Bill O'Reilly: What is a 'Traditional American"?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 9 years ago

   Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Conservative Commentator, penned the term.
   
   Greetings and Happy Independence Day to one and all.
   
   Bill says traditional Americans are 'threatened' by a left wing domination of the internet.
   
   Bill says that traditional Americans abhor the SC for its recent decision regarding same sex marriage.
   
   Bill says that traditional American are not composed of the 50 percent of Americans that mooch on the other 50% productive souls.
   
   Of Course, SCJ Antonin Scalia is a 'traditional American' because of his scathing dissent on the recent ruling  SC in favor of the ACA "Obamacare"
   
   So, I am not a 'traditional American because I don't fit neatly in this model?
   
   Is it not enough that I served in this country's Armed Forces and did my bit for God and Country?
   
   Is it not enough that I have spent decades in the public trust with the authority to bind the US Government in the millions of dollars through contractual relationships? Doing that job, running a clean shop, without bias and with impeccable honesty, in my service to the American people.
   
   Of course, I have to pay taxes.
   
   People disgust me that 'wrap themselves in the flag' without regard or appreciation for the things that it stands for.
   
   Conservatives say "love it or leave it'. I say if you love something or someone,you are going to chide it, scold up, challenge it to be better.
   
   Rather than being America Haters, just the contrary, this is my home. I want the 239 year experiment to continue and support policies and ideas that are more than likely to allow that to happen, providing the greatest good for the greatest number.
   
   Those on the Conservative side, at least many of them, have the same goal, but come at it from a different angle. We are both blessed to be allowed to express our opinions without either of us being thrown into jail. That is America...
   
   So could "traditional Americans" merely be a code word or dog whistle for a demographic that O'Reilly does not want to specifically mention over the air?   Gotta wonder?
   
   Enjoy your festivities, if any, and I will see you on the other side of the current 'cease fire' in honor of the current holiday.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Where can I meet one of these "traditional Americans"? Are they different from well informed Americans or are they like practicing Americans? How do you define a "traditional American."

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         RH, that seems to change with the times
         
         1915 People who had trouble with the concept of female suffrage and saw it as an imposition on the concept of States Rights to even suggest legislation prohibiting lynching as a direct violation of the 14th amendment's right of due process of law.
         
         1932 Maybe they were the folks that thought that we should give Herbert Hoover's solution to Depression America just a little more time and that FDR was a communist.
         
         1962 Maybe they were the folks that were uncomfortable with no longer having religious sermons given to  children in public schools, while being required to intergrate. Kick God out and let Blacks in....
         
         1971: Perhaps they are represented by that cigar chomping, sofa squatting sophisticate about town,  Archie Bunker. He had this 'everyman' view of America.
         
         For O'Reilly's definition they are the people who out fear are always content with the status quo- when the times demand that we move forward. Every generation has had people like this. Having to put forth effort to overcome their resistance has made the victories by the progressives just that more sweet.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "Traditional American" is a ridiculous term, but yeah, I think O'Reilly uses it to describe a certain demographic (conservative and white).

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Youre a quick study, I was hoping that others would pick up on this..

               replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   - yeah, til they realize what they have lost and/or see the actual results of the changes they put in place.
   Time will reveal all.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Possibly.
      
      But, I will take my chances with the future over the past. The 'good ole days' when you have either lived through them or study them closely were not always so good.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Based on what?
         based on rigid order? based on opening Panora's box? based on getting what you want because it fits in with some random idealized version of how some misguided individuals think life should be?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            How about this novel concept?  You live your life the way you see fit and let other people live theirs.
            
            Pretty easy.

            replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It ain't the 'world according to Garp, but the 'world according to Kathryn"?
            
            unfortunately, progress means opening 'Pandora's Box' more often than not.
            
            What about the misguided individuals that pursue getting what  they want by having the world stand still?  Evolving and change is part of life and the universe around us.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What about understanding the basis of the The Constitution?
                 and leaving it at that.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  You are speaking in riddles, clarify if you please

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you understand the basis of the Constitution?

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        The Constitution has Bases, which ones are you using to buttress your argument, as you always say, be specific.....

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           The Constitution is based on Human nature and natural law.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Furthermore, churches are going to be loosing their tax exempt status when they refuse to marry gays.
                              Is that okay with you?
                              Is this fair?
                              Churches are supposed to be outside politics, but they are being dragged into politics at this point.
                              Churches are being forced to make a political stand.
                              But this stand is traditionally a religious stand.
                              Do they have freedom to follow their religious ideals any more?
                              NOOOOoo...
                              
                              ...also the churches will fold.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 That is objectively not true, please cite the passage of law (you can't because it doesn't exist, you are just tragically and continuously misinformed on everything).
                                 
                                 Churches will absolutely not lose their tax free status for refusing to marry same sex couples.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 79

                                 Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Oh, now I see, it is ridiculous to think that laws that apply to public accomodation apply to churches. The Right is just playing this to insane lengths. Because everybody is not willing to have their concept of faith and GOd forced fed to all the rest of us, now they claim that their rights are being threatened. Now isn't that typical?  CHURCHES are not required to do any of these things. Where are you getting this stuff?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Usual misinformation, probably Breitbart or Fox news.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 79

                                       Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       I thought that she might have known better not come to me unless she had done her homework....

                                       report
                           2. 61

                              Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              We have no idea what human nature or natural law even is, opinion among experts on those issues is widely divided that you expect non experts in those subjects hundreds of years ago to have figured it out is beyond ridiculous.

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Men such as David Hume and John Locke, Montesque and Machiavelli were forging a route toward freedom and liberty for the individual.
                                 They were the enlightened thinkers who stood on the shoulders of giants such as Plato and Aristotle.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    They were some pretty smart people without the benefit of several hundred years of knowledge we now have doing the best they could. Painting it as anything other than that is unjustified, it's not a sacred text and it was never intended to be treated as one, indeed the author of the constitution was of the opinion that it should be rewritten regularly.
                                    
                                    They had no special knowledge we don't have, indeed they had much less (through no fault of their own), clinging to the constitution as some higher source of wisdom is ridiculous.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 80

                                       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       God help you.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only."  -Thomas Jefferson.
                                          
                                          The author of the constitution.
                                          
                                          19 Years is just a tiny bit expired.

                                          report
                           3. 79

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, ok, But you  remember that you were talking about rigid orders and all that. What is your point?

                              replyreport
               2. 61

                  Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  You mean your personal interpretation of what the founding fathers wanted. The truth is there no single correct view of that. In fact one of the founding fathers (Thomas Paine) without whom Jefferson among others said there would be no America would be considered a radical socialist, even communist today, he wanted land redistribution, minimum wage and unionization.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     <" … he wanted land redistribution, minimum wage and unionization.">
                     
                     Quotes, please.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        "Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.
                        
                        "It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal."
                        
                        "[C]reate a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."
                        
                        "It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

                        replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   "Biographer Eric Foner identifies a utopian thread in Paine's thought, writing that 'Through this new language he communicated a new vision—a utopian image of an egalitarian, republican society.'
   
   Paine's utopianism combined civic republicanism, belief in the inevitability of scientific and social progress and commitment to free markets and liberty generally. The multiple sources of Paine's political theory all pointed to a society based on the common good and individualism.
   
   Paine expressed a redemptive futurism or political messianism. Paine, writing that his generation 'would appear to the future as the Adam of a new world', exemplified British utopianism.
   
   Thomas Paine's natural justice beliefs may have been influenced by his Quaker father.
   Later, his encounters with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas made a deep impression. The ability of the Iroquois to live in harmony with nature while achieving a democratic decision-making process helped him refine his thinking on how to organize society."
   
   
   Thomas Paine WAS a very interesting person!
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah wikipedia opinion piece, check the qoutes direct from the man himself.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         ...can't you provide proof of what you say?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I just did, it's on the last page, tons of quotes.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               huh?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Since you are struggling to find them I will repost them for you:
                  
                  "Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.
                  
                  "It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal."
                  
                  "[C]reate a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."
                  
                  "It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

                  replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."
   http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   The Age of Reason has intellectual roots in the traditions of David Hume, Spinoza, and Voltaire. Since Hume had already made many of the same "moral attacks upon Christianity" that Paine popularized in The Age of Reason, scholars have concluded that Paine probably read Hume's works on religion or had at least heard about them through the Joseph Johnson circle. Paine would have been particularly drawn to Hume's description of religion as "a positive source of harm to society" that "led men to be factious, ambitious and intolerant". More of an influence on Paine than Hume, however, was Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-politicus (1678). Paine would have been exposed to Spinoza's ideas through the works of other eighteenth-century deists, most notably Conyers Middleton. Paine would also more than likely have been familiar with Voltaire's mocking wit…"
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   I am showing you how the change you thought was so progressive and wonderful, since not understood in the light of justice and virtue, is paving the way to disaster. A minority mob now rules to the detriment of the majority.  "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution." We the majority were not protected by The Constitution. ( See Federalist Paper no. 10 on factions by James Madison. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm)
   
   Now you're forcing churches to marry homosexuals, or else.
   Now you are politicizing something that was sacred and holy unto itself.
   
   Thanks for the blind progressivism.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Bu that's the thing facts are real things you don't get to just make everything up nothing you are saying is true, it's all factually wrong.
      
      It's not a minority:
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
      
      Churches are not forced to Marry anyone.
      http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/ind … to_ma.html
      
      Why do you lie so much?

      replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Gallup poll? Right.
   Churches MIGHT not be given tax exempt status if they do not marry them now that it has become a political issue.
   Time will tell.
   Progressivism must be tempered with conservatism.
   I would say it is folly for either to hate the other. Both are needed.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You speak of the "basis" of the Constitution, separation of church and state is one of them.  The fears you state are both unfounded and so off the foundation of the Constitution, it cannot be considered. What evidence do you have besides inuendo and your intution to support your beliefs?
      
      Yes, I agree there is a place for the principal of conservatism, more to season the progressive stew. It is not a matter of hatred, but history.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh of course I forgot polls are a conspiracy, since you have a problem with Gallup (which is the most trusted pollster in America btw)
      
      http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/grap … -marriage/
      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fullpage … e-18757411
      
      So as you have now admitted churches will not lost their status you are just wildly speculating they might lose it in the future.
      
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

      replyreport