Cheap Labor Conservatives Throughout US History

[zeke]

But blaming Reagan for obama's spending is just retarded.

Why, that's almost as retarded as blaming Obama for the debt and fucked up economy that Bush left him (Obama).

 

[bripat9643]

I notice you didn't answer the question: When DID you stop beating your wife?

Start your own thread on wife beating if you find it therapeutic; in the meantime, try your best to defend "conservative values" in this one.
"Conservatives:

1. Supported the acquisition of foreign colonies in the wake of the Spanish-American war.
2. Supported the armed suppression of Filipino independence.
3. Opposed anti-trust legislation.
4. Opposed child labor laws.
5. Opposed universal free public education. Some of them still do.
6. Opposed literacy for African-American citizens, in particular.
7. Supported the legal theory of 'separate but equal', a sham that led to . . "

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress Conceptual Guerilla s Strategy And Tactics

How did you determine that "conservatives" supported those positions?

 

[bripat9643]

I can't figure out one thing. Why is cheap labor such a bad thing?

Because 70% of US GDP comes from consumption, and low paid workers can't afford to buy what their labor helps to produce.

No production comes from consumption. That's a liberal myth.

 

[zeke]

No production comes from consumption. That's a liberal myth.

I know you are stupid. I have seen what you write. But the statement above is so fucking off the wall that I have a hard time understanding how stupid you are.

When a store or company sells (people consume) all the product they have, there needs to be some company to produce more of that product.
Which means that consumption causes production.

This ain't rocket science. Except to people like you. Then it is harder than rocket science.

 

[Unkotare]

The democrat party supported the cheapest labor of all. In fact, they loved it so much they were willing to start a civil war to preserve it.

 

[georgephillip]

Supported George 111 in the American revolution? I thought we called them Torries or Loyalists. Nobody in history ever called them "cheap labor conservatives" until now. Where do radical lefties come up with stuff?

Cheap labor conservatives supported the divine right of kings, religious persecution, child labor, subjugation of women, prohibition and segregation. Where do "righties" get their short memories?

Maybe modern pop-culture educated lefties are confused by old political labels. Back in the day, George 3 defenders would have been liberals or progressives.

Loyalist (American Revolution)

Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the king and Britain:[6]

• They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
• They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
• They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
• They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
• They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
• They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
• They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
• Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of Scots who rebelled in Scotland and lost their lands when the king won.[7][8][9]

Other motivations of the Loyalists were:

• They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.[10]
• In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters, Men long associated with the DeLancey faction went along when its leadership decided to support the crown.[11]
• They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.[12]
• They had been promised freedom from slavery by the British.[13][14][15]
• They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations [16][17][18]

"Historians have estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of the 2.5 million whites in the colonies were Loyalists, or about 500,000 men, women and children.[3]"
Loyalist American Revolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

So you're going to try to tell us we really were a socialist state all along?

Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

It would take too long. You want to believe all evil spews from the conservative cesspools of hate, greed and intolerance. We just think you guys are stupid.

Translation: No, I can't explain how I came to this conclusion because I am an emotional nitwit.

I've explained it many times in this forum. The nitwit is you and your fellow leftwing retards that live in a hate filled childish bubble.

 

[georgephillip]

The democrat party supported the cheapest labor of all. In fact, they loved it so much they were willing to start a civil war to preserve it.

Conservative Democrats supported slavery the same way their ideological descendants support "right to work" laws today.

 

[bripat9643]

No production comes from consumption. That's a liberal myth.

I know you are stupid. I have seen what you write. But the statement above is so fucking off the wall that I have a hard time understanding how stupid you are.

When a store or company sells (people consume) all the product they have, there needs to be some company to produce more of that product.
Which means that consumption causes production.

This ain't rocket science. Except to people like you. Then it is harder than rocket science.

Production is always prior to consumption. Nothing can be consumed that hasn't already been produced. Calling consumption part of our economic output couldn't possibly be more ignorant. Consumption is the opposite of output. Get a dictionary and learn what words mean before you make an ass of yourself in a public forum.

 

[Unkotare]

The democrat party supported the cheapest labor of all. In fact, they loved it so much they were willing to start a civil war to preserve it.

Conservative Democrats supported slavery the same way their ideological descendants support "right to work" laws today.

The democrats supported oppression, racism, and control then just as they do now. The democrat party's fundamental outlook hasn't changed.

 

[Iceweasel]

You mean guys like KKK Byrd?

And a few other conservatives and their manifesto:
"However, the Southern Democrats controlled the entire south with only token Republican opposition, and thus had both liberal and conservative factions.

"While the South had many New Deal supporters it also had many conservatives opposed to the expansion of federal power.

"Among their leaders were Senators Harry Byrd and Carter Glass of Virginia and Vice-President John Nance Garner of Texas. U.S. Senator Josiah Bailey (D-NC) released a 'Conservative Manifesto' in December 1937,[1] which included several statements of conservative philosophical tenets, including the line 'Give enterprise a chance, and I will give you the guarantees of a happy and prosperous America.'"

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's true. The "shift" had more to do with economics and freedom than race. People didn't drop one party for another, as is often cited by liberals. The Republican base grew as the James Bryrds faded away. He just took longer than most.

 

[georgephillip]

Back in the day, George 3 defenders would have been liberals or progressives.

Surely, you're not that confused
"They (Loyalists) felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations."
Loyalist American Revolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Back in the day, George 3 defenders would have been liberals or progressives.

Surely, you're not that confused
"They (Loyalists) felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations."
Loyalist American Revolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sounds like a modern liberal.

 

[georgephillip]

The democrats supported oppression, racism, and control then just as they do now. The democrat party's fundamental outlook hasn't changed.

Conservative Democrats support oppression, racism and (corporate) control just as their Republican brethren do.

 

[Iceweasel]

Conservative Democrats support oppression, racism and (corporate) control just as their Republican brethren do.

This and other simple truths can be found at Retardopedia.

 

[Unkotare]

The democrats supported oppression, racism, and control then just as they do now. The democrat party's fundamental outlook hasn't changed.

Conservative Democrats support oppression, racism and (corporate) control just as their Republican brethren do.

The democrat party. You can't spin and parse your party's filth away, and trying to rehash a false narrative that has been debunked a thousand times here won't work either. It is fundamentally what it has always been. Choose your association accordingly.

 

[georgephillip]

How did you determine that "conservatives" supported those positions?

That's a valid question; are you feeling sick this morning? The OP claims 60 examples of conservative obstructionism to progress. Do you see any you would contest?
"Believe it or not, this is a short list. A historian could make a career out of cataloguing all of the many and varied ways cheap-labor conservatives have stood in the way of the American values of equality, democracy, social justice and environment sustainability. The next time a cheap-labor conservative waves the flag, boasts of his 'patriotism', and brays about 'American values', show him this list."
A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress Conceptual Guerilla s Strategy And Tactics

 

[georgephillip]

The democrat party. You can't spin and parse your party's filth away, and trying to rehash a false narrative that has been debunked a thousand times here won't work either. It is fundamentally what it has always been.

Except it's not.
After 1965 Democrats lost the south and Republicans became the White Man's Party. Conservatives in both factions:
"Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

1. Opposed the Civil Rights of 1964.
2. Opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
3. Opposed Medicare"

Conservatives appear so frightened by change they are willing to die for any status quo, no matter how oppressive.
A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress Conceptual Guerilla s Strategy And Tactics

 

[bripat9643]

How did you determine that "conservatives" supported those positions?

That's a valid question; are you feeling sick this morning? The OP claims 60 examples of conservative obstructionism to progress. Do you see any you would contest?
"Believe it or not, this is a short list. A historian could make a career out of cataloguing all of the many and varied ways cheap-labor conservatives have stood in the way of the American values of equality, democracy, social justice and environment sustainability. The next time a cheap-labor conservative waves the flag, boasts of his 'patriotism', and brays about 'American values', show him this list."
A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress Conceptual Guerilla s Strategy And Tactics

You failed to explain how you made the determination. You OP also failed to explain it. It simply claimed that a list of accusations were examples of "cheap-labor conservatism."

 

[bripat9643]

The democrat party. You can't spin and parse your party's filth away, and trying to rehash a false narrative that has been debunked a thousand times here won't work either. It is fundamentally what it has always been.

Except it's not.
After 1965 Democrats lost the south and Republicans became the White Man's Party. Conservatives in both factions:
"Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

1. Opposed the Civil Rights of 1964.
2. Opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
3. Opposed Medicare"

Conservatives appear so frightened by change they are willing to die for any status quo, no matter how oppressive.
A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress Conceptual Guerilla s Strategy And Tactics

Republicans aren't afraid of change. They are afraid of Democrat economic policies, as an rational person would be.