George Allen Is Toast--Teammates Claim He Regularly Used "N" Word!
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
How do you know? When they landed wouldn't their ass just hit harder?If a frog had wings it would not bump it's ass on the ground either
Cypress, those like Dixie never realized they lost
I have a theory about the civil war and it goes something like this, based on the political ideology of the South and the current ideology that seems to be the one that ascendent in the national government today. And that is this: the South lost the military struggle, but over the long term they have won the struggle of ideas. And anyone who has done even a cursury reading of the history of ideas concerning government from the unwillingness to support education to the idea of less government and lower taxes, to more specific programs like the eradication of federal regulations, and the militarization of the country and the population in each of these cases the ideas now ascendent in our culture can be traced to the ideology of the South from the mid to late 1800s. And their current far-reaching acceptance and currency indicates that the South has won the struggle for ideas, even though they lost the Civil War.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Nonsense, although many of the ideas you have outlines are popular with some they are by no means embraced by a large portion of our society. Beyond that the confederacy was a conservative reaction to liberalization in the United States. If there movement was conservative in nature it indicates it came from a pre-existing political ideology.
To tie the ideas of less government and taxes to the confederacy is disingenuous.
It would be like tracing the idea of dictatorship to the Nazis or a Democratic Republic to the Americans. All of the former existed long before the appearance of the latter.
To tie the ideas of less government and taxes to the confederacy is disingenuous.
It would be like tracing the idea of dictatorship to the Nazis or a Democratic Republic to the Americans. All of the former existed long before the appearance of the latter.
uscitizen
Villified User
A large part of the reason for the civil was was tarriffs , taxes and such. Not Slavery, that came in later. States rights and less control by the federal government were also biggies. Slavery was thrown in later by the north / federal govt to get support in the north for their side of the war.
Last edited:
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I have heard that theory. Frankly I don't put much stock in it. The idea that the south would secede over Lincoln potentially raising tariffs for goods in the south doesn't seem likely.
It helped the UK decide to take the side of the North over the South...
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Interesting then that the states that had the most plantation seceded first while the upper south did so later.
Why would a state like Kentucky which was more reliant upon imports not secede but a state like Virginia which was more self sufficient did so.
Why would a state like Kentucky which was more reliant upon imports not secede but a state like Virginia which was more self sufficient did so.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This one is a Republican, however. Democrats are automatically invulnerable to racism, as we all know.
uscitizen
Villified User
KY was a split state and an exporter of various crops and even Iron. the confederate capitol of KY was in Glasgow I believe.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
There was no question of sucession in Mississippi. It was actually quite incredible that South Caronlina was first. We first contemplated succession in the 1850's, but this was quelled whenever the Union Party (The Republicans nor the Whigs existed in Mississippi) barely beat out the Democratic party in an election. When Abraham Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the state of Mississippi there wasn't even a question.
Let's see those ideas are now the main tenets of the current Republican Ideology. Currently the Republicans and the ideology that encompasses those basic tenets control the House the Senate and the Presidency, not to mention the governor seats of a majority of the states, so to say that those ideas are not embraced by a large portion of society is a claim that you couldn't in fact support.
Of course, I never indicated where the ideology originally came from, but just as country music is now the main or most popular and best selling genre of music across America as a result of the movement of Southerners to northern states. Much of our political ideology can be traced to the South and the positions held by the south. You yourself admit that these ideas were dominent in the south, and not in the North at that time. It is clear that they are much more widespread now than they were then. How did this happen? How is it possible that today we have a widespread desire for all these things that I earlier referred to and that are now much more wide spread than they were in the during the earlier periods? Those ideas were brought north by migrants from the South (mostly white) who settled in the North during the economic booms during and after the first and second World Wars. While many people lay great stress on the number of Black Americans who came north seeking a better life the number of white who moved North far outweighs the number of Blacks who migrated North and West during this earlier period. When the recent white migrants to such cities as Chicago, Detroit, New York, and other places like the Western States began to participate in the political dialogues in the North they didn't adopt Northern positions they clung to their former conservative vierws including anti-labor and other typically southern positions.
No it wouldn't because the Nazis never migrated from one region of the US to the other and then began spreading their ideas around. I am not talking about a generic conservatism I am talking about a specific Southern brand of conservatism with a specific ideology that that is now ascendent in American politics and to deny that it is ascendent is to deny the majorities in the government of the Republicans who control most of the South and certainly control the Congress, just as they did before Lincoln was elected President and just as they did to a great degree from 1876, when the last Republicans from the South were elected to Congress before the modern period, onwards. It is no small coincidence that just as the Southerners were finding their new Republican roots in the years after Johnson predicted that his civil rights legislation would drive the Southern Democrats from the Democratic party that the Republican party began its modern day Southern and national ascendency.
Last edited:
Because the most self-sufficient states had less to lose by seceding. They didn't need the trade or interaction with the North as much as the more interactive states did.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Let's see those ideas are now the main tenets of the current Republican Ideology. Currently the Republicans and the ideology that encompasses those basic tenets control the House the Senate and the Presidency, not to mention the governor seats of a majority of the states, so to say that those ideas are not embraced by a large portion of society is a claim that you couldn't in fact support.
Republicans control a majority of our government. However an important question is do Republicans actually support limited government? The answer is no as is clearly shown by the actions of the party itself. The government has expanded in its power. Spending is at all time high and the powers of the states are being usurped like never before.
The Republican party has been seized by the neoconservative movement and the ideals you listed are part of the paleoconservative movement a movement which has been pushed underground and only lives on within the Libertarian or Constitution party.
Of course, I never indicated where the ideology originally came from, but just as country music is now the main or most popular and best selling genre of music across America as a result of the movement of Southerners to northern states. Much of our political ideology can be traced to the South and the positions held by the south. You yourself admit that these ideas were dominent in the south, and not in the North at that time. It is clear that they are much more widespread now than they were then. How did this happen? How is it possible that today we have a widespread desire for all these things that I earlier referred to and that are now much more wide spread than they were in the during the earlier periods? Those ideas were brought north by migrants from the South (mostly white) who settled in the North during the economic booms during and after the first and second World Wars. While many people lay great stress on the number of Black Americans who came north seeking a better life the number of white who moved North far outweighs the number of Blacks who migrated North and West during this earlier period. When the recent white migrants to such cities as Chicago, Detroit, New York, and other places like the Western States began to participate in the political dialogues in the North they didn't adopt Northern positions they clung to their former conservative vierws including anti-labor and other typically southern positions.
I would say that ideas like small government and states rights are a vestige from the founding of the nation. The south didn't abandon those ideas whereas the north slowly eroded them with Lincoln, FDR and finally LBJ. A new idea was created in the north not the south. The continued existence of ideals about limited government are due to a failure of the newer northern ideals to take hold not the other way around.
No it wouldn't because the Nazis never migrated from one region of the US to the other and then began spreading their ideas around. I am not talking about a generic conservatism I am talking about a specific Southern brand of conservatism with a specific ideology that that is now ascendent in American politics and to deny that it is ascendent is to deny the majorities in the government of the Republicans who control most of the South and certainly control the Congress, just as they did before Lincoln was elected President and just as they did to a great degree from 1876, when the last Republicans from the South were elected to Congress before the modern period, onwards. It is no small coincidence that just as the Southerners were finding their new Republican roots in the years after Johnson predicted that his civil rights legislation would drive the Southern Democrats from the Democratic party that the Republican party began its modern day Southern and national ascendency.
What have you seen from the Republican party other than doing favors for their corporate benefactors along the lines of fostering limited government? If this was what the Republican party actually stood for I would gladly become a Republican. However this is not what it stands for. Instead it uses such holllow rhetoric to appeal to a bloc of voters among many blocs they attempt to appeal to. They invoke such ideals whenever they wish to give goodies to their corporate benefactors such as pollution deregulation. This makes industry more profitable and than more likely to support the party.
The Republican party hasn't supported deregulation as a matter of principle in years.
The truth is that the Republican party is not one of ideology at all. It is a mish mash of different camps that the party tries to appeal to. The Democratic party works the same way. They simply use the rhetoric of their constituent camps as a justification for acts and laws that benefit the continuance of their power and nothing more.
The ideals of limited government and decentralization of power are conservative ideas. However the Republican party has not embraced any real conservative ideals except as a means to either obfuscate or gather some money. It is a party of self aggrandizing conmen.
Not that the democratic party isn't.
Republicans control a majority of our government. However an important question is do Republicans actually support limited government? The answer is no as is clearly shown by the actions of the party itself. The government has expanded in its power. Spending is at all time high and the powers of the states are being usurped like never before.
The Republican party has been seized by the neoconservative movement and the ideals you listed are part of the paleoconservative movement a movement which has been pushed underground and only lives on within the Libertarian or Constitution party.
Of course, I never indicated where the ideology originally came from, but just as country music is now the main or most popular and best selling genre of music across America as a result of the movement of Southerners to northern states. Much of our political ideology can be traced to the South and the positions held by the south. You yourself admit that these ideas were dominent in the south, and not in the North at that time. It is clear that they are much more widespread now than they were then. How did this happen? How is it possible that today we have a widespread desire for all these things that I earlier referred to and that are now much more wide spread than they were in the during the earlier periods? Those ideas were brought north by migrants from the South (mostly white) who settled in the North during the economic booms during and after the first and second World Wars. While many people lay great stress on the number of Black Americans who came north seeking a better life the number of white who moved North far outweighs the number of Blacks who migrated North and West during this earlier period. When the recent white migrants to such cities as Chicago, Detroit, New York, and other places like the Western States began to participate in the political dialogues in the North they didn't adopt Northern positions they clung to their former conservative vierws including anti-labor and other typically southern positions.
I would say that ideas like small government and states rights are a vestige from the founding of the nation. The south didn't abandon those ideas whereas the north slowly eroded them with Lincoln, FDR and finally LBJ. A new idea was created in the north not the south. The continued existence of ideals about limited government are due to a failure of the newer northern ideals to take hold not the other way around.
No it wouldn't because the Nazis never migrated from one region of the US to the other and then began spreading their ideas around. I am not talking about a generic conservatism I am talking about a specific Southern brand of conservatism with a specific ideology that that is now ascendent in American politics and to deny that it is ascendent is to deny the majorities in the government of the Republicans who control most of the South and certainly control the Congress, just as they did before Lincoln was elected President and just as they did to a great degree from 1876, when the last Republicans from the South were elected to Congress before the modern period, onwards. It is no small coincidence that just as the Southerners were finding their new Republican roots in the years after Johnson predicted that his civil rights legislation would drive the Southern Democrats from the Democratic party that the Republican party began its modern day Southern and national ascendency.
What have you seen from the Republican party other than doing favors for their corporate benefactors along the lines of fostering limited government? If this was what the Republican party actually stood for I would gladly become a Republican. However this is not what it stands for. Instead it uses such holllow rhetoric to appeal to a bloc of voters among many blocs they attempt to appeal to. They invoke such ideals whenever they wish to give goodies to their corporate benefactors such as pollution deregulation. This makes industry more profitable and than more likely to support the party.
The Republican party hasn't supported deregulation as a matter of principle in years.
The truth is that the Republican party is not one of ideology at all. It is a mish mash of different camps that the party tries to appeal to. The Democratic party works the same way. They simply use the rhetoric of their constituent camps as a justification for acts and laws that benefit the continuance of their power and nothing more.
The ideals of limited government and decentralization of power are conservative ideas. However the Republican party has not embraced any real conservative ideals except as a means to either obfuscate or gather some money. It is a party of self aggrandizing conmen.
Not that the democratic party isn't.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Because the most self-sufficient states had less to lose by seceding. They didn't need the trade or interaction with the North as much as the more interactive states did.
Reply With Quote
Thats my point. Secession for the reason of tariffs would be less likely because the higher tarriffs would not be as detrimental.
Reply With Quote
Thats my point. Secession for the reason of tariffs would be less likely because the higher tarriffs would not be as detrimental.
My original claim was that the South won the struggle of ideas.
In this long rebuttal you say this:
"I would say that ideas like small government and states rights are a vestige from the founding of the nation. The south didn't abandon those ideas whereas the north slowly eroded them with Lincoln, FDR and finally LBJ. A new idea was created in the north not the south. The continued existence of ideals about limited government are due to a failure of the newer northern ideals to take hold not the other way around."
So the South maintained those early ideas, the north didn't and the new ideas that originated in the North didn't take hold while the ideas that now existed in the South gained ascendancy even in the North.
Thanks for agreeing with me that the South won the struggle of ideas!
Last edited: