Page 36 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686136 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Projection?

    In all reality, it is a slur. It is not based in much reality, except some of the left have been calling the right nazis for a long time. Since WWII.

    Now, historically, the KKK and all that were democrats. Jim Crow? Democrats. Who fought the Civil Rights Act? Democrats.

    That is a poor truth.

    Same with the fact that most of the racists are older white people in the south. And they vote for the GOP now.

    Same poor truth.

    Conservatives didn't do enough in the Reconstruction, which kept some of that alive in the south. Walking through the absolutely haunting halls of the Atlanta Museum of History's display of the Civil War, and you can see the failure of the Reconstruction. Yeah, it is surprising how two warring factions repented, and formed a union again, but there is still a part that wishes they had stayed there for a bit longer. Set long term patterns, and ended it for good.






    Old, white and the south is the last vestiges of racism.



    It is dying out. (shrugs)

    https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uplo...-in-the-us.jpg

    Kill everyone over 70?

    We might be able to save SS that way. (Joking!)


    That is a bit out of context. Both of the current parties have switched their party position from conservative ideals to liberal ideals more than once. The last major flip in party policy that is what we see today occurred in the 80s and has stayed constant. A good way to see this represented is to look at how a very conservative or liberal state voted through time. Look at californa, NY, nj, etc. Any of the deeply liberal or conservative states and you will.see q consistency on when the political parties flipped their opinions.

    The democratic party was the conservative of the two back then during those racist acts when white supremacists would have identified as a democrat because they identify as conservative. Since the current switch somewhere in the 80s white supremacists still align themselves with conservative views which is now the republican party. It's sketchy to look at a meaningless party and not the general ideals that they are campaigning on which for lack of better terms are "conservative" or "liberal" ideals

  2. #352
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Flory: That is a perceived flip. But it is not a fully true statement.

    While chatting with Brian Lamb, Rangel dropped a few falsehoods as casually as cigar ash. This isn?t to pick on Rangel; he?s just illustrative. His assertion ? that the Republican and Democratic parties ?changed sides? in the 1960s on civil rights, with white racists leaving the Democratic party to join the Republicans ? has become conventional wisdom. It?s utterly false and should be rebutted at every opportunity.

    It?s true that a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, shepherded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to passage. But who voted for it?

    Eighty percent of Republicans in the House voted aye, as against 61 percent of Democrats. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans favored the law, but only 69 percent of Democrats. Among the Democrats voting nay were Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. William Fulbright. The Republican presidential candidate in 1964 also opposed the Civil Rights Act.

    Barry Goldwater had been an enthusiastic backer of the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts (both overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats). He was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. He hired many blacks in his family business and pushed to desegregate the Arizona National Guard. He had a good-faith objection to some features of the 1964 act, which he regarded as unconstitutional. Goldwater was no racist.

    The same cannot be said of Fulbright, on whom Bill Clinton bestowed the Medal of Freedom. Fulbright was one of the 19 senators who signed the ?Southern manifesto? defending segregation. Okay, but didn?t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party ? including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate. Former racists of both parties renounced their old views (as Kevin D. Williamson points out, Lyndon Johnson himself voted against anti-lynching laws and poll-tax repeals), and neither party has a perfect record on racial matters by any stretch. But it is a libel to suggest that the Republican party, the anti-slavery party, the party of Lincoln, and the party that traditionally supported civil rights, anti-lynching laws, and integration, became the racist party after 1964.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sm-mona-charen
    These Republican gains came not from the most rural and ?deep south? regions, but rather from the newer cities and suburbs. If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn. Instead, as Gerard Alexander notes in ?The Myth of the Racist Republicans,? the turn toward the GOP began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Eisenhower did best in the peripheral states. Alexander concludes: ?The GOP?s southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the . . . Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, young, non-native southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were the least ?Southern? parts of the south.?

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sm-mona-charen
    It's a lie. It's not true. Only slightly proportional. It's a gotcha. Like calling the left Snowflakes, but it is a much worse slur.

    Repeating it, believing it even, shows a lack of investigation into the Right side of the argument, or even attempting to listen. It is as easy as just actually talking to somebody from the right. It should dispel much of this quickly, as even Sarah Silverman found out.

    Turns out, they are just people. Not some uncaring, phobic, caricature of the person I keep seeing you guys repeat on here. That ignorant view of the right, that disconnect from reality, is not something to applaud. It makes such a foolish stereotype of genuine and intelligent people that the truth of it would make you ashamed.

    I was driving with one of my bosses down to Chattanooga, a really smart gentleman. By smart, he is one of the underlying minds on modern machine controls, function blocks and related. You might have had to use his book in college: https://www.amazon.com/Successful-In.../dp/1556178441

    He pointed to Lookout Mt, and proceeded to tell the story of how the North pushed the South off of the mountain, then down to a local ridge. The South started shelling them in the valley that is now the city, and as he does this he points out "They could see them from that point", pointing to Lookout Mt., "And they were hiding on this ridge right here", pointing to the hill we are driving past.

    The soldiers just got fed up with being shelled camped on the base, and started attacking the ridge. Without the officers direction, and not concentrated, it was a bit of a mess. The officers followed, and right there on Missionary Ridge they broke the back of the southern army under General Bragg and pushed into Atlanta, effectively ending the war.

    That is why he is proud to be a conservative he told me. Because they defeated the south. Because the won. He is proud to be part of Lincoln's legacy. Of freeing the slaves, reuniting the nation.

    So many here are. Enough that I look at that comment for the raw ignorance it is. Repeated for political power, but without a strong leg to stand on if you actually go to fly over states and talk to the Deplorables. They would throw a better punch than Anti-fa would at you if you called them a racist. And you would deserve it. They are proud of kicking the South out of here. Kicking the democrats in the ass, and breaking the war. The town wears it's bullet holes you can still go up and touch in some places with pride.


    It is a lie repeated till it is believed a truth. But it is still a lie.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #353
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    A bit more on the flip - but this is based on Large Government vs Small government:

    https://www.livescience.com/34241-de...platforms.html

    During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
    Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

    But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

    Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
    And this is a very in depth read:

    http://factmyth.com/factoids/democra...hed-platforms/

    In fact, maybe a bit long and fragmented. But I should have linked and read this one for a fuller reply:

    Thus, not only will we debunk the myths of the Solid South below, we’ll also explore other specifics changes in each Party System from 1789 to 2017 (like the start and end of the one-party era of Good Feelings, the split over States’ Rights in the 1850’s, the changes of Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, Bryan’s effect on the Democrats, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt’s exit from the Republican Party in 1912, the changes under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover that turned the GOP to a “small government” party in the 1920’s, landslide wins by FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan which changed the nation, and finally the polarizing effects of the eras of mass media and Bush and Clinton) to show the many changes that define the Party Systems.

    With all the above points in mind, we can say: the Democrats used to be the party of the Rural South, but that changed from FDR in 1932, to LBJ in 1964, to Clinton and Obama with their “second rights” “safety net” legislation.

    The effect has been a Southernization of the Republican Party and an Urbanization of the Democratic Party.

    In final: The issue with the parties flipping is not one of race, but of big government vs small, of urban vs rural. Of various other items.

    Piling race in there is an incorrect political convenience and slander. But not a truth.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-20-2017 at 01:36 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #354
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I actually don't know what your point is.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    A bit more on the flip - but this is based on Large Government vs Small government:

    https://www.livescience.com/34241-de...platforms.html

    During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
    I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide how those ideologies align with our modern political parties.

    As an aside, southern Democrats were also responsible for the Black Codes, enjoyed support from the Klan... etc. etc.

    Here's a pretty engaging article I ran across a while back, for anyone still playing along.

    https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/no...ederate-party/
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  5. #355
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    But really, I'll eat my words if you can find a Republican lawmaker at the federal level who supports a contemporary civil rights movement.

    Otherwise, I'm pretty sure my worldview is fine.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  6. #356
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    In final: The issue with the parties flipping is not one of race, but of big government vs small, of urban vs rural. Of various other items.
    https://youtu.be/t8IFgEO6Np4?t=29m36s
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  7. #357
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    But really, I'll eat my words if you can find a Republican lawmaker at the federal level who supports a contemporary civil rights movement.
    What would that entail, in your opinion? It seems outdated now, and racist. Just ask an Asian male trying to get into college.

    Though, truth be told, I am not a fan of almost any but a few of our current GOP congresscritters. They have been woefully big spenders who couldn't vote themselves a lunch effectively, while still trying to fake some 1950's morality they don't live, while doing exactly what they bitched about the democrats doing 8 years ago. I would say you should start looking for a buffet.

    I actually don't know what your point is.
    There is a missed context I suppose, but you were the one saying you thought the conservatives are the racists now. The point is there isn't a huge racist movement in the GOP. They has been some changes in the parties, but race isn't one that the GOP picked up when they switched to a small government, rural supporting political party, so much as the DNC finally rejected and purged it from their base from the 70's till the 90's. And seem to be over compensating to some extend. Guilt? Not sure. This is 20 to 30 years of change, and the DNC swung pretty hard from one extreme to the other. Enough that it could be seen as the GOP hasn't gone as hard all in, but then, they still see themselves as the party of freedom, and not the party of the KKK, so didn't have to change. This blustering is relatively recent from the DNC, and for all of the name calling it doesn't make the GOP so. Hence, the use of the word 'Slur.'

    That was a very...opinionated... link. I can't see the youtube here at this office.

    He thinks the Tea Party is a confederate party. That was the premise of the article, and he had to dig deep from the civil war to find a link, through guns. That is not true, especially having to use that string of dots. Why do people have to go through so many hoops to find a onerous explanation when they were pretty clear what they wanted? (shakes head) He doesn't seem to understand the Tea Party at all. I wonder what he thinks of the moon landing?

    Now in that link, is something I had mentioned before, and that is something that was up in the Atlanta Museum of History:

    Here’s what my teachers’ should have told me: “Reconstruction was the second phase of the Civil War. It lasted until 1877, when the Confederates won.” I think that would have gotten my attention.
    I had mentioned that earlier, after visiting the center. The South was under Northern control for a while, but it put a huge stress on the country. And it wasn't entirely successful. It wasn't really talked about either. I would love to go back and see the Atlanta exhibit again. It is haunting: http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/...ican-civil-war

    Just because the left finally purged racism from their party doesn't mean the GOP picked it up. Calling them names doesn't make it so. They are proud because their party did win the war. Did purge racism. Did start the Civil Rights Act. That is very inherent from talking to my conservative friends here in the south.

    Glad to see the left finally catch up, but the posturing and pearl clutching and related attempt to distance themselves from their past seems to have work for some. But it seems excessive. Short of trying to win votes and insulting half the US. In that, it has succeeded.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #358
    jut a reminder, the tax scam also repeals the individual mandate (sets fine to zero), the CBO estimating 13 million will lose coverage, and premiums will go up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    In final: The issue with the parties flipping is not one of race, but of big government vs small, of urban vs rural. Of various other items.

    Piling race in there is an incorrect political convenience and slander. But not a truth.
    no, it really isn't. the Dixiecrats in there own words disagree with you.

    this is a dumb point, same as the whole "civil war wasn't about slavery" .... except that when you read about why the southern states left IN THERE OWN WORDS, they make it explicitly clear it was about slavery. same as the Dixiecrats. go read the stated reasons why they themselves left the democratic party, it wasn't about big government, or rural areas, it was about race, and the civil rights act.

    besides, there is nothing more "big government" than legally enforced racial discrimination. something republicans have been for for decades, really, ever since they adopted the dixiecrats
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-21-2017 at 02:34 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #359
    [QUOTE=cockerpunk;36250]jut a reminder, the tax scam also repeals the individual mandate (sets fine to zero), the CBO estimating 13 million will lose coverage, and premiums will go up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Let's be careful with how we analyze the CBO report. 13 million aren't losing their healthcare, they are choosing to forgo their insurance. Which means that because you no longer have to buy coverage ahead of time you can just get it the moment you get sick and then jump off it the moment you are healthy! Hooray for common sense!

    Note - you need an individual mandate to make a private insurance market work

  10. #360
    [QUOTE=d0cwho;36252]
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    jut a reminder, the tax scam also repeals the individual mandate (sets fine to zero), the CBO estimating 13 million will lose coverage, and premiums will go up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Let's be careful with how we analyze the CBO report. 13 million aren't losing their healthcare, they are choosing to forgo their insurance. Which means that because you no longer have to buy coverage ahead of time you can just get it the moment you get sick and then jump off it the moment you are healthy! Hooray for common sense!

    Note - you need an individual mandate to make a private insurance market work
    its actually a combined bucket of those who stupidly choose to not have coverage, those who will be dropped, and those who will no longer be able to afford it before prices WILL go up.

    this is classic republican strategy. a law stands a set of rules or regulations that work together. if you take out one of its legs, it will fail. in this case, republicans have essentially guaranteed a death spiral, because without everyone possible on plans, the plans will rise in price.

    so, dont forget, republicans broke the ACA.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •