In this thread: I destroy liberal Ideology by playing the part of a liberal

[g5000]

The Democrats would never have passed any of the Civil Rights initiatives without a strong plurality of the Republicans voting with the smaller plurality of Democrats who passed them.

That was 50 years ago. Half a century. A lot has changed since then.

The whole culture was shifting at that time with the Republicans emerging as the party of true equality and the one that was more likely to see people as people rather than as demographics to be exploited.

And then the racists in the Democratic party moved into the GOP. In a big way. This is a part of history to which some of you are blind.

How do your "culture warrior" friends feel about gay marriage?

D'oh! No bigots around here! No sir!

 

[RDD_1210]

More proof that cons don't even understand what liberals stand for.

 

[KevinWestern]

frazzle just won this thread.

Was the contest partisan hackery?

Frazzle assumed every Democrat thoughout history was a liberal, whereas the orginal quote never identifies liberals and what they accomplished with either party.

Like slavery, civil rights was a North/South issue. Southerners(Dems and Reps) opposed it and Northerners (Dems and Reps) supported it.

yet the largest group against Civil Rights was to be found in the Democrat Party....

Say today that we still had 'Separate but Equal' laws, and the Modern Republican Party and the Modern Democratic Party are exactly the same as they are now.

Are you trying to convince us all that it would be the Republicans who would be spear-heading the movement towards equality, and the Democrats (with all of their northern state support, college-campus enthusiasm, ect) that would be in opposition to it?

The point is - the names of the parties themselves are irrelevant because they are constantly in flux, and evolve with each passing decade.

What the parties support NOW is what's relevant.

.

 

[g5000]

/beginLiberalism

I am against swimming. It's gross, unhealthy, and unnatural. If humans were meant to swim, whether in pools, oceans, or lakes, we would have fins.

Swimming goes against my personal, abstract beliefs. Therefore, I will stop at nothing until swimming is banned for everyone. I also believe the government should stay out of our lives and that we own our own body--unless there is something I don't like, in which case I want tyranny of the majority to push for government force to make it illegal. I'm better than you if you think otherwise.

/end being a liberal

The topic title cracks me up. It is an open admission that you are building a straw man fallacy.

Is this the best we can do nowadays?

 

[Foxfyre]

/beginLiberalism

I am against swimming. It's gross, unhealthy, and unnatural. If humans were meant to swim, whether in pools, oceans, or lakes, we would have fins.

Swimming goes against my personal, abstract beliefs. Therefore, I will stop at nothing until swimming is banned for everyone. I also believe the government should stay out of our lives and that we own our own body--unless there is something I don't like, in which case I want tyranny of the majority to push for government force to make it illegal. I'm better than you if you think otherwise.

/end being a liberal

The topic title cracks me up. It is an open admission that you are building a straw man fallacy.

Is this the best we can do nowadays?

That isn't a straw man. That is a descriptive metaphor.

Honestly, are all you people incapable of switching roles and looking through what you believe to be the other person's eyes? (I'm never going to be able to cast a USMB melodrama with this bunch.)

 

[g5000]

When is the last time the GOP sponsored or passed or fought for civil rights legislation?

Anyone?

When is the last time the GOP supported civil rights for gays? Anyone? When did the GOP stand up and say the sodomy laws, which were modern day Jim Crow laws, need to be struck down?

Anyone?


Think real hard about that when you are standing on the GOP of 1964.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

im a libertarian, conservatives are just as ideologically bankrupt as liberals in my book.

Which is why..in thread after thread..you misrepresent Liberal "ideology"..which stresses tolerance, for the most part, for all races, ethnicities, orientation, religion and political viewpoints.

And what you contend here..falls very much into how conservatives view issues.

The Democrats (Liberals) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.

bullshit....liberals are all for treating their preferential groups "more equally" under the law...even outside the law as with illegals....2.) Statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, ect, and the idea of a somehwat “we know best” wealth redistribution collectivist-state.

The Republicans (Conservatives) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.
2.) Statist social views; only a man and woman should be allowed to marry, it’s okay for the state to legislate morality, ect.

Marriage never was a "Statist social view"....it has been around for milleniums.....and morality always has been and will be legislated all over the place in one form or another.....even by liberals....

My suggestion is that we merge the non-statist social views of the Democrats, with the non-statist fiscal views of the Republicans, and form (essentially) what is the Libertarian platform:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.
2.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.

Anyone agree?

No....while libertarians have some good conservative ideas.....libertarian ideology is at its roots a bastardized form of anarchy....

.

 

[g5000]

/beginLiberalism

I am against swimming. It's gross, unhealthy, and unnatural. If humans were meant to swim, whether in pools, oceans, or lakes, we would have fins.

Swimming goes against my personal, abstract beliefs. Therefore, I will stop at nothing until swimming is banned for everyone. I also believe the government should stay out of our lives and that we own our own body--unless there is something I don't like, in which case I want tyranny of the majority to push for government force to make it illegal. I'm better than you if you think otherwise.

/end being a liberal

The topic title cracks me up. It is an open admission that you are building a straw man fallacy.

Is this the best we can do nowadays?

That isn't a straw man. That is a descriptive metaphor.

Honestly, are all you people incapable of switching roles and looking through what you believe to be the other person's eyes?

There is "looking through the other person's eyes" and there is projecting. Liberty did an OUTSTANDING job of projecting, as I showed by substituting "swimming" with "homosexuality" in post #56. It fits present day GOP homophobia to a T.

 

[blastoff]

I got dibbies on Swim Czar job!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic title cracks me up. It is an open admission that you are building a straw man fallacy.

Is this the best we can do nowadays?

That isn't a straw man. That is a descriptive metaphor.

Honestly, are all you people incapable of switching roles and looking through what you believe to be the other person's eyes?

There is "looking through the other person's eyes" and there is projecting. Liberty did an OUTSTANDING job of projecting, as I showed by substituting "swimming" with "homosexuality" in post #56. It fits present day GOP homophobia to a T.

It is not projecting to relate what one sees. For you to assume that Liberty was projecting rather than relating his own truth is projection on your part don't you think?

You suggest that Republicans are bigots because they haven't introduced civil rights legislation. Yet you ignore that a higher percentage of Republicans have voted for those initiatives than have Democrats. Intellectual honesty notes such statistics. Bigotry and prejudice ignores them.

So let's reverse that with some role play:

Person playing the part of Democrat: Democrats care about people and Republicans don't. Democrats champion the cause of the underdog, the victim, the helpless, the disadvantaged and correct past wrongs.

Person playing the part of Republicans: Republicans believe it is wrong to separate people into groups, to compartmentalize them and relegate some to being 'weak' or 'incapable' or 'helpless' without "Whitey's" help. The Democrats use people and thereby keep them in victim mode and dependent on government. Republicans believe that is wrong and an insidious form of racism or bigotry.

 

[KevinWestern]

Which is why..in thread after thread..you misrepresent Liberal "ideology"..which stresses tolerance, for the most part, for all races, ethnicities, orientation, religion and political viewpoints.

And what you contend here..falls very much into how conservatives view issues.

The Democrats (Liberals) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.

bullshit....liberals are all for treating their preferential groups "more equally" under the law...even outside the law as with illegals....2.) Statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, ect, and the idea of a somehwat “we know best” wealth redistribution collectivist-state.

The Republicans (Conservatives) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.
2.) Statist social views; only a man and woman should be allowed to marry, it’s okay for the state to legislate morality, ect.

Marriage never was a "Statist social view"....it has been around for milleniums.....and morality always has been and will be legislated all over the place in one form or another.....even by liberals....

My suggestion is that we merge the non-statist social views of the Democrats, with the non-statist fiscal views of the Republicans, and form (essentially) what is the Libertarian platform:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.
2.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.

Anyone agree?

No....while libertarians have some good conservative ideas.....libertarian ideology is at its roots a bastardized form of anarchy....

.

If an action has no direct effect on any other persons within a given society (ie does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms, or personal rights), why should it be made illegal?

 

[BlindBoo]

frazzle just won this thread.

Was the contest partisan hackery?

Frazzle assumed every Democrat thoughout history was a liberal, whereas the orginal quote never identifies liberals and what they accomplished with either party.

Like slavery, civil rights was a North/South issue. Southerners(Dems and Reps) opposed it and Northerners (Dems and Reps) supported it.

yet the largest group against Civil Rights was to be found in the Democrat Party....

And.....the Democrats were also the largest group supporting Civil Right. So, how many of those southern states are still Democratic?

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

 

[Dr.Drock]

Both sides want gov't control over what plants grow in your yard.

Both sides want gov't contol over what's in the air you breath.

Both sides want gov't control over what all forms of media can and can't air.

Both sides want to decide whether or not you get different versions of insurance.

Both sides want gov't control on your education.

Both sides want gov't control over different personal liberties. All the way from marriage to throwing frisbees on the beach.

If you support either status quo party, you do support authoritarian principles in gov't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You know if I voted with Democrats maybe I'd keep trying to re-write history in order to deceive people into believing Democrats owned the history of Republicans and Republicans owned the filthy, disgusting, despicable, anti-human being history of Democrats. Democrats opposed equal rights for anybody at every stage whether it was former slaves, blacks or women. Democrats were the slave owners; Democrats =KKK; Democrats=the segregationist Dixiecrat party, nearly all of whom rejoined the Democrat party upon its collapse with no questions asked and no demands to leave their filthy racism at the door; Democrats were deeply divided over women's suffrage and deeply divided over civil rights.

Talk about rewriting history! The Dixiecrats did not rejoin the Democrats. They defected en masse to the GOP, and we have been unable to eliminate the infection of their hatred ever since. And lately, it has grown and festered. I've been fighting them bastards from within the GOP since I was a teen.

Anyone who believes the GOP is not chock full of racists and bigots is deluding themselves. If you are suffering from such a delusion, just ask the nearest "culture warrior" about their feelings on homosexuality.

bs...

just because Strom Thurmon and some others joined the GOP because Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats).... all of a sudden the GOP was "chock full" of racists.....?

the truth of the matter is that after Civil Rights passed a new generation of southerners emerged to join the GOP....

the Democrats still had plenty of racist bigots like George Wallace to lead the way....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The Democrats (Liberals) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.

bullshit....liberals are all for treating their preferential groups "more equally" under the law...even outside the law as with illegals....2.) Statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, ect, and the idea of a somehwat “we know best” wealth redistribution collectivist-state.

The Republicans (Conservatives) generally hold:

1.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.
2.) Statist social views; only a man and woman should be allowed to marry, it’s okay for the state to legislate morality, ect.

Marriage never was a "Statist social view"....it has been around for milleniums.....and morality always has been and will be legislated all over the place in one form or another.....even by liberals....

My suggestion is that we merge the non-statist social views of the Democrats, with the non-statist fiscal views of the Republicans, and form (essentially) what is the Libertarian platform:

1.) Non-statist social views; everyone should be treated equally under the law, there should be no preferential treatment of any one religion at the state level, ect.
2.) Non-statist views when it comes to taxes, welfare, regulations, and believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things by the federal government and should be allowed to make their own choices about where their money goes or how to run a business, ect.

Anyone agree?

No....while libertarians have some good conservative ideas.....libertarian ideology is at its roots a bastardized form of anarchy....

.

If an action has no direct effect on any other persons within a given society (ie does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms, or personal rights), why should it be made illegal?

other than what may happen behind closed doors.....which actions don't have any effect on others.....?

 

[KevinWestern]

.

If an action has no direct effect on any other persons within a given society (ie does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms, or personal rights), why should it be made illegal?

other than what may happen behind closed doors.....which actions don't have any effect on others.....?

I should have emphasized the word infringes on the rights of others. If an action infringes on the personal rights of another non-consenting individual, than it should be prohibited. This includes things like murder & rape.

But the act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, therefore it should be made legal.

I think this is libertarian ideology. Not 100% sure though. What objections do you have to this sort of thinking?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Was the contest partisan hackery?

Frazzle assumed every Democrat thoughout history was a liberal, whereas the orginal quote never identifies liberals and what they accomplished with either party.

Like slavery, civil rights was a North/South issue. Southerners(Dems and Reps) opposed it and Northerners (Dems and Reps) supported it.

yet the largest group against Civil Rights was to be found in the Democrat Party....

And.....the Democrats were also the largest group supporting Civil Right. So, how many of those southern states are still Democratic?

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

you're being misleading.....of course there were "more" Democrats voting for the bill because there were more Democrats in office....

however more Rs voted for it percentage-wise than Ds....and don't forget it was Democrats led by Strom Thurman (D-SC) that led the Senate filibuster AGAINST the bill....

By party - Civil Rights Act 1964

The original House version:[15]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[16]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:[15]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If an action has no direct effect on any other persons within a given society (ie does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms, or personal rights), why should it be made illegal?

other than what may happen behind closed doors.....which actions don't have any effect on others.....?

I should have emphasized the word infringes on the rights of others. If an action infringes on the personal rights of another non-consenting individual, than it should be prohibited. This includes things like murder & rape.

But the act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, therefore it should be made legal.

I think this is libertarian ideology. Not 100% sure though. What objections do you have to this sort of thinking?

effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....

 

[KevinWestern]

other than what may happen behind closed doors.....which actions don't have any effect on others.....?

I should have emphasized the word infringes on the rights of others. If an action infringes on the personal rights of another non-consenting individual, than it should be prohibited. This includes things like murder & rape.

But the act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, therefore it should be made legal.

I think this is libertarian ideology. Not 100% sure though. What objections do you have to this sort of thinking?

effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....

Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

 

[BlindBoo]

yet the largest group against Civil Rights was to be found in the Democrat Party....

And.....the Democrats were also the largest group supporting Civil Right. So, how many of those southern states are still Democratic?

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

you're being misleading.....of course there were "more" Democrats voting for the bill because there were more Democrats in office....

however more Rs voted for it percentage-wise than Ds....and don't forget it was Democrats led by Strom Thurman (D-SC) that led the Senate filibuster AGAINST the bill....

By party - Civil Rights Act 1964

The original House version:[15]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[16]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[15]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was being no more misleading than you were. It was simply not a Republcan v Democrat issue. It was a North v South issue. Southern representative voted in large numbers against it regardless of party. Northern representatives voted in large number for it regardless of party. Thurman was from a Southern state.