No Historic Republicans
-
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.
-
So you think late 19th century conservatives would take your stance on equal rights for races and think "yep, he sure seems like one of us"?
-
Speaking of the old days, in the 19 thirties movies were the social media of the day. Stymie Buckwheat and Farina were good friends of Spanky Alfalfa and Darla.
WSS
-
Stymie Buckwheat and Farina were good friends of Spanky Alfalfa and Darla.
Bless you?
-
I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.
I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.
No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.
-
I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.
I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.
No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.
You can thank the great state of Indiana. Between it's Germantowns and the KKK that's about rasists as you'll ever see anywhere. No wonder the meth labs run rampant.I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.
I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.
No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.
-
So you think late 19th century conservatives would take your stance on equal rights for races and think "yep, he sure seems like one of us"? Chris
******************************
"sigh". So, where would I end up with your pip pip cheerio time machine?
Alabama? Ohio? In Ohio, probably ? Why is it that liberals always get to paint entire classes of
people with a gigantic broad brush... but they are the first to get po'd and complain if a conservative does it?
Mobile, Alabama, all conservatives felt about race...how?
Wherever it is I go back then, am I around Quakers? They were very, very conservative - they also were primary
in the development of the underground railroad in several states.
Ask invalid questions, get no valid answers, Chris. I think acceptability of slavery, especially in the south,
defied poltical opinions - it was an economically driven disgrace.
-
If we sent you back to 1900 Cal, you'd be socially progressive. Just face it. It is the natural "progression" of things. Gay marriage is the next step happening right now.
This same argument will be made 80 years from now on some social conservative of that time. He/She will be perfectly fine with gay marriage, like you with blacks and whites hanging out together, and the cycle will repeat.
You can try to imagine certain definitions and anything else in an attempt to avoid answering (which I thought only liberals did?) but we all already know the answer.
-
I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.
I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.
No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.
I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.
I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.
No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.
http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
Some more background and how each party's stance was affected.
-
still don't know where you get that. All people in the 1900's were either
all social conservative or social liberal...
baloney.
-
You either don't get it, or you're acting like you don't get it to avoid answering truthfully
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