we'd do better then canada, first of all, no one would have to speak fukking french.
Printable View
we'd do better then canada, first of all, no one would have to speak fukking french.
Jumpy... your fingers are itching... you want ot left click "see this post"
The Democratic resistance was centred around the Dixiecrats, southern democrats, and not only did they fight it's signing, but in protest, they became Republicans and stayed there ever after.
REPLY: and the dems have Robert Byrd... both sides have some a$$holes. But I still say the Lefts treatment of African Americans is inherently racist.
It is the remainder of the democratic party which made that sacrifice, and they did it because they recognized that the end of the stranglehold on blacks in the south wasn't gonna happen under the guidance of whites, but under the independence of blacks in the marketplace and in politics. Additionally, they saw blacks as better allies than southern politicians, in the long run, because southern politicians were still under the habit of protecting interests that made black labor cheap, a weakness they were carrying over from long ago, obviously.
REPLY: They also established welfare programs that effectively destroyed the African American family - once the bastion of the community. Look at the cold eyes of todays kids raised without parents or care. The big cities are full of them, and it is a crime that the modern AA leadership does not address this. Instead they turn to fear-mongering and handouts. You can't wish away racism, but you can't fully legislate it away either. It doesn't do any good to emancipate a people if you set the game up to make sure they fail. Both parties share guilt in this regard.
And after that, once Johnson was out of office, the next Republican administration, Nixon's, made virtually no effort to ever enforce the Act on the southern states, cause, well, he was playing politics. No modern president has ever weathered as many race riots as Nixon, because Nixon had no connection to black Americans, because Black Americans knew which party held those who purposefully neglected representing them, which was the GOP.
REPLY: Nixon was a racist paranoid. Brilliant statesmen on foreign policy, but otherwise a nut. His economic policies were a disaster too. Hey, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid here. I probably would have been a Kennedy Democrat in the 60's - but todays Dems have nothing to do with him or his policies. Thier looney.
Democrats didn't "lose" the South, they opted for another plan, one which a group of Repubs also supported, but which they did not enforce during the first lengthy administration in which they'd have the opportunity to.
REPLY: You know as well as I do that the parties are not cohesive. The Repubs that supported civil rights - the very civil rights the Democrats fought tooth-and-nail against - may not have had much influence over the Nixon White House. Hey, the right had Nixon, and the left had FDR. Just the left was better at rewriting history than the right. FDR was an even bigger disaster.
The voting record is not the history book, MS. The democrats chose to cross their Southern contingent for the benefit of black americans, and the GOP, regardless of their voting record, was not only failing to enforce it during their watch, but but under a Republican Administration the government seemed to be investigating any charismatic young black leader in a highly intrusive manner, while the administration was allowing major race problems to fester into riots, and in every way stealing from their party the prestige and sense of honor associated with actually supporting the Bill's intent.
REPLY: see above. Hey the Clintons investigated thier 'enemies', and engaged in all sorts of enemy-list paranoid behavior. Each side has thier freaks. It's the duty of the people who vote to fight against it. The political parties are surprisingly fluid, and you'd be surprised how involved you can get, if you care to. Those that seek power for powers sake - folks like Nixon or Clinton can be a real hemorroid.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using MLK's name is very accurate. It is the modern American left that has turned EVERYTHING into a matter of 'race.' Which is complete and utter BS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it might be because the modern american right sometimes places infringements on specific groups that are reminiscent of the Dixiecrat's school of vested interest(Dixiecrats being those southern democrats who fought the Civil Rights act and were welcomed into the GOP).
REPLY: Be specific. This is an allegation without an example. Whereas, all you need to do is listen to Democratic speeches, and you know exactly the 'special' place minorities have in thier world. I'd rather stand on my own merits, thank you.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't see the patrician millionaire liberals of the Democrat party putting African-Americans into positions of responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to break it to you, but I've heard both Condaleeza Rice and Collin Powell referred to by blacks in this region as "the help". Those two can be fired and rehired at George Bush's whim. They are undoubtedly skilled and good people, but their position is still campy to many blacks. Those in politics who have their party's support are those who hold office, and Democrats have the most and the most popular black politicians in our government by leaps and bounds.
REPLY: Um, hello? Any cabinet officer is help by that definition, and EVERYBODY is somebody elses 'help.' JC Watts was a great congreess person. I'm very impressed with Barack Obama, even though he's a Dem, at least he's not a race-baiter serf-creator. But if you really listen to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - you hear a message of division and helplessness. It's the whole ghetto-uncle-tom thing. 'Vote for us or else.' Yet it is the Republicans that offer the Horatio Alger option. The power for positive change is in your hands.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the Republicans who have put the best people forward, not based on the color of thier skin, but on the content of thier character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's especially nice is they invited a couple of their black friends along.
REPLY: This comment is beneath you.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't experience rascism when I'm with the local Repubs, but all I see with the Dems is racism subtle and overt, class warfare, and lots of anger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard for me to imagine, I've so often seen you start a conversation that is political in a rational and slur free manner. Perhaps if you got a thesaurus and alternated calling them dispicable with other words like heinous, vile, and reprehensible, they'd take it much better.
REPLY: Huh? When have I started a conversation or EVER used a racial slur? This, good sir is the kind of insult that qualifies for a duel. You should be ashamed of yourself.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither party deserves a saintly position, but the anything for power, say anything but what you really stand for method of the Dems is tired. GWB actually is pretty centrist. I'm not particularly religious, but as long as there is tolerance of religions, I'm tolerant of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWB isn't centrist, and as far as tolerance among the religious right, I'm curious the historical precedent. Recent events suggest they approve curbing the liberty of groups who have broken no crime the government recognizes. What's their history on alcohol and witches?
REPLY: Christians as a group are not a uniform, goose-stepping religious right. Sure, some of these guys give me the willies. But you cannot deny that it was concepts brought to our culture by protestant Christianity - hard work, fair play, honesty, tolerance, et al that laid the groundwork for our modern society. It was Christian womens groups who covertly and overtly fought slavery, and it was Christian groups who launched the civil rights movement. As our society only recently opened up from the more theocratic past, it is easy to look at religious people with a jaundiced eye. But for every group of them that did bad things in thier interpretation of the message, you can point to much good as well. People are people, but one cannot deny the positive impact of Christian virtues on our society.
I find it ironic tha the Christians are so vilified, yet we are scared to point out that Islam has produced 1400 years of war, exactly as it's scriptures instructs its folowers. A far cry from the Orthodox protectors of Byzantium being forbidden sacrements during war time because killing was a sin.
I see a group that is unfairly villified. I mean, I used to watch Jerry Fallwell because I thought it was a comedy-variety show, and was surprised to learn otherwise. But that group is just a segment of the over all group.
you did read my post
you wont admit it now :D
and my third eye tells me kerry is a punk...why i'm ****ed tho is now we have a proven punk...at least with kerry there was a lil hope...even if that hope was based on hopeless prayers:)Quote:
Originally posted by red5angel
yeah but they're all screwin you!
on the real when 911 hit i actually had a thought that everyone would unite to get rid of the sickness...instead bush opened up the propaganda campaign and got onsome hollywood shiat and thoroughly disgraced america...i actually thought the states and canada and every free nation would start working together as with all our technology we could do alot of good unified and a lot of bad will come out of our technology in the future if we don't act together and get to work....watching all the unity around 911 actually made me think that would happen...fuq happenned?Quote:
Originally posted by diego
and my third eye tells me kerry is a punk...why i'm ****ed tho is now we have a proven punk...at least with kerry there was a lil hope...even if that hope was based on hopeless prayers:)
Quote:
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Father Dog,
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. I personally feel todays American left has a lot more to do with National Socialism than Communism. Look at them, a bunch of billionaires and millionares that feel that 'other' people should pay more taxes,
First of all, all politicians, Republican or Democrat, are billionaires and millionaires.
Second of all, Democratic tax proposals all involve billionaires and millionaires paying more taxes, so I'm not sure why you say they feel "other" people should pay more taxes.
Quote:
live with greater restrictions, have thier opportunnities limited in exchange for some sub-standard handouts.
What greater restrictions? The only real restriction prevalent in the Democratic platform is strong gun control - this happens to be one of the major areas I disagree with Democrats on, in fact - other than that, Democratic policies tend to refrain from restricting people's actions. Originally, so did Republicans, being the party of smaller government and less individual interference, but recent years have seen the party move away from that and start attempting to legislate morality - ie, expansion of law enforcement powers (yes, this happened under Clinton, too, but was extended by miles under Bush using 9/11 as a rallying call) and strong enforcement of pornography and sodomy laws (restriction on victimless private activity that the government should not be involved in).
What restrictions have the Democrats attempted to enshrine in law?
Quote:
It's the super-rich trying to buy off the poor - the Fascist model.
That's not the fascist model at all - fascism classically taxes everyone (especially the rich, but mainly through inheritance taxes rather than income taxes) and uses the money for government-controlled industry and corporate welfare, /not/ individual welfare and social programs. Fascism consolidates power and wealth among the elite, keeping the super-rich rich and the poor poor. Progressive taxation and welfare redistributes money from the super-rich to the poor, flattening the bell-curve of distributed wealth. The Democratic economic platform is close to being the total opposite of that of fascism; you're just wrong on this.
Quote:
Plus, look at the model the fascists used: extreme nationalism, storming/shooting up rival offices, extreme intolerance for views other than thier own - these are the tactics of today's American left.
I saw far more extreme nationalism from the right than the left. I didn't see shooting up rival offices from either side. I saw extreme intolerance of other views from both sides.
I suspect you are seeing what you want to see, here.
Quote:
At least the Republicans are honest about where they stand. I don't agree with all thier stances, but at least they are less destructive than the Left.
I don't agree with you, but I can acknowledge that we may believe in different economic and social theories, and agree to disagree regarding which group will be less destructive. Your comparisons of the modern Democratic party to fascism, though, are really off-base, especially in the economic sense..
Holy ****, I just agreed with something red5 posted on a political thread?Quote:
Originally posted by red5angel
personally, I think we should go with a socialist government and keep the economy capitalist. I think AMerica would be that much stronger for it. You just socialize public works, medical, all that stuff.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
When talking about social program implementation, it's important to distinguish between the funding and the delivery. People seem to usually only consider the extreme alternatives: private funding with private delivery, or public funding with public delivery (state-controlled). When you say "socialize public works" it sounds like you're advocating the latter model -- "socialist" tends to mean state-control. However, I think the ideal model is mixed: public funding with private delivery. In this case, we get the benefits of both models: the universality of publicly funded programs with the efficiency and liberty of private delivery.Quote:
Originally posted by red5angel
personally, I think we should go with a socialist government and keep the economy capitalist. I think AMerica would be that much stronger for it. You just socialize public works, medical, all that stuff.
Moreover, this mixed model is inherently applicable to the goal of 'keeping the economy capitalist', whereas the alternative isn't -- as public works account for a large portion of the economy.
Substance?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Merryprankster
You know....
I am appalled at the idiots on the far left who believe the war in Iraq was for oil. I am appalled at people who believe that this administration is imperialist, or that U.S. foreign policy "caused" the problems that are ongoing and have been for generations. I am disgusted with their absurd conspiracy theories about megacorporations running the United States. They have nothing but their own vapidity as proof....and if you prevent evidence to the contrary, you've either been brainwashed, you're stupid or both.
I am appalled that if you don't see the message of the left you're obviously an idiot. I am equally horrified that if you disagree with the right, you're evil or at the very least, morally corrupt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by Mika
I don't mean to challenge you or anything, that's not what this is about, but you must get these ideas from a source, so I just would like to look into it myself. Iz all...:cool:
Good message, though :)
Cheers :)
Mika
Merry, I see you are still here and posting. Come up with the goods, please :)
Sources, baby, sources :)
//mika
interesting map.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...yet26311051453
Did anyone see Bush's press conference yesterday? hahaha He's trying to be like a real president!! I didn't ponder one thing he said, I just laughed at how dumb he was and how he thinks he's my president. Let him try to show his face in any blue state. God what an idiot.
I don't know what sources you want me to post.Quote:
Merry, I see you are still here and posting. Come up with the goods, please
"The Iraq war was about oil."
"The United States is imperialist."
"Big business runs the United States."
"The administration orchestrated 9/11 or [insert conspiracy theory here] as an excuse for war in Iraq.
"Bin Laden and Bush are friends..."
I've heard all this and more from idiots on the far left. I've heard lots of these used as justifications for voting for Kerry. Poke around google if you like.
I've heard equally stupid stuff from people on the far right:
"We have to protect ourselves from the UN, because they want one world government and that's a sign of the Apocalypse."
"Kerry would let the rest of the world dictate when we can use force."
"Kerry is a traitor and betrayed our troops."
"The left wants to force ****sexuality down our throats."
"Kerry is a baby-killer."
I mean, the hyperbole is one thing, but people actually BELEIVE this stuff. That's what's spooky. And if you don't agree with "them," then you're one of the sheeple.
It's like people forget that two, three or more people can look at the same information and come to different, supportable (this being the KEY, vice say, 'a missile hit the Pentagon') conclusions.
I'm just scared of the unbalance now...
There are some in Congress now who will have some support that are way out there on the right.
The United States is an imperial power. They are an empire, there is no doubt about that. I do not hail from left or right, they are both full of, as your post shows, nonsense, the truth of the matter is still that the US is now a superpower and without constraints, the WTO and the UN cannot enforce anything to prevent the US, the only constraint should be the people but that doesn't seem to be preventing what is happening. But I can't dismiss the Empire thing, that is the simple truth.