- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1860s Republicans were radicals. They were the ones who wanted to completely change the social order. The conservatives, who favored the existing social order, were Democrats.
Leftist?Nice try, and a common leftist attempt at historical revision, but it just aint true.
Watch and learn! Bill Whittle - Racism - Democrats and Republicans switch sides? - YouTube
The Republicans then, as Republicans now, feel that all people should have equal rights in law. The Democrats, then as now, feel otherwise.
Leftist?
Facts have a liberal bias. Is that it?
You seem to have changed your tune a little here, which is commendable.
.
This is the part where history (Republican party was anti-slavery Democratic party was pro-slavery) goes from factual to absurd. Last I checked I did not vote for an 1800's or even 1960's Democrat. I'm pretty sure no living Republican has voted for Abraham Lincoln. The fact you have to go back at least to the 1960's in order to make a counter argument to a strawman argument that all Republicans are racist says a lot!History is something the Democrats have to live with
as the video pointed out, they are still legislating against Blacks as though they were inferior people. If you saw the video to the end you'll know what I'm referring to.
Moynihan generally concluded in the report: "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States".
Far from freeing Black men with their Social programs, they made Black men dispensable. Democrats try to take credit for these programs, as another poster did when referring to LBJ, but they will not admit to the very real social harm these misguided, and ruinous, social programs have initiated.
Therein you show your complete misunderstanding of the word "conservative" in addition to your complete misunderstanding of what the 2 parties stand for. As I have long suspected, you can only run the Limbaugh playbook which knows nothing of history.
Do Republicans think that homosexuals should have equal rights to marry or adopt children? Not last I checked, so the whole "all people should have equal rights" is in fact, crap.
This is the part where history (Republican party was anti-slavery Democratic party was pro-slavery) goes from factual to absurd. Last I checked I did not vote for an 1800's or even 1960's Democrat. I'm pretty sure no living Republican has voted for Abraham Lincoln. The fact you have to go back at least to the 1960's in order to make a counter argument to a strawman argument that all Republicans are racist says a lot!
Which is just ridiculous. Either the person making that argument is ignorant of Democratic reasons or just a liar. I honestly don't know which for the individual in the video because both would be believable.
Yes yes...we all know this line...up is down
...it's immoral to help someone in need...the true moral response to someone living in poverty is to not help them.
How do you believe an 1860's Republican differs from a 2012 Republican?
QUOTE=iliveonramen;1061483394]I haven't changed my tune at all.
No not really. Didn't make me uncomfortable at all. It's not like the arguments presented are new and I haven't heard them before.You didn't watch the video to the end, did you? Did it make you feel uncomfortable?
Actually I understand the term very well but it seems you don't. Again, Conservatives believe in human rights and equality and that is unwavering. Why should that attitude change over 200 years later? It is constant.
In fact Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton both came out against Gay Marriage though I have always been for it.
But lets not deviate from the discussion at hand, okay?
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
You don't even need to go back that far. There's been large changes in the Republican party in the past 10 or 20 years.
As for the difference between Republican party members in the 1860's...we can start with the obvious. The Republican party was dominated by the manufactoring northeast and former northwest territories. The Democratic party was dominated by the deepsouth. The bases and regional dominance of each party has essentially reversed.
We can also talk about the role of government. The southern Democrats believed in "states rights". Hence...the creation of a Confederation of states. Republicans for the most part were pro-central government. There's a reason Libertarians for the most part aren't big fans of Lincoln regarding his view of federal power.
Conservatism seeks not to upset the social order. The social order at the time was that black people were at best inferior, and in some parts of the country were property. Conservatives tried to keep that going at the time and the "Radical Republicans" sought to change that.
That's an interpretation exclusive to the Leftists but had you read any books on Conservative ism you'd know that's not so.
Republican Party Platforms, Then and Now - Graphic - NYTimes.comReally? How so?
".
It's not an excuse...it's historical fact.Yes, that's the usual leftist excuse but do you have anything to support these statements?
The Republican Party began almost exclusively as an anti Slavery Party. The Democrats, or 'state rights' as you euphemistically refer to it it, were pro slavery. Just as now, the Republicans were "pro life".
It's an interpretation based on fact, history and the definition of words. If that's what you call "leftist" then you obviously don't live in the same world as everybody else.
If you go back even further, the Conservatives in 1775 were loyal to the Crown. Then a bunch of upstart radicals decided that they rejected colonialism.
Republican Party Platforms, Then and Now - Graphic - NYTimes.com
Platform 1980 vs 2012
Some things are the same some are a completely opposite.
It seems that those red states are also where they were in 1860 in that they support the idea that all men are due equal rights before the law. The blue states still tend to believe otherwise.
You were correct until the last sentence. No you're just being silly
Well perhaps in the next few decades people will be judging us now on this aspect of human rights, just as we're judging those who supported slavery and Jim Crowe laws not all that long ago.
It seems that those red states are also where they were in 1860 in that they support the idea that all men are due equal rights before the law. The blue states still tend to believe otherwise.
.
Maybe...they also might judge the fact that we allow any child to live and grow up in poverty as well. We can only hope that the future is able to prevent unwanted pregnancies from even occuring and that economic situation is never a reason not to want a child.Well perhaps in the next few decades people will be judging us now on this aspect of human rights, just as we're judging those who supported slavery and Jim Crowe laws not all that long ago.
It seems that those red states are also where they were in 1860 in that they support the idea that all men are due equal rights before the law. The blue states still tend to believe otherwise.
Yeah that makes absolutely no sense. When faced with actual facts come up with hogwash to explain it away.
Maybe...they also might judge the fact that we allow any child to live and grow up in poverty as well. We can only hope that the future is able to prevent unwanted pregnancies from even occuring and that economic situation is never a reason not to want a child.
Everything is about demographics, with one generation setting the scene for the next, hoping to create a better world for their children.
Now we have created these social programs but who will pay for the aging boomers when 55 million Americans lives have been destroyed since R vs W? These were all potential taxpayers. Do you think the surviving children who inherit all this debt will look at this present generation with any gratitude? Whatever for? We can certainly thank past generations for their work but there is little about this one that future generations can be grateful for.
Reading the map key wrong again, aren't you? The green states on the 1860 map went to Lincoln, the Republican candidate. Now compare that to 1860 and with the exception of Indiana, most of them were blue in 2012.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Blue states tend to believe that Blacks are inferior, which is why they support more welfare, and programs like affirmative action. Republicans tend to believe that Black people are equal in intellect and ability and can do without such racist programs.
Which is why those states that voted for Democrats until the 60s are now red states? Check your list of states that had Jim Crow laws versus those that did not.
I believe I read it right but could be wrong. What is the greater point you are making?
Being stuck in the paradigm where those saying something you disagree with politically are "Liberals" is sort of immature. If I wanted an opinion on the level of a high school kid, I'd ask one.Not really.
Liberals have little grasp of history and the facts. Indeed, that's why they are Liberals.
In 1860, the "red" states on today's map did not vote for the Republican candidate. The states that did vote for Lincoln in 1860 largely went to Obama.
So what you're trying to tell us is that those who voted for the anti-slavery candidate in 1860 are now staunchly racist, and the states that voted for pro-slavery candidates in 1860 are not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?