@Alfred:"Much of the troubles in America stems from diversity,
especially racial and ethnic diversity."Immigrants coming to
America need to remind themselves they are not Hispanic, they are African, they
are not European, they are not Saudi, they are not Russian, they are not Asian,
etc. When they come to America they drop former designations whatever it is and
become Americans. Does that happen? No. They call themselves
African-Americans (descendants of slaves from Africa), Hispanics, Asians, etc.
And they refer to 'Hispanic Community,' 'African-American
Community,' etc. That won't do. That is a major reason we have
racial defugalties... and always will.You don't see racial
problems in Finland, Sweden, Norway. You have to ask yourself why.
@RichardB:"Has and country welcomed diversity, and had it work? It
seems most of the problems in the world today come from putting diverse people
together, and expecting it to work."Excellent comment, Ricard.
Diversity is often lauded as what makes America great. The exact opposite is
true. Much of the troubles in America stems from diversity, especially racial
and ethnic diversity.
Is this about people here illegally, or about legal immigration? It's
amazing how many try to make an issue using legal immigration, when the
discussion is really about illegal. Has and country welcomed
diversity, and had it work? It seems most of the problems in the world today
come from putting diverse people together, and expecting it to work.
e pluribus pluribusDN moderator, I suspect from prior posts that you
will not understand this and will therefore block it. It is latin, meaning
"out of many, many". Our currency says "e pluribus unum", which
means "out of many, one". but since were so highly prize diversity and
require no assimilation or any type of unity of culture, we are losing our
unity. Thus I would ask that you NOT block "e pluribus pluribus"please forgive me if I have not properly conjugated the latin
"If we continue to be a nation that welcomes immigrants but does not ask
them to take our norms, customs and history as their own, then we are left with
no choice but to have a government define for us who we are as a people."In the first place, with Hispanics flooding into this country by
unprecedented millions each year, the 'customs and history' will soon
be what the Hispanics will bring... including the language and flag.Secondly, the government does not define who we are because... well, because
it's not the government's job.
@Twin Lights:"America is constantly changing. Each generation and
immigrant wave brings a new thought (or resurrects old ones) on what it means to
be American."Yes, but I don't cotton the task of learning
Spanish that is staring many Americans in the face from all the millions of
Hispanics flooding into this country. Don't laugh. Practically 20 to 30
percent of the TV channels are now in Spanish. I am paying for the channels but
can't understand a word that is being said.
Re: "All the theories [conservatives] have espoused have been failures . . .
."Hmmmmm.You mean like when Carter's
misery-indexed economy took off under Reagan, and developed enough momentum to
survive Daddy Bush, Clinton, and most of W's administration -- until
liberal congressional vote-buying scams brought it all crashing down about our
shoulders?And, blaming conservatives for wholly-liberal-owned
Obamacare? Even before it has had its full opportunity to destroy American
health care and the American economy?C'mon!Well, I
guess blaming Bush did work pretty well for them for awhile but, talk about a
one-trick pony!As mentioned above, it's the existential
mendacity of liberalism, moreso even than its venal, sophomoric, and thoroughly
discredited policies, that drives real people away from liberalism.
procur,On the contrary, it has been the conservatives of late who
have failed to learn lessons from the past, particularly in the area of
economics. All the theories they have espoused have been failures, but they keep
coming up with different ways to describe the same tired old supply-side,
trickle-down ideas. And it was the progressives who looked to the past (adopting
admittedly inferior conservative ideas) to come up with a health-care plan that
just might appeal to conservatives. Alas, the Republicans couldn't see past
their hatred of Obama to accept their own ideas. Too bad the progressives
didn't just go ahead and adopt a health-care model more in line with those
that are succeeding in other countries.
Resolving a problem is more important than winning a debate IMVHO.
This guy lost the moral high ground two sentences in.
Illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as criminals.There is nothing malicious about that. Society has laws and those laws need
to be enforced.
This reminds me of a contradiction that's always puzzled me.Many people who call themselves "Liberals" (though I think
they've forgotten what that means) continually complain about more people
coming to Utah (because we don't have enough water, our air is getting
dirty, we have too many people)... and yet they LOVE and encourage illegal
immigrants to come to Utah?They complain that Mormons have too many
babies... but they LOVE when more illegal aliens come to Utah (both of which
increase our population).They want abortion, and population control,
they push global warming rhetoric and radial environmentalism on the pretense
that there's too many people... but they want MORE illegal immigrants to
come, and will defend illegal immigration to the end.It just seems
weird to me.The other contradiction I always have a hard time with
is... they want to get rid of the wealthy and promote being poor. As if Utah
and the world would be a BETTER place if there were more poor people and less
wealthy people. I think it's obvious we need at least a few wealthy
people in America if we want to have jobs, homes, families, etc.
"...Grandstanding has been substituted for statesmanship, and talking points
have taken the place of principle...".Yet, texas keeps electing
the ted cruz's and louie gohmert's, of the world to sell their brand
of "...sincere reflection...".No thanks.
Re: "Progressivism, by definition, looks to the future and seeks positive
change to solve problems."Since they look only to the future,
"progressives" consistently fail to learn lessons of the past, dooming
themselves to perpetual, foolish failure. The mantra becomes, "change, for
change's sake." They're always seeking positive change, never
finding it. This characteristic fecklessness requires them to
"sell-out" principles, buying political influence on the open market
from the venal and callow."Progressives" disingenuously
justify this deranged approach by labeling any change they initiate as progress,
though actual effects are anything but. And, that's the saddest of liberal
casualties -- truth. Orwell, notwithstanding his own leftist leanings [he fought
with the commies in Spain], correctly recognized the concept, dubbing it
newspeak.That deliberate, calculated dishonesty, that rebellion
against truth that refuses to recognize and own their numerous, dismal failures
-- more than any other trait -- defines "progressives."It's what led me and many, many others to abandon liberalism.And re-embrace the truth.
Very strange indeed to hear a self-described conservative rail against
"radical individualism". Ayn Rand's entire libertarian philosophy
seems to be centered around radical individualism, and her thoughts seem to have
pervaded the entire conservative movement and Republican party.
If this is what passes for scholarship in the great state of Texas, they have
serious cause for worry. This defense of conservatism is roughly equivalent to
the defense exhibited by the University of Texas football team last Saturday.If a core conservative value is "a belief in an enduring moral order
that is revealed to us through custom, convention and continuity," then
conservatives would have been in favor of slavery, environmental devastation,
and a health-care system based on blood-letting and calomel.Conservatism as a philosophy is, by definition, backward looking. It looks to
the past as the ideal and seeks to preserve it. Progressivism, by definition,
looks to the future and seeks positive change to solve problems.
"Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and
continuity, and belief in things established through immemorial usage is
required for liberty and self government."How then could the
founders have split with England? Or established the Bill of Rights?America is constantly changing. Each generation and immigrant wave brings a
new thought (or resurrects old ones) on what it means to be American.Don't get me wrong, I think there are good arguments for continuity. And
I firmly believe that we benefit from a religious populace (wherein we look to
something beyond ourselves). But I find the writer does not make a compelling
case. Some great prose, but I just don't buy it.
Intentions and purpose are lost when it's no longer a privilege.