what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

[Dragonlady]

You've nothing to say or contribute.

Nor do you.

Colleges are now dependent on students to cover their costs so they recruit and retain students who have no business being there, encouraging loans to pay for this. The whole system will saddle this generation of students with so much debt, they won't be able to afford to buy homes, cars, furniture and such because of the load of debt their carrying for their degrees.

My friends who teach in US colleges and universities tell me no student every flunks out anymore and teachers are encouraged to do everything possible to keep kids from dropping out. A far cry from my day when students lived in fear of flunking out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, different ideas equates to being against civil rights and education.

Government subsidization of higher education has caused the price of college to sky-rocket astronomically. Government interference in college loans, much like housing loans, has caused millions of Americans that can not afford it to be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that not even bankruptcy can alleviate.

Again, and this is a substantial part of my broader point here, public education is BROKEN. Because conservatives don't believe that endlessly throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it, DOES NOT MEAN they are against education.

What you are essentially saying is, they disagree with me so they are against human rights, education, so on, and so on....RIGHT

You ape Rush quite well.

You've nothing to say or contribute.

Google, you are mirroring yourself again.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

I think today in the U.S. political thought can generally be divided into Classical Liberalism and [American] Progressivism (what the left originally called itself in the U.S. before it felt the need to abandon that moniker in favor of ‘Liberalism’)

The Founder’s based their U.S. Constitutional government conceptually on both Classical (Greek) thinking and that of the Enlightenment as regarding John Locke and Montesquieu, among others. Dewey and Wilson were notable Progressive thinkers that strengthened and implemented American Progressivism at the beginning of the 20th century in the USA.

The main difference between the two schools of thought lies in how they see individual citizens and how (generally) capable that individual citizen would be in providing for himself and family.

Classical liberals thought that the individual was quite capable of taking care of himself and that the government that those individuals might form would necessarily have limited circumscribed powers to perform mostly a protective role for citizens. That is, the government was a necessary but powerful evil which therefore had to have guidance and restrictions to govern while protecting the governed. The Constitution is that guidance and restriction.

Originally Progressives like John Dewy honestly felt that mankind could not be free unless he was free from want and to this day we can see this was the original intent of the entitlement state in the USA today. But there is parallel Progressive thinking in that Progressives believe that mankind is a work in progress, so to speak, and still has a long way to go to reach perfection to that point where he can be entrusted to run his own life as he seemed fit. (Although, when asked for metrics or end points that might tell us at what point the individual would be judged fully capable of individual freedom of choice, Progressivism remains silent.) But how is the individual (now rendered incompetent by Progressive thinking) to make his way in the world? Progressives answer that only the State can provide the elite individuals with the wherewithal to chart the lives of all citizens on the proper course. This, of course is what Hayek referred to as the Fatal Conceit: Individuals cannot run their lives correctly without the constant guidance of thoughtful government officials who are themselves…individuals with the same human foibles as those being governed.*

Economically the two schools of thought are just as diametrically opposed as they are politically: Classical Liberalism leans towards laissez-faire markets where the Progressives favor heavy central regulation along with the income redistribution necessary for their policies to work towards the 'Fairness' desired by them. Unfortunately, when Progressives are asked exactly what a 'Fair' distribution might involve both in income subsidies and taxes on those paying those subsidies no hard and fast answer is ever forthcoming.

Mark Levin has an excellent treatment of leftist governing from Plato’s Republic thru Marx’s Das Kapital]/i] juxtaposed with the Founder’s Classical Liberalism in his Ameritopia. Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Facism is another excellent essay regarding both Wilson’s and FDR’s real world Progressivism.

Wilson et al's policies and execution of same are an excellent answer to the question “War: What is It Good For?**”. “War on Women” or “War on The Middle Class” anyone? Do not let a crisis go to waste!

*To see why this is quite wrong-headed see the essay ”I, Pencil” which argues that people on their own do quite fine, thank you.

**No this was not the original title of Tolstoy’s War and Peace despite Jerry Seinfeld’s exhortations.

JM

 

[rdean]

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson

Immaterial statement, you know. One, you can't prove he said it, and, two, it does not matter.

Republicans use these invented statements as "proof" over and over again. They will make up bizarre statements and scenarios and then attack the left for those statements completely made up. In fact, this is the entire foundation of Arab owned Fox news.

 

[rdean]

It is sad to see how far the once proud Republican party has fallen

At one time they stood up for struggling Americans, human rights, education for all

Now, they are the party of tne rich

The Democrat Party has ensured that failing public schools in black communities remain that way. It has stood in the way of every meaningful education reform.

But arguing with you is pointless, because you truly believe people like me are against human rights and education. I know that Democrats care about these issues, you on the other hand are blinded by hatred.

Which party wants to abolish the Dept of Education? Which Party cuts funding for preschool to college grants?

Raise your hand Google

They also want to cut funding for school lunches and for food stamps for children and health care for children. The only time they even seem to care about "children" is the time between conception and birth.

 

[rdean]

The Democrat Party has ensured that failing public schools in black communities remain that way. It has stood in the way of every meaningful education reform.

But arguing with you is pointless, because you truly believe people like me are against human rights and education. I know that Democrats care about these issues, you on the other hand are blinded by hatred.

Which party wants to abolish the Dept of Education? Which Party cuts funding for preschool to college grants?

Raise your hand Google

Yes, different ideas equates to being against civil rights and education.

Government subsidization of higher education has caused the price of college to sky-rocket astronomically. Government interference in college loans, much like housing loans, has caused millions of Americans that can not afford it to be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that not even bankruptcy can alleviate.

Again, and this is a substantial part of my broader point here, public education is BROKEN. Because conservatives don't believe that endlessly throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it, DOES NOT MEAN they are against education.

What you are essentially saying is, they disagree with me so they are against human rights, education, so on, and so on....RIGHT

You don't even know what you are talking about. Obama took the student loan scam away from the banks.

How the scam worked? Banks would give out the loans and if the students defaulted, they would charge the government. They squeezed 6 billion a year out of this terrible practice. Mitt Romney had promised to return this program to the banks which is basically a 6 billion a year "give-a-way".

Now that 60 billion over 10 years goes into Pell Grants and scholorships for the brightest students.

So the right wing screams, "But the cost hasn't gone down". How loans make the cost go down is a mystery. Besides, they don't care about education anyway. Their leaders say it's for snobs and it's too liberal.

 

[rdean]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

I think today in the U.S. political thought can generally be divided into Classical Liberalism and [American] Progressivism (what the left originally called itself in the U.S. before it felt the need to abandon that moniker in favor of ‘Liberalism’)

The Founder’s based their U.S. Constitutional government conceptually on both Classical (Greek) thinking and that of the Enlightenment as regarding John Locke and Montesquieu, among others. Dewey and Wilson were notable Progressive thinkers that strengthened and implemented American Progressivism at the beginning of the 20th century in the USA.

The main difference between the two schools of thought lies in how they see individual citizens and how (generally) capable that individual citizen would be in providing for himself and family.

Classical liberals thought that the individual was quite capable of taking care of himself and that the government that those individuals might form would necessarily have limited circumscribed powers to perform mostly a protective role for citizens. That is, the government was a necessary but powerful evil which therefore had to have guidance and restrictions to govern while protecting the governed. The Constitution is that guidance and restriction.

Originally Progressives like John Dewy honestly felt that mankind could not be free unless he was free from want and to this day we can see this was the original intent of the entitlement state in the USA today. But there is parallel Progressive thinking in that Progressives believe that mankind is a work in progress, so to speak, and still has a long way to go to reach perfection to that point where he can be entrusted to run his own life as he seemed fit. (Although, when asked for metrics or end points that might tell us at what point the individual would be judged fully capable of individual freedom of choice, Progressivism remains silent.) But how is the individual (now rendered incompetent by Progressive thinking) to make his way in the world? Progressives answer that only the State can provide the elite individuals with the wherewithal to chart the lives of all citizens on the proper course. This, of course is what Hayek referred to as the Fatal Conceit: Individuals cannot run their lives correctly without the constant guidance of thoughtful government officials who are themselves…individuals with the same human foibles as those being governed.*

Economically the two schools of thought are just as diametrically opposed as they are politically: Classical Liberalism leans towards laissez-faire markets where the Progressives favor heavy central regulation along with the income redistribution necessary for their policies to work towards the 'Fairness' desired by them. Unfortunately, when Progressives are asked exactly what a 'Fair' distribution might involve both in income subsidies and taxes on those paying those subsidies no hard and fast answer is ever forthcoming.

Mark Levin has an excellent treatment of leftist governing from Plato’s Republic thru Marx’s Das Kapital]/i] juxtaposed with the Founder’s Classical Liberalism in his Ameritopia. Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Facism is another excellent essay regarding both Wilson’s and FDR’s real world Progressivism.

Wilson et al's policies and execution of same are an excellent answer to the question “War: What is It Good For?**”. “War on Women” or “War on The Middle Class” anyone? Do not let a crisis go to waste!

*To see why this is quite wrong-headed see the essay ”I, Pencil” which argues that people on their own do quite fine, thank you.

**No this was not the original title of Tolstoy’s War and Peace despite Jerry Seinfeld’s exhortations.

JM

You can't compare today's Republican Party with past American Parties. I think the Nazi party is actually much closer. Republicans are 90% white. They want to take away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". As you can see in my signature line, some KKK branches have even disbanded because the are no longer needed. They feel the Republican Party represents their ideals, positions and policies. That's just the truth. Too bad they feel it's "slander".

 

[rdean]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Liberals tend to discover things. Build. They are creative.

Conservatives don't want things to change, which is why they are fearful of education and others not like them. This is why they call themselves "conservative".

Definition of CONSERVATIVE

preservative

of or constituting a party advocating support of established institutions

tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional

marked by caution <a conservative estimate>

marked by or relating to traditional norms

a fear of change

This is laughable. This is exactly why we are where we are politically, you have a hatred and disgust with those you disagree with politically.


Here is one historical liberal that is still, like Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd, celebrated by those intellectually enlightened, creative, clever, open-minded liberals like yourself.

That doesn't even make sense. First, check out my signature line. Then prove the Republican Party isn't 90% or more white. Then look up "only 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican". Then check out "conservatism and science".
If you want honesty, do a little research.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It was very liberal and progeressive to want to break away from england. It was conservative to resist that.

using todays definitions, which you must so the reader does not have to know the definition that applied at each time throughout history, fighting for freedom from government was very very conservative!!!
UScitizen lacks the IQ to grasp that simple concept!!

Both sides are now pretty much corporatists.

of course thats way too stupid but perfectly 100% liberal.
100% of Republicans voted against Obamacare which is a textbook corporatist takeover of 20% of the economy!!

Slow is way too polite to describe this liberal. Sorry

 

[JakeStarkey]

EB writes, "using todays definitions, which you must so the reader does not have to know the definition that applied at each time throughout history, fighting for freedom from government was very very conservative!!!
UScitizen lacks the IQ to grasp that simple concept!!"

Baimonte is completely wrong. He argues for "present-ism" in terminology, which is false by itself. To oppose the motherland, to write two great documents of freedom, and to fight and win for those principles embodied in those documents were the great achievements of the classical liberals of the time opposed to the monarch and conservative government.

 

[JamesMorrison]

You can't compare today's Republican Party with past American Parties. I think the Nazi party is actually much closer.

Since the GOP has repeatedly agitated for individual political and economic freedom and less State control over individual actions by decreasing regulation and taxation, I fail to see a valid comparison between the GOP and Germany's National Socialist Party in the 1920-30s so it would fall to you to make that successful comparison. Comparing any GOP political platform to Mein Kampf or the National Socialist party platform would be a start but just throwing out the "N" bomb is insufficient proof. Remember both Hitler and Mussolini agreed with the latter's "Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State"; This is hardly a GOP talking point. Alternatively, present day 'Liberals' want to control guns, increase regulation, and completely control the health care sector; those things sound more like part of the National Socialists’ wish list then that of the GOP.

Republicans are 90% white. They want to take away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". As you can see in my signature line, some KKK branches have even disbanded because the are no longer needed. They feel the Republican Party represents their ideals, positions and policies. That's just the truth. Too bad they feel it's "slander".

I reject this. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of segregationists (and Klansman) were Democrats and that much of the civil rights legislation (and the Emancipation Proclamation!) was achieved by conservative (i.e. Classically Liberal) Republicans pushing for them. Remember it was the Democrats in the South that passed Jim Crow Laws, required a poll tax, and passed gun control laws in an effort to suppress the black vote.

Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence that the GOP wants to or has "take[n] away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". That is shear and pure Democratic demagoguery.

JM

 

[Pogo]

You can't compare today's Republican Party with past American Parties. I think the Nazi party is actually much closer.

Since the GOP has repeatedly agitated for individual political and economic freedom and less State control over individual actions by decreasing regulation and taxation, I fail to see a valid comparison between the GOP and Germany's National Socialist Party in the 1920-30s so it would fall to you to make that successful comparison. Comparing any GOP political platform to Mein Kampf or the National Socialist party platform would be a start but just throwing out the "N" bomb is insufficient proof. Remember both Hitler and Mussolini agreed with the latter's "Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State"; This is hardly a GOP talking point. Alternatively, present day 'Liberals' want to control guns, increase regulation, and completely control the health care sector; those things sound more like part of the National Socialists&#8217; wish list then that of the GOP.

Republicans are 90% white. They want to take away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". As you can see in my signature line, some KKK branches have even disbanded because the are no longer needed. They feel the Republican Party represents their ideals, positions and policies. That's just the truth. Too bad they feel it's "slander".

I reject this. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of segregationists (and Klansman) were Democrats and that much of the civil rights legislation (and the Emancipation Proclamation!) was achieved by conservative (i.e. Classically Liberal) Republicans pushing for them. Remember it was the Democrats in the South that passed Jim Crow Laws, required a poll tax, and passed gun control laws in an effort to suppress the black vote.

Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence that the GOP wants to or has "take[n] away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". That is shear and pure Democratic demagoguery.

JM

Reject it all you like but all those Southern racists are Republicans now. They were only Democrats in the past due to an entrenched and corrupt system of political convenience. IOW if you weren't a Democrat you just didn't win an election.

Fast forward to today and the same thing is true with the word "Republican" substituted for "Democrat", which demonstrates that access to power for this group is far more important than alignment with any particular ideology. So it wasn't "Democrats" who passed Jim Crow laws, it was racists. That shit never had support outside the South. Your extrapolation is like observing that all the cars around you are travelling east and concluding that therefore, all cars travel east.

Notably, the DP decided to leave that solid bloc behind in the interest of civil rights, and the RP didn't mind stepping right in to take up the slack. In fact they actively cultivated it with the "Southern strategy" and euphemisms like "states rights" and Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

So let's not try to pass off this bullshit about one party being basically more racist. If anything one party is more opportunist. To the point of the thread, it's interesting to note which party finds it necessary to suppress voter turnout, redraw congressional lines and reverse-engineer the way states vote in the EC, as their strategy to win elections. That should tell you something about the actual wishes of the electorate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

What relevance does "your definition" have?

Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" mean something different to everyone. Defining the opposition as a list of bad things is just an exercise in self-affirmation.
If you want to know what a "liberal" is, ask a liberal.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You can't compare today's Republican Party with past American Parties. I think the Nazi party is actually much closer.

Since the GOP has repeatedly agitated for individual political and economic freedom and less State control over individual actions by decreasing regulation and taxation, I fail to see a valid comparison between the GOP and Germany's National Socialist Party in the 1920-30s so it would fall to you to make that successful comparison. Comparing any GOP political platform to Mein Kampf or the National Socialist party platform would be a start but just throwing out the "N" bomb is insufficient proof. Remember both Hitler and Mussolini agreed with the latter's "Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State"; This is hardly a GOP talking point. Alternatively, present day 'Liberals' want to control guns, increase regulation, and completely control the health care sector; those things sound more like part of the National Socialists’ wish list then that of the GOP.

Republicans are 90% white. They want to take away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". As you can see in my signature line, some KKK branches have even disbanded because the are no longer needed. They feel the Republican Party represents their ideals, positions and policies. That's just the truth. Too bad they feel it's "slander".

I reject this. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of segregationists (and Klansman) were Democrats and that much of the civil rights legislation (and the Emancipation Proclamation!) was achieved by conservative (i.e. Classically Liberal) Republicans pushing for them. Remember it was the Democrats in the South that passed Jim Crow Laws, required a poll tax, and passed gun control laws in an effort to suppress the black vote.

Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence that the GOP wants to or has "take[n] away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". That is shear and pure Democratic demagoguery.

JM

Reject it all you like but all those Southern racists are Republicans now. They were only Democrats in the past due to an entrenched and corrupt system of political convenience. IOW if you weren't a Democrat you just didn't win an election.

Fast forward to today and the same thing is true with the word "Republican" substituted for "Democrat", which demonstrates that access to power for this group is far more important than alignment with any particular ideology. So it wasn't "Democrats" who passed Jim Crow laws, it was racists. That shit never had support outside the South. Your extrapolation is like observing that all the cars around you are travelling east and concluding that therefore, all cars travel east.

Notably, the DP decided to leave that solid bloc behind in the interest of civil rights, and the RP didn't mind stepping right in to take up the slack. In fact they actively cultivated it with the "Southern strategy" and euphemisms like "states rights" and Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

So let's not try to pass off this bullshit about one party being basically more racist. If anything one party is more opportunist. To the point of the thread, it's interesting to note which party finds it necessary to suppress voter turnout, redraw congressional lines and reverse-engineer the way states vote in the EC, as their strategy to win elections. That should tell you something about the actual wishes of the electorate.

What I find absurd is the insistence that everybody in the south is a racist. Can you get any more ridiculous? Even Morris Dees and his race-hustling group SPLC figure there aren't but 5,000 members of the KKK in the whole ******* country! I live down here, and I can tell you from experience the boogeyman of 'political racism' is a figment of your overworked imagination. It seems to me that the Progressives of this country are making a ******* mountain out of a 50 year old molehill. Whatever works for you, I guess...

And Pogo, do you think the Republicans have cornered the market on gerrymandering?

Before the term "gerrymander" was coined and even prior to the U.S. Constitution taking effect, redistricting was already being employed for political gain. Late in 1788, just after Virginia voted to ratify the Constitution and join the union, former Governor Patrick Henry persuaded the state legislature to remake the 5th Congressional District, forcing Henry’s political enemy James Madison to run against the formidable James Monroe. The ploy failed and Madison won anyway, eventually becoming the nation’s fourth president. Monroe’s career wasn’t over, though: He succeeded Madison as president.

In 2001, with Democrats in control of Illinois redistricting, then-state Senator Barack Obama was apparently able to reshape his district to his own specifications. As Ryan Lizza detailed in The New Yorker, that included drawing in wealthy supporters from Chicago’s Gold Coast. The new redistricting maintained Obama’s Hyde Park base, then lunged northward along the lakefront and toward downtown. As in Obama’s previous district, African-Americans retained a majority, and the map contained some of the poorest sections of Chicago, but the new district was whiter, more prosperous, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated.

The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics - Emily Barasch - The Atlantic

Same as it ever was, Bro...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What relevance does "your definition" have?

too stupid!! it has the same relevance of any definition!! If people don't have definitions in mind communication becomes impossible!! How is it possible you don't know that??

Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" mean something different to everyone.

too stupid!!!if true then it would be true of every word and we would have to discontinue use of the English language.

Defining the opposition as a list of bad things is just an exercise in self-affirming.

too stupid!! Conservative is not a bad thing, it is a belief in freedom from liberal government

If you want to know what a "liberal" is, ask a liberal.

We have of course!! A liberal is a morality bigot who feels morally
superior because he supports more and larger crippling welfare
programs.

 

[Pogo]

Since the GOP has repeatedly agitated for individual political and economic freedom and less State control over individual actions by decreasing regulation and taxation, I fail to see a valid comparison between the GOP and Germany's National Socialist Party in the 1920-30s so it would fall to you to make that successful comparison. Comparing any GOP political platform to Mein Kampf or the National Socialist party platform would be a start but just throwing out the "N" bomb is insufficient proof. Remember both Hitler and Mussolini agreed with the latter's "Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State"; This is hardly a GOP talking point. Alternatively, present day 'Liberals' want to control guns, increase regulation, and completely control the health care sector; those things sound more like part of the National Socialists&#8217; wish list then that of the GOP.



I reject this. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of segregationists (and Klansman) were Democrats and that much of the civil rights legislation (and the Emancipation Proclamation!) was achieved by conservative (i.e. Classically Liberal) Republicans pushing for them. Remember it was the Democrats in the South that passed Jim Crow Laws, required a poll tax, and passed gun control laws in an effort to suppress the black vote.

Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence that the GOP wants to or has "take[n] away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". That is shear and pure Democratic demagoguery.

JM

Reject it all you like but all those Southern racists are Republicans now. They were only Democrats in the past due to an entrenched and corrupt system of political convenience. IOW if you weren't a Democrat you just didn't win an election.

Fast forward to today and the same thing is true with the word "Republican" substituted for "Democrat", which demonstrates that access to power for this group is far more important than alignment with any particular ideology. So it wasn't "Democrats" who passed Jim Crow laws, it was racists. That shit never had support outside the South. Your extrapolation is like observing that all the cars around you are travelling east and concluding that therefore, all cars travel east.

Notably, the DP decided to leave that solid bloc behind in the interest of civil rights, and the RP didn't mind stepping right in to take up the slack. In fact they actively cultivated it with the "Southern strategy" and euphemisms like "states rights" and Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

So let's not try to pass off this bullshit about one party being basically more racist. If anything one party is more opportunist. To the point of the thread, it's interesting to note which party finds it necessary to suppress voter turnout, redraw congressional lines and reverse-engineer the way states vote in the EC, as their strategy to win elections. That should tell you something about the actual wishes of the electorate.

What I find absurd is the insistence that everybody in the south is a racist. Can you get any more ridiculous? Even Morris Dees and his race-hustling group SPLC figure there aren't but 5,000 members of the KKK in the whole ******* country! I live down here, and I can tell you from experience the boogeyman of 'political racism' is a figment of your overworked imagination. It seems to me that the Progressives of this country are making a ******* mountain out of a 50 year old molehill. Whatever works for you, I guess...

Uhhh.... where the hell did I "insist that everybody in the South is a racist"? Do you see my location?

I mean that would be as ludicrous as claiming the DP stands for racism --- which is what the post I was answering was trying to sell. Both are inane blanket statements.

And Pogo, do you think the Republicans have cornered the market on gerrymandering?

Once again ... where do you see that claim? Are we reading the same post? What I posted was "which party finds it necessary" to redraw congressional districts. "Finds" is present tense, as in going on right now. Whining "mommy, he did it too" really isn't an argument. Add up the 2012 election numbers and you'll find that more voters chose Congresscritters from the D side than the R side, yet the R side won more seats.

That's what I mean by "the actual wishes of the electorate". All votes are created equal but when the system is set up just so, some votes are more equal than others.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What I find absurd is the insistence that everybody in the south is a racist. Can you get any more ridiculous? Even Morris Dees and his race-hustling group SPLC figure there aren't but 5,000 members of the KKK in the whole ******* country! I live down here, and I can tell you from experience the boogeyman of 'political racism' is a figment of your overworked imagination. It seems to me that the Progressives of this country are making a ******* mountain out of a 50 year old molehill. Whatever works for you, I guess...

Uhhh.... where the hell did I "insist that everybody in the South is a racist"? Do you see my location?

I mean that would be as ludicrous as claiming the DP stands for racism --- which is what the post I was answering was trying to sell. Both are inane blanket statements.

And Pogo, do you think the Republicans have cornered the market on gerrymandering?

Once again ... where do you see that claim? Are we reading the same post? What I posted was "which party finds it necessary" to redraw congressional districts. "Finds" is present tense, as in going on right now. Whining "mommy, he did it too" really isn't an argument. Add up the 2012 election numbers and you'll find that more voters chose Congresscritters from the D side than the R side, yet the R side won more seats.

That's what I mean by "the actual wishes of the electorate". All votes are created equal but when the system is set up just so, some votes are more equal than others.

Fair enough, I just get sick and tired of being labelled a 'racist' because I live south of the Mason-Dixon line.

As far as "the actual wishes of the electorate" go, are you suggesting that somehow the 5 million people of Greater Atlanta start deciding the Congressional representatives from Rome and Savannah?

 

[Pogo]

What I find absurd is the insistence that everybody in the south is a racist. Can you get any more ridiculous? Even Morris Dees and his race-hustling group SPLC figure there aren't but 5,000 members of the KKK in the whole ******* country! I live down here, and I can tell you from experience the boogeyman of 'political racism' is a figment of your overworked imagination. It seems to me that the Progressives of this country are making a ******* mountain out of a 50 year old molehill. Whatever works for you, I guess...

Uhhh.... where the hell did I "insist that everybody in the South is a racist"? Do you see my location?

I mean that would be as ludicrous as claiming the DP stands for racism --- which is what the post I was answering was trying to sell. Both are inane blanket statements.

And Pogo, do you think the Republicans have cornered the market on gerrymandering?

Once again ... where do you see that claim? Are we reading the same post? What I posted was "which party finds it necessary" to redraw congressional districts. "Finds" is present tense, as in going on right now. Whining "mommy, he did it too" really isn't an argument. Add up the 2012 election numbers and you'll find that more voters chose Congresscritters from the D side than the R side, yet the R side won more seats.

That's what I mean by "the actual wishes of the electorate". All votes are created equal but when the system is set up just so, some votes are more equal than others.

Fair enough, I just get sick and tired of being labelled a 'racist' because I live south of the Mason-Dixon line.

As far as "the actual wishes of the electorate" go, are you suggesting that somehow the 5 million people of Greater Atlanta start deciding the Congressional representatives from Rome and Savannah?

I distinguish markedly between "Southerners" and "racists in the South", though I can understand the sensitivity to stereotypes. But then, stereotypes was what I was attacking in the first place.

The second point about Georgia -- I don't even know what that means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GuyPinestra is correct that just because he lives (and I lived for 30 plus years) in the South does not make a racist. But there are many white racists there, almost all in the GOP, and there are many black racists, almost all in the Dems. The horse crap comes with the attempts by the reactionaries to somehow pretend the Civil Rights was a GOP led and dominated movement. It was not, though the GOP for the most part supported it.

Both sides need to be more honest about our history and leave off the revisionism.

 

[Pogo]

GuyPinestra is correct that just because he lives (and I lived for 30 plus years) in the South does not make a racist. But there are many white racists there, almost all in the GOP, and there are many black racists, almost all in the Dems. The horse crap comes with the attempts by the reactionaries to somehow pretend the Civil Rights was a GOP led and dominated movement. It was not, though the GOP for the most part supported it.

Both sides need to be more honest about our history and leave off the revisionism.

True. Democrats and Republicans both supported it in the main, except in the South where they both voted against it. That's just the way it was. That was the vote of the representatives, not necessarily the wishes of the electorate.