No Historic Republicans
-
It may have been Clayton Bigsby
-
You guys just played an example.
First the topic was about the Republican party not having a historical candidate and then it turns into KKK talk. If it were about the Democrats no mention of the KKK would've been mentioned but here's the whole truth and I'm sorry the truth hurts...
Democrats are all for the minority as long as they stay on the plantation. That's bullshit. It's about equal rights not the color of anyone's skin. Rant over
"One said:
You guys just played an example.
First the topic was about the Republican party not having a historical candidate and then it turns into KKK talk. If it were about the Democrats no mention of the KKK would've been mentioned but here's the whole truth and I'm sorry the truth hurts...
Democrats are all for the minority as long as they stay on the plantation. That's bullshit. It's about equal rights not the color of anyone's skin. Rant over
A conservative brought up the KKK
-
"One said:
You guys just played an example.
First the topic was about the Republican party not having a historical candidate and then it turns into KKK talk. If it were about the Democrats no mention of the KKK would've been mentioned but here's the whole truth and I'm sorry the truth hurts...
Democrats are all for the minority as long as they stay on the plantation. That's bullshit. It's about equal rights not the color of anyone's skin. Rant over
A conservative brought up the KKK
A conservative brought up the KKK
So what?
-
I don't see anything there that refers to "blacks should be 2nd class citizens or that women shouldn't be able to vote.."
baloney.
-
And one can't help but notice that these days in the spirit of Jim Crow, that for every organization, event or award there seems to be at least one, if not more, version specifically for African Americans.
Would that be considered social progress or not?
WSS
I think ultimately things like those would not exist in a fully equal society. But they exist for basically every subset of non-white-males, mainly because the system is skewed in favour of white males.
I think ultimately things like those would not exist in a fully equal society. But they exist for basically every subset of non-white-males, mainly because the system is skewed in favour of white males.
Stop it.
I filled out (assisted in filling out) many college applications for my 3 sons, and there were no advantages to being a white male.
Civil Service exams give extra points to minorities. They also give them for military service (as they should).
The playing field may never truly be equal, despite attempts to tweak it or legislate it. I think an equal opportunity to apply for jobs, college entrance, etc. is about the best we can hope for.
-
Good reading:
how the dishonest flippity-switchedy happened that blacks and libs clustered to the dems,
I have no freaking idea.
-
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
-
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
they might wonder if ole calfox might be one of dem der pecker suckers the good book talked about.
-
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
*************************************************
based on what?
define your terms...
http://www.socialliberal.net/2009/02/12/what-is-social-liberalism/
-
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
*************************************************
based on what?
define your terms...
http://www.socialliberal.net/2009/02/12/what-is-social-liberalism/
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
*************************************************
based on what?
define your terms...
http://www.socialliberal.net/2009/02/12/what-is-social-liberalism/
Cal, do you think it is ok for blacks and whites to hang out and eat at the same restaurant?
If you have no problem with that sort of thing then you would have been ahead of the times.
-
Cal, if I placed you in 1900, do you think you'd be considered socially liberal?
*************************************************
based on what?
define your terms...
http://www.socialliberal.net/2009/02/12/what-is-social-liberalism/
Cal, do you think it is ok for blacks and whites to hang out and eat at the same restaurant?
If you have no problem with that sort of thing then you would have been ahead of the times.
Cal, do you think it is ok for blacks and whites to hang out and eat at the same restaurant?
If you have no problem with that sort of thing then you would have been ahead of the times.
He understands the question but is avoiding it.
Anyway, I hate this about modern politics, it's all just shouting over each other to try to score points by insulting someone else
-
Also the video closer to the bottom is interesting.
-
Just pointing out we seen film of some uncivil repartee in Parliament.
But we haven't had a duel in a good many years.
WSS
-
Just pointing out we seen film of some uncivil repartee in Parliament.
But we haven't had a duel in a good many years.
WSS
Just pointing out we seen film of some uncivil repartee in Parliament.
But we haven't had a duel in a good been in years.
WSS
Oh for sure, it's just as bad if not worse here. You'll notice, though, I said 'modern politics' and not the US. There's plenty of instances of it here, but I posted the more relevant one.
-
Just pointing out we seen film of some uncivil repartee in Parliament.
But we haven't had a duel in a good been in years.
WSS
Oh for sure, it's just as bad if not worse here. You'll notice, though, I said 'modern politics' and not the US. There's plenty of instances of it here, but I posted the more relevant one.
-
Also from what I've heard it was reasonably shity back in John Adams day if that biography is any indication
WSS
-
Quite possibly. But these days it has descended to a popularity contest, and so it's about 'point scoring' rather than putting forth arguments and counter arguments.
-
This is why you'll hear me saying things like "I would really like to see a Sanders vs Paul election" (yes I know it won't happen and Paul has dropped out)
-
I wasn't avoiding the question, the question was invalid, and gave a link to explain my point.
There have always been all sorts of folks who never thought
it wasn't okay for "blacks and whites to hang out and eat at the same restaurant?",
all the way back to the Underground Railroad.
The term "socially liberal/conservative" doesn't apply to the times, the definition of the terms
as I linked to, are not valid.
Go back to my link, and READ.
"Sometime in the late nineteenth century, liberalism began to divide into two different streams. One stream, which came to be called ‘classical liberalism’, confined liberalism’s ambitions to establishing a robust framework to protect individuals from a rapacious and power-hungry state. It aimed to control the size of the state, especially its military expenditure, and to promote international free trade, both for its own sake and as a way to encourage peace. Its ideal was a state that left us alone to get on with our lives. It valued political freedoms – especially of speech and of belief – but also tended to see property rights in themselves as an important bulwark against oppression.
Some classical liberals shaded into what ought to be called libertarianism rather than liberalism. They came to view property rights as natural rights existing outside the framework of the state, so that the state may not even redefine property rights without committing a wrong.
The other stream, which has come to be called ‘social liberalism’ (but which might better be called ‘social justice liberalism’1 ), also valued political freedom, also thought that the state should as far as possible leave us alone to make our own decisions on how to live our lives, also opposed militarism and also believed that international free trade was a way to preserve peace, but it believed in addition that liberalism required a commitment to a fair distribution of wealth and power, which in turn led to support for redistributive taxation and public services as ways of fairly distributing wealth and for democracy as a way of fairly distributing power."
-
what you are apparently asking, by using the term "socially liberal"...
the term today is not what it means back then. I showed that.
So, if I were put back in those times, your term is not valid as it
is used today, and you are using in terms of what it means today.
But back then, it certainly meant something different.
So, how the heck am I supposed to answer that?
READ, and see that the term "liberalism actually applies to the Tea Party and
libertarian ideals today.
Therefore, you are asking an invalid question.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login