Skip to comments.Socially Acceptable Hatred
Posted on 09/09/2012 1:33:24 AM PDT by neverdem
All the liberal Jews I talk to seem to believe that the age of anti-Semitism is over. That is often true, in countries that have mature, democratic political systems. The United States, which all good liberals learn to sneer at, has the single most mature political system in the world -- 230 years of a solid Constitution, which liberals don't much like.
Most of the world lacks a mature, time-tested and tolerant political system. Even the European Union is governed by an unelected ruling class today.
So the United States is the world home of political tolerance today. No other major country (except maybe Switzerland) has had that kind of stability and tolerance for 230 years. Naturally, the left has decided to import hundreds of thousands of the least tolerant people in the world today, so that today in London there are cases of children being sacrificed in witchcraft ceremonies; and there are cases of home-grown Muslim terrorists bombing civilian targets like the London Underground. Britain has now turned itself into a fearsome Big Brother state, with tens of thousands of CCTV cameras all over the cities. They put video cameras in garbage cans over there.
Jewish liberals are just as ignorant of history and politics as all the other liberals you know.
Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible.
Liberal Jews love the tolerance they enjoy in this country, and they often harbor a nasty case of guilt and anger against orthodox Jews, who don't assimilate the way liberals do.
Liberalism is a species of mental conformity. It makes thinking unnecessary.
Thinking is scary.
All you need to do is believe the 24/7 media, and you feel like a member of the herd. The herd protects. At least, it protects until it turns against you. The biggest fear...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“230 years of a solid Constitution”
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787
The American Civil War (18611865)
1861 minus 1787 = 74 years
Is it unfair to say that despite being a wonderful document the Constitution failed after a measly 74 years requiring the first modern war (which despite historical revisionism wasn’t about slavery, but mostly tarriffs)?
Don't be so rigid, the war came to be the bloodiest in or history. It went on for years, the 75 year old nation was different when it was over.
Something was going on, but I'm not convinced that it is easy to sum up.
Man, it’s pretty hard to write an article against liberals that offends my senses, but this one manages to do it. It’s not the premise, or the conclusion, but the way its written. Its Orwellian preaching with - let’s face it - some pretty loose assumptions, is pretty offensive.
“measly”? 74 years was a lot longer than many at the time thought it would last.
try being a business owner and donating to a pro-family organization then tell me about tolerance
I’d have some waffle fries while I considered who you might mean, but my new favorite restaurant is not open today.
That's in large part because the left which is where most secular Jews reside has gone to herculean lengths to hide the fact that Hitler and the early Nazis were hard core leftists.
The age of anti-Semitism is over???
Oh, thank you - I needed a good laugh.
My BIL is Jewish and the most liberal liberal you’d ever shudder to come across. I don’t get it and he can’t explain it. He admonished me many years back to never, ever speak of the military (in a positive way) in his home. On holidays when I have to be there I sit respectfully in silence. It’s his house after all and my visits are necessarily under 1 hour and less than twice a year.
Same old, same old. History starts at breakfast for liberals.
>> Jewish liberals are just as ignorant of history
Blah, blah, blah, ....
It’s about abortion. Period.
It's amazing, then, isn't it, that people actually involved on both sides at the time said it was about slavery?
The only people saying, at the time, that it was about tariffs were some New York newspapers and generally anti-American foreigners like Dickens and Marx.
But I'm sure Karl knew a great deal more about the causes of conflict in America than Jeff Davis, Alex Stephens or Robert Crittenden.
A major attempt was made in Congress by Senator Crittenden of KY, the political heir of Clay, to duplicate his mentor's "success" with previous compromises. Each part of the Crittenden Compromise addressed slavery. No mention of tariffs.
A 13th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Two states actually ratified it.
"ART. 13. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
No mention of tariffs, obviously.
VA called for a Peace Conference that assembled in 1861. 14 free states and 7 of the slave states remaining in the Union sent delegates. They eventually adopted, by a bare majority of states attending, a resolution calling for (yet another) amendment to the Constitution.
Once again, the entire thing is about slavery. Not even a hint of a mention of tariffs.
Don't you find it odd that in 1860 and 1861 those actually involved in desperately trying to save the Union were unaware the "real issue" was tariff rates rather than slavery? Particularly since the tariff of 1857 had the lowest rates since 1824.
Only after the war, when a war fought in defense of the institution of slavery became socially unacceptable, did southern apologists suddenly "discover" that the war wasn't really about slavery at all!
What I find perhaps most peculiar about this revisionism is its implicit claim that while a war fought in defense of slavery would be morally indefensible, killing 600,000+ young American men over a few percent one way or another in tariff rates was a truly noble, though unfortunately losing, cause.
Nice try at the thread highjack, bud.
Don’t waste your time, Sherman. This guy is just trying to highjack the thread.
The fact remains that after 74 years the nation with this most perfect and wonderful constitution, was torn apart... and a federation of free states was abandoned for a centralized government...
Let’s face it, the USA of today (especially with all her judicial activisim) would be unrecognizable to the founders.
It remains a fine political document, but as with all documents it is really only as good as its interpreters.
Those interpreters have allowed for a bloated federal government, (with 1 in 4 kids on foodstamps), debased currency, wildly invasive (technologically enhanced) surveillance... and a society that has 25% of the world’s prison inmates (despite having less than 5% of the world’s population) which puts a very strange edge on “land of the free.”
Those interpreters have allowed undeclared wars, political correctness (in which - for example - mention of race vis-à-vis crime is considered taboo despite it being a prime cultural factor), uncontrolled immigration (invasion), taxation that makes old King George look incredibly benign.
I guess it might be a consolation that some places in Europe are worse off... but the American political process - this thing called democracy - has become a joke.
Did people really vote to make California (and soon Texas) Hispanic? Did they vote to send such a huge percentage of manufacturing jobs to China (and elsewhere)? Did they vote for the trillions in debt?
Makes one wonder who is really in control. As in most systems, the really important issues are beyond the reach of the people. This was true in UK and Holland (which are being heavily Islamized).
Political Correctness is the “democratic” way of despotism.
Aware of that. Just trying to head it off, but possibly feeding the trolls isn’t the best way to do that.
The entire US government spent $60M in 1860, or less that $2 per person, yet we’re supposed to believe an overbearing federal government was the cause of secession?
Sorry... No intention... Just the first lines of the article got me going... I apologize... and in sign of good faith will refrain from further posting.
See my tag line...
Never apologize for being right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.