That was most certainly not conservative at the time when it was written.
Changed your mind about the game-playing, eh?
Not in my current conception of equal rights, neither is it in the current conservative conception of equal rights.
For its time time though, the constitution was very much laying down a staunch equal rights position.
Yes it was dominated by the conservatives at the time and most of the radicals were against it.
Do you *really *think someone paying $100K in taxes on a $1M income is affected the same way as someone paying $1K on $10K? :dubious:
Equal my pasty white ass.
3/5 is not equal to 1.
You speak for blacks, liberals and gays? Seems presumptive.
What is it called when we attribute motives to groups based on their race or sexual preference?
What is it called when we consider people not exactly like us to be fellow human beings who want to be treated respectfully and fairly and with basic decency, like *any *other human beings would?
That’s what Miller’s doing, and IIRC he is indeed a member of at least one of the groups you identify.
I missed the part in the Constitution. That allows slavery. Could you cite that for me?
The conservatives at the time were Tories.
Conservatives in the 1700’s, even if they were creating a new nation, would have produced a monarchy.
I would call it “Not This thread.”
It’s just so hard to let go, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Demographics?
No, I’m sure you’re right. The fact that the overwhelming majority of queer people vote left has nothing to do with decades of bigoted attacks on us by Republicans. It’s actually because a person’s opinion on the ideal top marginal tax rate is a direct function of how much dick they suck.
Seriously: 90% of blacks vote Democrat. 80% of queer people. 60% of Hispanics.
What’s your explanation for that? Why is it that literally the only demographic that Republicans regularly win are white, straight Christians? Why do so few people who do not match that description find themselves at home in your political party?
Every part that doesn’t ban it, especially the Three Fifths Compromise.
More on the subject if your interest is genuine.
It’s in the same part of the Constitution that says farming is allowed.
There’s also the 13th Amendment, the “yeah, we should actually ban this Constitutionally since the Constitution allowed it previously” slavery banning amendment.
Hard to forget about that, Scylla.
So far from this thread it looks like the non-bigoted conservative values are:
Low taxes for the extremely rich (There’s an argument that there’s classism, racism, etc. tied up in that, but I’m willing to grant it).
Gun rights (One of the few I agree with)
Expanded Oil Drilling
Large military that fights in foreign wars under Republican presidents.
It looks like the thread has derailed (I’m not surprised) but it has been interesting to me.
For some specific points:
You don’t get to attack service members and claim to ‘support our troops’ at the same time. If your position is “I support our troops, as long as they’re of a demographic that I like and not one of the icky ones that don’t know their place”, while it may be a ‘conservative value’ it’s one that’s clearly based on outright bigotry and so doesn’t meet the question asked. Further, the idea that conservatives actually support the military is highly questionable - while they tend to like to wave yellow ribbons around, Republicans don’t tend to actually vote for things like paying for treatment and care of soldiers.
[quote=“Velocity, post:12, topic:837176”]
[LIST]
[li]Free speech (generally defended more by conservatives than liberals these days) has a wide variety of applications outside of social issues. You have to be able to criticize one’s government; it’s a bulwark against gradual tyranny. It’s worth noting that liberals were strongly in favor of free speech in the 1970s.[/li][/quote]
Free speech is constantly under attack by conservatives and has been pretty much forever. Trump, supported by Republicans, constantly calls for actions against those who criticize him, and for people like Colin Kaepernick’s who’s protests he doesn’t like. Nike electing not to release a line of shoes with a flag that has become associated with white supremacist groups prompted Arizona’s governor to revoke benefits to the company. Conservatives have passed a number of laws banning dissemination of scientific facts about global warming in recent years, as well as laws attempting to stop or restrict spreading of information about LGBT issues online and in person.
[quote]
[li]Freedom of religion is often cited as an excuse for homophobia or whatnot, but it’s also what enables Muslims, Jews, Hindus and people of all other religions to live their way as well. Without freedom of religion, a Christian American government could ban Muslims (not just from entering the nation, but from existing, period.)[/li][/quote]
Conservatives actively and routinely oppose Freedom of Religion, the fact that they use the phrase to attempt to defend attacks on minorities doesn’t change that. On a local level, you see situations like that in Arkansas where conservates erected a Christian monument, but then stated “it will be a very cold day in hell before an offensive statue will be forced upon us to be permanently erected on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol” when the Satanic Temple worked to place their own monument. On a national level, you have Executive Order 13769 (penned by Trump and supported by conservatives) aimed directly and preventing Muslims from entering the country.
If you want to say ‘Freedom to be a conservative-style Christian’ then sure, they support that, but again that’s not a non-bigoted position.
[quote]
[li]Strong national defense (and also fighting in international wars that are worth fighting in) has nothing to do with bigotry; unless FDR’s waging of war in WWII against Nazi Germany was somehow bigoted.[/li][/quote]
Conservatives don’t get to claim ‘national defense’ as a principle when you’re fine with a hostile power attacking the country as long as it helps your other goals. The fact that the right wing has hindered investigation and prosecution of those involved in Putin’s election shenanigans. I’ll grant ‘large military’ though, even though it’s not all that tied to a particular side of the isle. The ‘wars worth fighting in’ is contradicted by the fact that conservatives consistently support war by Republican presidents but not Democrats - Clinton and Obama’s interventions were all ‘not worth fighting for’, but both Bushes and Trump’s were even though the second Iraq war was based on an outright lie?
FDR was the president who arguably expanded the role of more than any other. He drove the creation of the laws creating social security, minimum wage, 40-hour workweek, the NLRB (union protection), antidiscrimination (on Federal jobs) and more. He took the US off the gold standard and established the FDIC, created the SEC and concept of regulating investments, pushed a 79% tax on incomes over $5 million, and a host of other things modern conservatives fight tooth and nail. Further, when FDR was president conservatives were primarily isolationist, and starkly in favor of a small defense budget and very limited overseas (especially European) ventures.
Using the warfare undertake by a president who was spoken ill of by conservatives both in his day and now for his policies in general, and who’s decision to get involved in the war was opposed by conservatives at the time until the other countries declared war on the Us to support the idea that fighting in wars that were worth fighting in is a conservative value is… a bit odd.
Judging people based on their actions, especially their treatment of people who are weaker or more vulnerable than themselves, is pretty much the antithesis of bigotry. Being ‘biased’ against someone because they take specific hostile actions is perfectly reasonable.
Conservatives very much don’t practice this. On a personal level, you can see conservatives in this very thread who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, insisting that it’s ‘bigotry’ to judge them on the basis of how they treat other people, especially people weaker than themselves. On a national level, you see conservatives do their best to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions (like the government shutdowns, and of course Trump’s entire career of avoiding obligations) and helping people avoid being held responsible for their actions (like various corporate bailouts). On a more local government level, conservatives are the ones who generally favor letting rich white guys avoid consequences for their crimes. I also think the conservative habit of claiming credit for things they didn’t accomplish runs counter to that philosophy, and prominent conservatives routinely try to describe themselves as making money entirely on their own when they use money from their parents to hire a a workforce educated by taxes and move goods on infrastructure built by taxes.
“Personal responsibility” in practice seems mainly used to blame poor people for growing up poor and women for allowing themselves to be raped. Not really much of a value there.
Conservatives have consistently supported the republican party, which has consistently supported Trump, especially on the specific points that I’ve mentioned. If Trump was acting alone and getting no support then using things that he does as examples would be unreasonable, but he’s not - conservative actively support and cheer the actions that I’ve mentioned, and republicans all across the country stand behind him and refuse to offer any substantial criticism of him. If you want to show where conservatives or republicans stand up to Trump, criticize him, and block him then feel free, but otherwise you get the good with the bad by endorsing him. Note that the first conservative to post in the thread is distinctly in favor of Trump’s attack on specific service members.
I mean, prove me wrong - are there conservatives who are actually opposed to Trump, and specifically things like his attacks on transgender people? Do they do anything? There were certainly various left-leaning people who harshly ciriticzed a number of Obama’s policies while he was in office, especially with regard to the ACA being so watered down, and democrats who didn’t just get in line behind him, but I don’t see that from people who label themselves ‘conservative’ with regards to Trump; they fall right in line with the Republicans who fall right in line with Trump.
Oh, good grief.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
and also Article 1, Section 9:
To claim that these clauses don’t refer to slaves, just because that specific word isn’t in there, is at minimum disingenuous.
sigh…
Slavery was definitely referenced in the Constitution and it allows for it.
That was the same courtly Southern plantation gentility that caused them to call their slaves “servants”. It avoided all that unpleasant reality. Why, if the Constitution had used the word “slaves”, that might have offended them and they wouldn’t join the Union!
The constitution does not say the word slaves, but only persons, because, as James Madison wrote, it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
The Constitution uses several circumlocutions where it talks about slaves, never mentioning property, never, mentioning skin color, and always calling them persons.
Reading the Federalist papers and the declaration of Independence it is clear that the founders had a problem with the reality of slavery, and as Frederick Douglas pointed out they framed documents espousing the ideals that were incompatible with it and would lead to its abolishment.
LOL.
“Free persons”, Scylla! It’s right there in the document!
Have you truly not read this thing?