They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nice to see you again, Tribesman. How was your trip?

I have to confess, I'm a little honored by the fact that you took the time to compose such a thorough response.

Alright, here we go.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

OK Lancecorporal,

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Lol. I don't think there are many groups that aren't viewed that way by some group or the other.
I get your point, but I think you're making a bit of a logical leap, there. I can't recall any information suggesting that theocracy and suicide bombings are indicative of Rednecks(or Christian Fundamentalists, whicever you prefer), nor are they generally guilty of trying to impose their religion upon others by force. Certainly there are some who do that, I've met a couple, but most of them don't. The fact that they are politically (if not morally) tolerant of other religions suggests that they might not be so impervious to reason as you suggest.

Etymology notwithstanding, modern "rednecks" are generally independent persons with strong moral convictions (amongst other things), but they rarely assault others' beliefs or freedoms with anything more dangerous than sermonizing or general b-ing.
I suppose the argument could be made that their vehement defense of anti-abortion and anti-biomed research laws could be construed as an assault upon the freedoms and beliefs of others, but it is still a far cry from trying to massacre people in defense of forced religious rule.

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

I am a redneck. I ride horses and shoot guns. I know how to steer-wrestle and tie a calf. My mom lives in a trailer. I have a personalized "yee-haw" and a rebel yell that I am particularly proud of. I have a reasonably developed work ethic. I strongly believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and merciful. I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom. Does this somehow equate me with radicals who blindly seek to impose their societal and belief structures upon everyone without exception through the indiscriminate use of deadly force?

Call them what you will, but "rednecks" are remarkably prevalent in the central and southern US - regions which are, coincidentally, considered economic powerhouses, even within the US. Ironic, considering that the more liberal, and therefore, "educated" regions have suffered from a mass migration of industry, commerce, and the associated prosperity, don't you think? Do you suppose that may be due to the backwards and strange views that rednecks held, reflected in their legislature? Very curious.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the General was either Stuart or Forrest; Stuart, because of the Scottish name, or Forrest, because I suspect you might seek to equate rednecks with the KKK. How far off was I? I enjoy a bit of trivia.

Back to the etymology question. During your absence I actually found two credible references to the term "redneck" that pre-dated my supposition, so I'm going to give you that point. It seems that you've learned this redneck something.

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

I found a white supremacist site, which appears to be the political face of the KKK.
I deduce from your statement that you are equating the actions of Scottish clergy with those of extremist groups in the US. May I humbly suggest that the work of clergymen in a relatively racially homogenous nation might not reflect the political attitude of a completely different group of people in a much larger and racially, politically, and ethically heterogenous nation?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

I'd like to read that post. Skybird's contributions sometimes exceed the text limit, and I've had the privilege of reading some of his .pdf essays, which are much longer, I assure you. I have no fear of reading.

I would be very interested in a post which somehow divorces the cause of the Three Kingdoms' Wars from the political desire to impose universal religious beliefs.

If you have the time to write it, I have the time to read it.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

No, Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a recruiting incentive for the war. The North was not willing to go to war over slavery, as had been demonstrated on numerous occassions, not the least of which was the Northern tolerance of slave states within its' alliance well after the war had begun, and finished.
The North went to war because the state-industrial complex would not tolerate dissent when it came to eliminating competition from foreign enterprise in the form of a tariff. Special interests were proportionately just as active then as they are today, my friend, as was the inherent immorality of fiat power. Men of power were willing to send other men to their deaths for the preservation of their own selfish interests.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.

But you have written things about it. Many of your previous posts indicate that you believe in socialist or centrist ideals. In fact, you support that hypothesis in your next paragraph.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country

Please allow me to stop you right there. I have no doubt that corruption is a problem in Ireland but why is it a problem? What caused it? What kind of a problem is it?

I'm going to hazard an educated guess and suggest that most of the corruption involves the principle political party and parties that are a lot like it or directly support it. I'm also going to guess that the corruption generally falls under the category of "bribes and political favors". I'll bet that a lot of it also involves corporations "skirting the rules" and using or somehow ignoring legislative barriers to further their own agendas, and I'll bet that most of those actions ultimately serve the purpose of outlawing competition in production, trade, and labor.

I say this because I know that Ireland is a notoriously centrist nation, almost on par with what the US is rapidly becoming. Where political harmony reigns, there is power. Where there is power, there are those who seek it. Where those who seek power are present, there are invariably a number of them who seek it for personal gain, if not all of them. Where power is used for personal gain, there is immorality, because the use of power over others to further one's own agenda is immoral. Where there is immorality, there is corruption.

That is why I say that there is no "third way", an ideal that I know must be championed in Ireland simply because of its' political structure, which I I have deduced from the opinions you have heretofore presented. Isn't it interesting that I could know all that with a very limited understanding of Ireland beyond its' geographical location and government?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.

Corruption or no, Ireland still ranks somewhere in the 30's for GDP, worldwide. Pretty impressive for such a small nation with such limited resources. The Asian Tiger economies are similarly impressive, despite their vulnerability to global economic trends. The standards of living have been improved a great deal, even if they are not yet on par with the US. The US has spent most of its two hundred and thirty-three year history fostering a free market economy. It has spent all of that time fostering a more free-market than nations with comprable resources, so the discrepancy is understandable.

Thatcher's Britain continues to suffer from the exact same malady that your nation does: the continued and increasing presence of an overbearing and corrupt state made of people who seek to impose their will upon others. Economic freedoms can only do so much in the face of overtaxation and plutocracy. Sooner or later, they will slow down and be reversed as an established power structure takes root and grows.

So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

That is because your position is ultimately the same. You can spout ideals and legislative initiatives all you want, but at the end of the day you are still trusting the person who does the best job of asking you to cede your money and your freedom to them in exchange for the promise that they will "make it all better".

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

They may seem cryptic to you, but they aren't to some of us. They are just evidence of your inability to defend your position and a perversion of Socratic method. If you're going to use questions to teach, you should probably make them more clear, or at least discontinue the use of emoticons as responses. People aren't going to respond to with introspection, they'll just think you're a dick.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did I refer to you as such?

Not specifically, but you treat me as such, on occasion, including most of this occassion.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

See above.

See above.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

That's probably the wisest thing I've ever seen you type.

Question the state. Question others. Question me. Question yourself. As biological machines, we are only as good as the information we posess. Querying others is sure to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world, so long as we have the proper means of filtering information.

My worry is that you lack those means. Your consistent and casual disregard of others' views on this forum suggests that you do not question or even believe your own views by virtue of the fact that you can't be bothered to defend them with anything more than insult, real or implied. What you usually post implies that you are a product of indoctrination, seeking to prove the truth you have been taught and oblivious to outside influence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'd like to see a little proof. The virtues and failings of any person or group are ultimately defined by their actions (heh, kind of like rednecks and jihadists). Show me some real proof of the validity of your views, logical or emprical, and I, as well as others, will be more inclined to adopt your perspectives.