Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

So, apparently Eric Cantor got obliterated in primary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So, apparently Eric Cantor got obliterated in primary

    Senate minority leader Eric Cantor.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/1...indsey-graham/

    The Tea Party suffered a number of setbacks but it looks like they did manage to collect a pretty valuable scalp.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  • #2
    "Im guessing Cantor takes 65-70 percent, capping a glorious night for fans of immigration reform."
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      Senate minority leader Eric Cantor.
      House Majority leader.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since youve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        House Majority leader.
        My apologies, I got my doormats mixed up.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          This will cause pundits, pollsters and other professional experts scrambling to explain this.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            So now immigration will be the hot topic of the week.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              Good news to start my day off tomorrow

              All in all, today was a good day indeed for those who support the historic American nation against the State and its willing syncophants.

              But don't get cocky. Immigration is the number one issue for a very good reason, all around the world.

              Comment


              • #8
                I heard this morning that Cantor's people are considering a write in ballot in the general election. That would only elect a Dem, and whatever respect I had for Cantor will be gone. I think immigration did him in though.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I heard this morning that Cantor's people are considering a write in ballot in the general election. That would only elect a Dem, and whatever respect I had for Cantor will be gone. I think immigration did him in though.
                  Is that legal in Virginia? I read yesterday that Virginia has a "sore loser" law that prevents a primary winner from running as an independent. Not sure if that affects write-in campaigns.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Is that legal in Virginia? I read yesterday that Virginia has a "sore loser" law that prevents a primary winner from running as an independent. Not sure if that affects write-in campaigns.

                    I don't know for sure - what I heard was just a blurb on the radio this morning from one of his people. Perhaps just sour grapes...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                      All in all, today was a good day indeed for those who support the historic American nation against the State and its willing syncophants.
                      You don't see any problems or inherent contradictions in this? Nothing about the idea of an "American nation" or identity becoming ascendant hand-in-hand with the growing power of the federal government in the post-Civil War era strikes you as potentially problematic?

                      Nationalism was the guise under which national governments assumed greater and greater power, leading directly to the bloated welfare states of the modern west, because the national identity dissolved all local and regional bonds. County, city, neighborhood, family-- nationalism is responsible for the decline of all of these structures. You can't be a good nationalist and an advocate for strong families and localities. The state will always try to trample even the most sacred bonds when its interests suit it, but it can't sustain it without being able to appeal to some vaguely defined "national interest."
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                        You don't see any problems or inherent contradictions in this? Nothing about the idea of an "American nation" or identity becoming ascendant hand-in-hand with the growing power of the federal government in the post-Civil War era strikes you as potentially problematic?
                        Nation = people as a whole
                        State = their (current) rulers, referring to the government as the state.

                        Nationalism was the guise under which national governments assumed greater and greater power, leading directly to the bloated welfare states of the modern west, because the national identity dissolved all local and regional bonds.
                        Large nations are inevitable, simply because numbers are necessary when dealing with foreign people of a similar (or greater) caliber to your own. If you don't have that accumulated, coordinated power you get rolled over.

                        County, city, neighborhood, family-- nationalism is responsible for the decline of all of these structures.
                        Completely bogus. Particularly with regards to the family unit which received more explicit support from ultranationalist movements than from anybody else (including, these days, many Christian churches, which is pretty shameful). Nations are too big to govern effectively without efficiently delegating decisions (but not necessarily ultimate power) to smaller units.

                        You can't be a good nationalist and an advocate for strong families and localities.
                        Nope, entirely backwards. You can't be an advocate for strong families and localities without being a nationalist. Without a powerful state to ensure your independence your neighborhood will get overrun by predators and your family will suffer. It's the universalists who destroys these by falsely believing all humans are interchangeable cogs in a machine. It wasn't nationalists who came up with the idea that two moms is just as good as a mom and a dad, for example.

                        The state will always try to trample even the most sacred bonds when its interests suit it, but it can't sustain it without being able to appeal to some vaguely defined "national interest."
                        Its interests rarely suit it though. Merely claiming national interest is not the same as something actually being national interest. Families are vital to getting people interested in preserving and improving their surroundings (and thus, their nation). It's why progressives, who can hardly be called nationalist, are working harder than anyone else in human history to destroy them.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Nation = people as a whole
                          State = their (current) rulers, referring to the government as the state.
                          To refer to the United States as a nation and to try to build a coherent national identity as Americans will necessarily trample on the sort of local identities that bind people together in the virtues most needed in their community. Am I an American? Yes. Is my personal identity shaped by the history and politics of the United States? Yes. But I daresay politics in America would be much healthier if people considered themselves natives first and foremost of their neighborhood, city, county, and state, and developed loyalties accordingly. REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!!!

                          Large nations are inevitable, simply because numbers are necessary when dealing with foreign people of a similar (or greater) caliber to your own. If you don't have that accumulated, coordinated power you get rolled over.
                          Which makes this a Prisoner's Dilemma at best.

                          Completely bogus. Particularly with regards to the family unit which received more explicit support from ultranationalist movements than from anybody else (including, these days, many Christian churches, which is pretty shameful). Nations are too big to govern effectively without efficiently delegating decisions (but not necessarily ultimate power) to smaller units.
                          that's the thing about authority, though-- it doesn't flow downwards from the top through delegation, but rises upwards from the bottom. That's the moral and political concept more commonly known as subsidiarity.

                          Nope, entirely backwards. You can't be an advocate for strong families and localities without being a nationalist. Without a powerful state to ensure your independence your neighborhood will get overrun by predators and your family will suffer. It's the universalists who destroys these by falsely believing all humans are interchangeable cogs in a machine. It wasn't nationalists who came up with the idea that two moms is just as good as a mom and a dad, for example.
                          "Universalism" as you call it ("globalist liberalism" is probably more apt), is just nationalism taken one step further, and it wouldn't have been possible without nationalism. You can't transcend national borders until you've contrived them into existence in the first place. Moreover, there are few things better at turning people into cogs in a machine than, say, nationalist warmongering. The draft and wartime industry almost literally turn people into cogs in a machine.

                          Its interests rarely suit it though. Merely claiming national interest is not the same as something actually being national interest. Families are vital to getting people interested in preserving and improving their surroundings (and thus, their nation). It's why progressives, who can hardly be called nationalist, are working harder than anyone else in human history to destroy them.
                          And yet the "national interest" can't be served unless the mothers send their sons off to war in another country instead of staying home to work on the farm and spend evenings either at the local watering hole or building families of their own. Any time you have a draft-- any time you so much as tax-- you're draining (one might say "redistributing") the resources of a locality to the "nation".
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            To refer to the United States as a nation and to try to build a coherent national identity as Americans will necessarily trample on the sort of local identities that bind people together in the virtues most needed in their community.
                            How?

                            Am I an American? Yes. Is my personal identity shaped by the history and politics of the United States? Yes. But I daresay politics in America would be much healthier if people considered themselves natives first and foremost of their neighborhood, city, county, and state, and developed loyalties accordingly. REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!!!
                            America as a real nation is certainly questionable. However, most of its dysfunction comes precisely because its citizens don't consider the interests of other Americans beyond those of their major internal quasi-ethnic group. In this regard it may be better to split it off into multiple nations, though I'm not sure how that will stop the meddling of universalist liberals (but I repeat myself) into Southern affairs, for example.

                            Which makes this a Prisoner's Dilemma at best.
                            In what way? It seems like a straightforward arrangement to me.

                            that's the thing about authority, though-- it doesn't flow downwards from the top through delegation, but rises upwards from the bottom. That's the moral and political concept more commonly known as subsidiarity.
                            Authority flows from the strong to the weak. If top has power (like in the form of a strong military, like Stalin had, or a nearly omnipotent network of lies, like the current liberal hegemony has), it flows from the top. If the top is weak and at the mercy of the general population, it rises from the bottom.

                            "Universalism" as you call it ("globalist liberalism" is probably more apt), is just nationalism taken one step further, and it wouldn't have been possible without nationalism.
                            On the contrary, it is not nationalism taken one step further, it's in a different category altogether. Nationalism, like family, divides the world into us and them. Universalism (I prefer this term, globalism makes it sound too bureaucratic and disguises its actual form, which is a mutant religion) does the exact opposite and declares we are all one. Nationalism flows organically from people who share a common core (usually ethnicity, though some people like the Swiss have built a very effective nation despite the ethnic barriers). If there is no common core the nation probably won't form, and if it does form it'll be ineffective and weak. If the core rots (like it is in the United States) a healthy nation will eventually collapse. Presumably that is Epo's issue, that an otherwise very successful nation is being destroyed by its leadership, whose actual job is to maintain its integrity.

                            I also don't see how universalism requires nationalism. Why can't it go from broken clan bonds straight to world government? It would be just as artificial a transition.

                            You can't transcend national borders until you've contrived them into existence in the first place.
                            Most national borders aren't "contrived", they're the product of their people's common history. The only contrived national borders are the ones in former British territories in Africa and the Middle East (and possibly Latin America), but those have nothing to do with the United States which crafted its national identity voluntarily.

                            Moreover, there are few things better at turning people into cogs in a machine than, say, nationalist warmongering. The draft and wartime industry almost literally turn people into cogs in a machine.
                            I said interchangeable cogs for a reason. All people are cogs in some machine, down to the family. But if I force a bunch of children from, say, Tanzania into your family they probably won't fit in. Or cram millions of lower class Mexicans into a first world country. Or, to a lesser extent, cram the US South and North into a one size fits all policy.

                            And yet the "national interest" can't be served unless the mothers send their sons off to war in another country instead of staying home to work on the farm and spend evenings either at the local watering hole or building families of their own. Any time you have a draft-- any time you so much as tax-- you're draining (one might say "redistributing") the resources of a locality to the "nation".
                            If nobody sends their sons to war soon enough you won't have a farm anymore as the enemy easily rolls your territory, rapes your wife and butchers your children while you watch before they slit your throat and leave you dead in a ditch.
                            The peace you have to live your life in relative prosperity came because your ancestors fought to create a powerful nation that couldn't be easily crushed by anyone.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Among the major faulty assumptions in your logic, DE, are the Westphalian state and the existence of the ever-threatening enemy. With respect to the latter, where does the threat to the nation come from? This isn't a video game-- enemies don't spawn just for you to kill or just to threaten you. Why is there someone who will destroy your farm? Where did they come from? What are their motivations?
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Today, 08:34 PM
                              1 response
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Today, 07:31 PM
                              1 response
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Bill the Cat, Today, 02:47 PM
                              24 responses
                              82 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Today, 10:59 AM
                              30 responses
                              122 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Ronson, 11-21-2020, 09:47 PM
                              46 responses
                              296 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X