Why is it so hard being conservative anywhere?

Page 4 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 6:55 pm

The democrats lost the southern dixiecrats because of the civil rights act. Nixon then moved in and picked them up with his southern strategy. They have been voting Republican ever since.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 6:57 pm

Dox47 wrote:
AspE wrote:
Maybe you don't get to hold views repugnant to most of thinking society and not get s**t for it? It's not like conservatives are born that way.


Sober up and get back to me when you make sense.


He's right. You can't post things that are offensive to large numbers of people then claim you're the one being treated unfairly for being called out on it. This isn't referring to anything you said just to be clear, but it happens here all the time.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

14 Jun 2016, 7:02 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
He's right. You can't post things that are offensive to large numbers of people then claim you're the one being treated unfairly for being called out on it. This isn't referring to anything you said just to be clear, but it happens here all the time.


Who gets to decide what is offensive? The difference between a personal attack that results in a warning and "calling someone out" seems to be decided ideologically, and that is unfair.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

14 Jun 2016, 7:06 pm

AspE wrote:
Forget wrong side of history, try learning history.



Try learning history yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 7:09 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
He's right. You can't post things that are offensive to large numbers of people then claim you're the one being treated unfairly for being called out on it. This isn't referring to anything you said just to be clear, but it happens here all the time.


Who gets to decide what is offensive? The difference between a personal attack that results in a warning and "calling someone out" seems to be decided ideologically, and that is unfair.


If you seriously can't tell the difference between what is offensive and what isn't than I don't know what to tell you. Really it's not that hard.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 7:13 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
AspE wrote:
Forget wrong side of history, try learning history.



Try learning history yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat


Reread that article. You notice that everything in it happened before the civil rights act.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

14 Jun 2016, 7:15 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
He's right. You can't post things that are offensive to large numbers of people then claim you're the one being treated unfairly for being called out on it. This isn't referring to anything you said just to be clear, but it happens here all the time.
Who gets to decide what is offensive? The difference between a personal attack that results in a warning and "calling someone out" seems to be decided ideologically, and that is unfair.
If you seriously can't tell the difference between what is offensive and what isn't than I don't know what to tell you. Really it's not that hard.
When telling the truth is interpreted as being offensive just because it contradicts someone's dearly-held personal beliefs, and the moderator(s) making that interpretation issue a "Board Warning" for offending that particular someone, then telling the difference between what is offensive and what isn't would seem to be harder than you might think.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 7:18 pm

You make a good point there Fnord.



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

14 Jun 2016, 7:21 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
AspE wrote:
Forget wrong side of history, try learning history.



Try learning history yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat


Reread that article. You notice that everything in it happened before the civil rights act.


You admit it's an irrelevant myth, so why did you even bring it up????



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 7:24 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
AspE wrote:
Forget wrong side of history, try learning history.



Try learning history yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat


Reread that article. You notice that everything in it happened before the civil rights act.


You admit it's an irrelevant myth, so why did you even bring it up????


Wow. 8O
AspE was right. Go back and do some more reading.



gingerpickles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 515
Location: USA

14 Jun 2016, 7:55 pm

I read it and it does not support his Narrative... highlights:

-breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948

The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the "Solid South" (the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the South). **[lel because they made Republicans look good
The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948

after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party

Members of the Republican Party (nominating Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948), along with many Democrats from the northern United States, supported civil rights legislation , legislation that the Deep South Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed

Former Dixiecrats received some backlash at the 1952 Democratic National Convention, but all Southern delegations were seated after agreeing to a party loyalty pledge.

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections, but not in presidential elections

My take home is that Democrats are same Democrats I have always known in Texas and NC and FL and KY.
And are not so much the equal and free party as everyone has believed since Santo Kennedy who's picture is next to praying Jesus at grandma's


_________________
FFFFF Captchas.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jun 2016, 7:57 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Are you going to tell me that conservatives haven't been on the wrong side of history on those issues I named?


More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/


"Virginia's Democratic Rep. Howard W. Smith was a staunch segregationist and strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Smith, who was chairman of the House Rules Committee, came up with many tactics to discourage the passage of the bill's Title VII, which would outlaw employment discrimination because of race, color, religion or national origin."

Also of interest:
On Aug. 8, 1935, Social Security and Medicare passed in the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The next day, the bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans supporting the legislation. So Social Security also passed with Republican support.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/

Conservatives simply don't tout these achievements as liberals do.


The fight for civil rights took place at a time before the two parties were so polarized by political ideology. Back in those days, there were both liberal and conservative Democrats (most of the latter were in the south), and liberal and conservative Republicans (most of the former being black and northern Republicans). The parties became politically polarized soon after that time, when Lyndon Johnson force fed civil rights to congress, while the Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater opposed civil rights. Richard Nixon enacted his southern strategy, in order to woo white southern Democrats to the Republicans, playing up on their racial resentment. A few decades later, Reagan did the exact same thing, emphasizing "states rights," when everyone knew that term was code for opposition to civil rights, going as far as to tell how poor white southerners had been humiliated by civil rights (boo hoo, like that's anything comparable to what blacks had to live through), and announcing his candidacy at the Mississippi town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in a Klan conspiracy. With that, the Republicans became the party that sucked up to white southerners, while Republican liberals and moderates jumped ship to become Democrats. What I'm talking about isn't party affiliation, but political ideology. I'm willing to bet that those Republicans who voted for civil rights were of the liberal and moderate political type, and that they would be more at home in the current Democrat party.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Jun 2016, 8:02 pm

Thank you Kraichgauer. Said it better than I could.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jun 2016, 8:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
Don't use the phrase "wrong side of history" it's silly propaganda overused during the cold war and look how that ended for both sides. The Soviet Union is dismantled, a strong anti-Marxist state is rising from its ashes and America has become the spiritual successor to that same empire and is busy flushing itself down the toilet.


That Anti-Marxist state rising out of the ashes of the old Soviet Union is increasingly becoming authoritarian, and hardly represents the democratic dreams of the architects of Glasnost and Perestroika.
And America is the spiritual successor of the Soviet Union? Really? How so?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jun 2016, 8:07 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Thank you Kraichgauer. Said it better than I could.


Don't sell yourself short - you're a pretty fine wordsmith yourself. 8)


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

14 Jun 2016, 11:33 pm

Quote:
And America is the spiritual successor of the Soviet Union? Really? How so?


Weakening of marriage, the two parent family and particular hostility to parental authority.
Massive state education program designed to socially engineer, not educate.
Atheism fashionable, open hostility to the Christian faith.
Foolish notions of human equality especially gender equality permeating everything.
No respect for privacy, mass surveillance carried out on citizens for no good reason.
High taxation and welfare, citizens increasingly dependent on government.
State propaganda, manipulation of statistics.
Social justice.
Every important institution is run by left wing utopians who seek to change man to fit into their new world.

There's more, people concerned about these things love to point out how America has fulfilled much of the original communist manifesto, can google that if you please. It isn't exactly like the Soviet Union, but I think spiritual successor is a reasonable description, especially when compared to Russia today.

Quote:
That Anti-Marxist state rising out of the ashes of the old Soviet Union is increasingly becoming authoritarian, and hardly represents the democratic dreams of the architects of Glasnost and Perestroika.


Democracy isn't the antidote to Marxism, the Soviet union had elections too, those in power loved the legitimacy it gave them. I don't think there's much moral difference between using lies and fear to gain votes and just pointing a gun at people. As for Putin's despotic takeover who cares, personal freedom beats political freedom in the end. Don't forget that many good things we inherited in the West came from those who ruled and the faith that ruled them long before universal suffrage. Many of those good things are being undermined and destroyed by the wonders of democracy.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!