Americans were moderate progressives. The French, a few years later, were radical.

 

[Rubee]

As Gentz showed (THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS COMPARED), the Americans were moderate progressives. The French, a few years later, were radical.

Perhaps, but I tend to classify anyone willing to go to war for what they view as progress radical. And I don’t thing radical is a dirty word. Sometimes radical is precisely what’s required, like, for example, turning people’s tables over and driving them out of a temple with a whip. Pretty radical stuff.

 

[GKMotley]

If one has the qualifications for such actions, yes.