|
|
On October 20 2012 14:05 Probe1 wrote:(Giant response to me) Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2012 06:48 Probe1 wrote:
Your posts are bias'd to your own side sc2superfan101 . I don't know how you can't see that interfering with how others receive and evaluate your opinions. Let's take an example of myself. If I were to say (all of this is true):
"I am a registered independent. I always have been and I always will be. However, the day I vote for a Republican candidate in these days of neocon bullshit is the day I want to sign over my freedom and inalienable rights."
Now how do you think people are going to view that? That's what I think, it's true. But I don't present myself that way. Why? Because.. well no shit on this one but I have respect for others opinions. By that I mean I believe I am not always right and I should listen to dissent. Having an obnoxiously staunch and 'partisan' opinion is like sticking your fingers in your ears when someone says they like butter pecan ice cream and screaming CHOCOLATE! until they leave.
Have some common sense, I've got plenty laying around you can borrow. everyone's posts are "bias'd to [their] own side". there is no one on Earth that believes that their opinions and beliefs are wrong, so everyone is going to assume that they are right. we can base this assumption on evidence, but even then, the bias still exists, it is just a supported bias. how others view my positions is largely up to them. I may bear some responsibility, namely to couch my positions in truthful, ethical, and (relatively) friendly ways. however, once achieved, all the responsibility for the reaction of the reader/listener belongs squarely and wholly to that aforementioned spectator. I cannot hope to change the way they think by myself, with no effort or desire on their part. and I cannot hope to convince them of the validity of my own positions if they will not be convinced. (note that I am not condemning anyone or any action. I, myself, do not have any desire to change my basic positions, will put no effort into changing them, and will most likely not be convinced). it is the height of dishonesty for someone to say: "I am not partisan. So my opinions are valid. You are partisan though, so your positions are invalid." as such, I have no fear or problem with admitting my own partisanship, and admitting that this partisanship does, to some degree, color the glass through which I view the world. sure, it makes me easy prey to someone who wants to be dishonest, but anyone who has an opinion, is partisan. anyone who claims different, is being untruthful. those who are truthful will admit their own partisanship and bias, and won't try to hide it from the people they are arguing with or trying to convince. now, it seems your main argument (in spirit) is not that you are better for hiding your obvious bias, but that in some weird way, that because you hide it, it doesn't exist. to this, I can only say that a game of peek-a-boo doesn't usually involve someone actually disappearing and reappearing. likewise, hiding this opinion: the day I vote for a Republican candidate in these days of neocon bullshit is the day I want to sign over my freedom and inalienable rights. doesn't change the fact that the opinion exists. hiding it doesn't give you some extra ability to gauge and respond to dissent or criticism of your political position. and it doesn't make it have any less of an effect upon your voting, thinking, and perceiving. now, we can argue all day about who has the more open mind, or whether having an open mind to nonsense is desirable, much less rational; but the main argument we should be having is whether a partisan who is convinced of the superiority of his own arguments, not obstinately but with conviction, is capable of engaging in rational discourse. I would suggest that one who holds no firm positions can have no firm arguments. the key, it would seem, (to borrow a quote from W.F. Buckley Jr.) is "to be flexible without resembling Silly-Putty: to be principled without being arch" obviously, you can make some argument that you are firmly in the middle ground. and I, without being able to preview the inner depths of your mind and soul, am woefully incapable of challenging that argument with anything other than your own admission of bias. you can make the argument that I am so stubborn that I resemble the childish figure in your analogy, and I, without being able to open to you the depths of my mind, am incapable of challenging that argument except with that fact that I ignore no (legitimately made) point that I see, but address any and all with equal gusto. let those who watch be the judges, but realize that judgement should most probably be reserved for those with no, how shall I say, dog in the hunt. Again you illustrate your immaturity.
hm.... I would say that you have yet to show any hint that you understood what was written. nonetheless, I am glad that you at least were able to confirm what I did write.
|
On October 21 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw)) I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then? people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same. they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat. it's a myth with no basis in reality.
I am not going to convince you so theres on point in arguing but you are being out and out deceitful. if you truly believe the republican party is progressive and the democractic party is conservative (which is basically what you are arguing) I don't know what to say to you.
|
On October 21 2012 03:43 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw)) I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then? people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same. they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat. it's a myth with no basis in reality. Then Nixon happened and the Republican party adopted what is known as the "southern strategy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategyReally man, your history is very cherry picked.
as is yours:
Political scientists Richard Johnston (University of Pennsylvania) and Byron Shafer (University of Wisconsin) have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Johnston and Shafer wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region. They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".[11]
and, again, I have yet to see any evidence of a massive shift in either the political platforms of the parties, or the politicians that compose those parties.
|
On October 21 2012 03:44 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw)) I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then? people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same. they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat. it's a myth with no basis in reality. I am not going to convince you so theres on point in arguing but you are being out and out deceitful. if you truly believe the republican party is progressive and the democractic party is conservative (which is basically what you are arguing) I don't know what to say to you.
well of course you wont' convince me if you bring absolutely no facts to the table.
also, I just said that the Democrats were, and always were, the progressives. it's just that for most of the first century, progressivism incorporated racism and segregation into it's platform.
|
On October 21 2012 03:44 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 21 2012 03:18 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 20 2012 09:06 turdburgler wrote:On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote:
Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney
Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama you do know that the name republican and democrat have basically reversed meaning since then? no they haven't. this is a myth. ?????????? are you serious? Of course they did. It almost entirely had to do with the Civil Rights act and the south. Get over yourself (the party that free'd the slaves). Please. Republicans were fairly progressive back then. Now they have decided to align themselves with the ignorance and the bible belt because it is an easy way to get elected......(republicans are far better at politics than democrats (not that that is a good/moral thing btw)) I am perfectly serious. the very same Democrat party of FDR is the very same Democrat party that voted against the Civil Rights bills. or are we suggesting that FDR's policies are somehow Republican? did the switch happen before FDR then? people like to point at Goldwater as if the reason he was nominated wasn't his positions on Communism. they take his voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as if that is proof of his "racism", despite his championing both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. furthermore, they refuse to accept the obvious fact that LBJ was as much a Democrat progressive as FDR and Woodrow Wilson. his social policies are largely the same (except drop the explicit racism of the former two) and his foreign policy, again, is largely the same. they also ignore the fact that George Wallace, a segregationist, was running in the Democrat primaries, and even ran pretty close to LBJ in some key states. they ignore the fact that there was no massive shift in politicians from one party to another, that those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bills stayed Republicans (except, perhaps, for a few exceptions). and those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bills largely stayed Democrat. it's a myth with no basis in reality. I am not going to convince you so theres on point in arguing but you are being out and out deceitful. if you truly believe the republican party is progressive and the democractic party is conservative (which is basically what you are arguing) I don't know what to say to you.
You just have to move a few years past where he stopped. He went up to the point where the parties became split along these issues, during the period he is talking about there was a lot of disagreement in the parties themselves. The actions of the Republican party throughout the 70s solidified them as supporting the "negrophobe whites." (borrowing the phrase from one of Nixon's advisers)
Edit @Fan: Progressivism is not a cogent political philosophy, it is contantly changed in definition as it is defined by current issues in a political dialogue. For the most part what the "progressives" of the early 1900s supported everyone would support today. You are conflating the turmoil in the democratic party on race issues in the early part of this century with some philosophy of "progressivism" this is not relevant to the current election or even a reasonable argument.
Throughout our wonderful history on race issues, the majority of people in both parties believed things that today are abhorrent. I'm going to profile you as one of those people who really likes Thomas Jefferson, and I have a literary recommendation is that is true.
http://www.amazon.com/Master-Mountain-Thomas-Jefferson-Slaves/dp/0374299560
|
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off.
|
On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off.
This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine.
and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there.
The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars.
|
On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off.
As I pointed out at the end of the last page, Republicans put a fair bit of effort into getting those voters for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Thanks Nixon! He not only opened relations with China and passed a slew of environmental regulations but made sure my party would look better than his in the future since his would be full of racists. I love that guy!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, but he's not a crook.
|
On October 21 2012 03:51 TheFrankOne wrote:Edit @Fan: Progressivism is not a cogent political philosophy, it is contantly changed in definition as it is defined by current issues in a political dialogue. For the most part what the "progressives" of the early 1900s supported everyone would support today. You are conflating the turmoil in the democratic party on race issues in the early part of this century with some philosophy of "progressivism" this is not relevant to the current election or even a reasonable argument. Throughout our wonderful history on race issues, the majority of people in both parties believed things that today are abhorrent. I'm going to profile you as one of those people who really likes Thomas Jefferson, and I have a literary recommendation is that is true. http://www.amazon.com/Master-Mountain-Thomas-Jefferson-Slaves/dp/0374299560
I'm not the one who brought up progressivism, he did. I'm just allowing that the Democrats were progressives, and are progressives, and that many of those same social progressives who belonged to the Democratic party were the segregationists, and they (largely) remained a part of the Democratic party.
I have a lot of contempt for Thomas Jefferson. I am a strict Hamiltonian.
On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:
This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine.
the parties never switched! no one here has given any evidence of any switch at all, and further, the narrative never really changed between the parties. Democrats were social progressives before and after. even more asinine than saying the Republican party is the same (it largely is), is to make the suggestion that the Democratic party somehow became the Republican party during the Nixon administration...
the Southern Strategy doesn't prove anything.
|
On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars.
Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation.
|
On October 21 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars. Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation.
or they could stay how they are and republicans could drop the abortion issue because its none of their business. Then they woudln't have to run ads or be reliant on a political party
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars. Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation.
yea they must be hating on republicans instead of supporting women's rights.
|
On October 21 2012 04:17 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars. Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation. or they could stay how they are and republicans could drop the abortion issue because its none of their business. Then they woudln't have to run ads or be reliant on a political party
Laws and federal funding are absolutely the business of politicians...
|
On October 21 2012 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:17 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars. Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation. or they could stay how they are and republicans could drop the abortion issue because its none of their business. Then they woudln't have to run ads or be reliant on a political party Laws and federal funding are absolutely the business of politicians...
not when it comes to a personal issue like abortion.
|
On October 21 2012 04:27 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 04:17 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars. Planned parenthood brings a lot of the hate on themselves. They're tax exempt, receive federal funding and yet choose to run political ads against one of the two major political parties in the country (Republicans). They also make the choice to play hardball with federal funding - PP could separate their funding for abortions so that conservatives wouldn't fret so much about federal dollars funding that operation. or they could stay how they are and republicans could drop the abortion issue because its none of their business. Then they woudln't have to run ads or be reliant on a political party Laws and federal funding are absolutely the business of politicians... not when it comes to a personal issue like abortion.
I'm not getting into an abortion debate. The point is, if you want federal money you shouldn't purposefully battle half the politicians in Washington.
|
On October 21 2012 04:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:51 TheFrankOne wrote:Edit @Fan: Progressivism is not a cogent political philosophy, it is contantly changed in definition as it is defined by current issues in a political dialogue. For the most part what the "progressives" of the early 1900s supported everyone would support today. You are conflating the turmoil in the democratic party on race issues in the early part of this century with some philosophy of "progressivism" this is not relevant to the current election or even a reasonable argument. Throughout our wonderful history on race issues, the majority of people in both parties believed things that today are abhorrent. I'm going to profile you as one of those people who really likes Thomas Jefferson, and I have a literary recommendation is that is true. http://www.amazon.com/Master-Mountain-Thomas-Jefferson-Slaves/dp/0374299560 I'm not the one who brought up progressivism, he did. I'm just allowing that the Democrats were progressives, and are progressives, and that many of those same social progressives who belonged to the Democratic party were the segregationists, and they (largely) remained a part of the Democratic party. I have a lot of contempt for Thomas Jefferson. I am a strict Hamiltonian. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:
This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine.
the parties never switched! no one here has given any evidence of any switch at all, and further, the narrative never really changed between the parties. Democrats were social progressives before and after. even more asinine than saying the Republican party is the same (it largely is), is to make the suggestion that the Democratic party somehow became the Republican party during the Nixon administration... the Southern Strategy doesn't prove anything.
Segregationists did not remain (largely) with the Democratic party, that's what the Southern Strategy proves.
In the god damn 1970s Nixon courted the South (Dixiecrats) using racism as an explicit part of his campaign strategy and pulled the elements of the Democratic party you are referring to out. This is basic stuff, not at all disputed history. It also clearly changes the composition of each party, the "switched" so to speak, large portions of their base voting blocks who have significant influence over their platform since. What do you think the implications of the southern strategy are? The parties didn't change a bit?
Further proof is in the party change of the black vote following that strategy, which, again, changes the core issues of the parties as their constituents change. I have said repeatedly they are wholly different today than near or during the Civil war so "switching" is a bad description, and that what party Lincoln was is irrelevant to the 2012 election.
I also posted their 1860 platforms just so you can see the idea of parties "switching" or "being the same" is asinine. Both of them have checkered legacies on almost every issue related to "rights" or damn near anything else thats been important for over 100 years.
They are different now than they used to be. How we treat new territories entering into the US is not a fucking issue today. Enforced segregation, not an issue today, legal slavery, not an issue today.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-036/?action=more_essay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette,_Sr.
Okay, I have now provided sources that say the Republicans have courted the white racist vote, abandoning both the black vote and the people those votes represent, and that in 1900 Progressives were in control of the Republican party. So, they did switch on a lot of issues, this has been proven. You have yet to prove it in any fucking way matters today. Parties are not discreet entities, they change slowly, and the Dixiecrats became Republican and that is the voting block that essentially determines which party is "racist", fortunately today its not really similiar. (Don't get me wrong, I am calling Republicans the racist party, they're just less racist than the Dixiecrats were back when traditional values like racism were respected.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
(Don't quote the first line of the article that says its leader mostly went back to Democrats, that was before things changed.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South (this explains when things change a little more)
On race issues, the parties did switch, its just that today "race issues" are far less important than they were mostly because that whole slavery and segregation thing was far more fucked up than what's going on today.
Also, sorry I'm using Wikipedia but because this is not controversial history at all, plus cause I'm lazy, that's how its gonna be.
its all true you can pretty easily find better source if you want one.
@johnny: That's some sound advice about getting those federals dollars. Sadly Planned Parenthood faces a mission conflict with following it.
|
On October 21 2012 04:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. This is a fair point regarding individuals but the entire point was that the parties themselves switched their narrative over time (whether it is through people dying off or whatever, it doesnt really matter). To say the republican party of today is the same one as lincoln is asinine. and lol @ the planned parenthood comment. Wtf. Has anyone who has criticzed planned parenthood even been there? You can get STD tests/screenings there and very few of them actually even do surgical abortions (most do chemical). Not to mention you can get birthcontrol there. The hate for planned parenthood is insane. Do you know how much more expensive STD testing is from private companies (especially if you don't have insurance). Just type some in google and see that it can run at a few hundred dollars.
Considering that Hitler made abortion illegal for ethnic Germans, I find that statement a little dubious.
As for the parties and racism, the most racist part of the country (South) switched parties. Now at the same time the level of racism in this country has greatly receded since the days of Jim Crow, but I don't think the South all of the sudden became the progressive voice of colorblindness as soon as it switched parties. Rather, the parties (sometimes intentionally, ie Southern Strategy, but probably mostly just in terms of being willing to tolerate it) gradually shifted their stances as their regional alignment - and therefore their grassroots - shifted.
|
On October 21 2012 04:03 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
People forget the large numbers of companies that supported democrats. Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party. The New York Times supported democrats since the 1850's. In order for the huge shift to happen not only would all the voters have to switch, but all republican and democrat supporting free market businesses would have to fire all their workers and higher new ones.
But that still doesn't answer why would non racist people want to vote for the racist party. And then you also have to ignore all the (ex) KKK members who were democrats until they died. It's all anecdotal evidence but it all points not only to democrats and republicans not changing sides, but that all the overtly racist democrats died off. As I pointed out at the end of the last page, Republicans put a fair bit of effort into getting those voters for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategyThanks Nixon! He not only opened relations with China and passed a slew of environmental regulations but made sure my party would look better than his in the future since his would be full of racists. I love that guy!
He also tried to pass one of the best-intentioned healthcare reforms in history.
|
On October 21 2012 03:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Planned Parenthood was created in the 1930's in Hitlers image and supported the democrat party..
You're the reason your party loses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
