Poly is making me right wing

[Ramo]

Well where is the cite? I don't see it.

Goldwater (and Reagan) also opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act as "unnecessary" -- though without it blacks had been effectively disenfranchised and with it they regained the right to vote.

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080528/NRSTAFF/805280310/-1/OPINION

Here's Reagan too:

Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” While he made political points with white southerners on this issue, he was sensitive to any suggestion that his stands on civil rights issues were politically or racially motivated, and he typically reacted to such criticisms as attacks on his personal integrity.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Civil_Rights.htm

As far as I'm aware, Goldwater supported the previous civil rights bills, just that he saw the civil rights bill in 1964 as overly intrusive.

Yes, Goldwater supported a few toothless pieces of legislation that didn't do anything. There was literally no progress coming from Congress in civil rights from the 1870's to 1964. The only legislation that could address the problems were the "overly intrusive" type by Goldwater's and Reagan's standards. Mississippi was running a police state, and the conservative movement aided and abetted them.

One of the closest? Nixon had a landslide. Since when is winning by over 100 EC votes a tight race.

Quite frequently. It's easier to run up margins in the electoral college (which rewards appropriate diffuseness in support, as opposed to magnitude) with only a marginal edge in the popular vote. Looking at elections since 1932, the only times that the electoral college margin was closer than in 1968 were 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004. And those five happen to be the closest elections in the popular vote.

The only reason the popular vote was even close is because you had three parties with Wallace and LeMay.

While that may be true, that would make a hypothetical election without Wallace a landslide. Not 1968. And there's a bit of self-pwnage there: LeMay famously wanted to use nukes in Vietnam. That's about where the conservative movement was in terms of foreign policy; Nixon was to the left of these guys.

That would be like Clinton losing to HW Bush even after the vote splitting.

Perot took votes disproportionately from Clinton.

I asked a question. Did you miss it?

It's in irrelevant question. You're pretending that your statement is something other than what it was. Again, Al Sharpton did not get 90% of the black vote.

You asked me if I believed he was a conservative, and the answer to that is yes. What more do you want?

Some rationality? Just a little bit...

[MrFun]

Good post, Ramo.

[Kidlicious]

Ben,

I don't think you are a racist either. But some of the things you say is offensive to me. What you are saying is so wrong that it's like holocaust denial. There's a diference between a bull****er and a bigot.

[MOBIUS]

Re: i don't recall signing up to be a special needs teacher, but here goes...

Originally posted by C0ckney
i thought you were just trolling to be honest. however it seems that you seriously believe this, which frankly is a lot worse. still fair play to you for nailing your colours to this particular mast.

ok so let us seriously examine your example then. the 2002 council election results:

42 Labour
4 Chadwell Heath Residents Association
3 Liberal Democrat
2 Conservative

and compare with the 2006 results:

38 Labour
12 British National Party
1 Conservative

so by your logic (and i use the term loosely), all those liberal voters must be closet fascists and the people of the chadwell heath residents association (whoever they are) must have positively goose-stepped their way to the polling stations in 2006.

And you, sir, are guilty of trying to oversimplify the results as a whole - instead of actually bothering to understand just how the BNP got their 12 councillors...

For a start, they only contested 7 out of 17 wards with only 13 candidates - of which 12 were elected!

The LibDem voters would most likely have tactically switched to Labour in an effort to keep the BNP out. The only worrying blip is Eastbury where they lost all their 3 councillors to 2 Labour gains, and 1 BNP gain. However a quick scan shows that all three LibDem candidates were new in 2006 and not sitting councillors - so one might logically deduce that something controversial might have happened to the previous three councillors causing a voter defection from them. Incidentally there were no Tory candidates in this ward for the BNP to fight again, as I mentioned earlier...

As for the Chadwell Heath Residents' Assoc, the BNP did not even contest the wards they had councillors in, so again your simplistic argument is found wanting as it is a bit ****ing difficult for their voters to transfer allegiance to the BNP! I bolded that, because apparently you are too thick to understand that most elementary of principles!

if you care to look at results for the two parliamentary seats you will see that labour got around 50% of vote. the two MPs are government ministers. clearly, this is a solidly labour area, the other mainstream parties barely get a look in, either in local government or parliament and yet this is the area where the BNP won a record number of seats. of course i am not suggesting that this means labour voters, or indeed the voters of any mainstream party, are really fascists in disguise, because that would be ridiculous. it does however show us the socio-economic group who are most likely to vote for the BNP, which i have pointed out enough times now.

No, as I mentioned earlier but you have decided to ignore - the Labour vote INCREASED in each ward that the BNP fought, therefore the BNP support base was unlikely to have mainly been from Labour supporters. Also as you correctly point out the labour MPs only got around 50% of the vote - what about the other 50% of the vote numbnuts, clearly it can't be that much of a solidly labour area!

I'd stop quoting stuff if I were you - every time you do, it only serves to back up my points!

you may recall margaret hodge (labour MP for barking) giving us an insight into the subject of why people are turning to the BNP in 2006. well perhaps not, as you haven’t a clue. however, there has been a lot written in recent years about the disaffection and frustration the white working class often feels with mainstream parties, if you wish to educate yourself.

Yes, the right-wing natural tory voters vote BNP when they can't vote for tories! I agree!

Again, for labour, as I said earlier: the Labour vote INCREASED in each ward that the BNP fought. Obviously you foolishly think that if you keep ignoring stuff it will go away...

Enoch Powell

Edward Griffin

See, it's not going away...

where my parents live (in rural somerset), labour does not run a candidate, because they have no chance of winning. if the BNP were to enter, does mean that their candidate would be 'the labour alternative'? following your logic (heh) the answer would clearly be yes.

I said the BNP is the Tory alternative - only in ****ed up C0ckneyville does your patently dumb comment possibly make sense...

let me explain something about elections to you. parties do not enter a candidate for every single possible seat. they enter them based upon an efficient allocation of resources, i.e. where they have a reasonable chance of winning (or at the very least being competitive). to give an example, the ward in which i live, castle (the centre of swansea), has 4 council seats. labour and the lib dems will enter 4 candidates, the independents @ swansea 2 or 3, and the conservatives and plaid cymru will enter 2 each, with some small left wing parties entering 1 apiece.

True, in a very simplistic world and only up to point.

You only have to look at Cardiff over the past few local elections to realise what you are saying in anything but the most immediate and basic of terms, is complete and utter bollocks! In a little over 4 years, labour have gone from a sizeable majority to being the 3rd party with only 13 out of 75 councillors - so you're talking out of your ignorant arse!

Take Merthyr, these last local elections the first 6 LibDem councillors ever, ever, ever, in the history of that council were elected - where the **** did they come from, using your exceedingly weak logic...!?

as we have already seen the tories have very little chance of winning in dagenham and barking, therefore it should not be an earth shattering revelation when they don't enter a candidate for every council seat. one would like to think this would go without saying, but once again i am obliged to point out the blindingly obvious to you.

Probably because their organisation is weak there - the other parties barely even contest the borough and they STILL get 50% of the votes!!? WTF does that tell you!?

If they actually made an effort like two young libdems did in Merthyr, then they actually might make inroads...

so the labour party gets more votes in 2006 in a rock solid labour area, than in 2002. what are you doing here my son, you need to get on and call the papers with this extraordinary piece of news. i wonder though, could it perhaps have something to do with the fact that the turnout in 2002 was 22.76% and the turnout in 2006 was 38.3%. you complete and utter imbecile.

Actually it goes like this: The only wards that had massive increases in turnout were the wards being fought by the BNP - so again, whereas you might be looking at the whole borough and imagining phantom Chadwell Heath Residents' Association defections to the BNP, like the numpty you are - I am only concentrating on the places the BNP are fighting in...

the subtext of this last point is that mobius can't read or comprehend even the most basic of statistics. a sad reflection on the welsh education system.

Says the student from Swansea!

Actually I can read fine thanks, I have explained everything exhaustively and rebutted all of your desperate and flimsy arguments - the only person guilty of being incapable of reading is you, purely by point of fact that you couldn't possibly have either read or comprehended anything I have said up until now. Not to mention the fact that you just plain ignore massive supporting evidence like the opinions of nice tories like Enoch Powell or Edward Griffen (Whoops, there's those names again! )

i could go on, but if that's the best example you can find to prove your theory, then there's really not much point.

I've proved mine, the hidden 50% from the 'Rock Solid Labour Bastion' of Barking and Dagenham include a massive number of natural tory voters who were given no choice but to vote BNP - not that it was much of a stretch for them anyway as they probably also like reading the Daily Mail...

Right, you have been owned again! Seriously, must you keep humiliating yourself in such a public manner...?

I was enjoying toying with my plaything - but frankly now it is getting boring when you offer up so little resistance...

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbc...0310/-1/OPINION

You crashed my laptop. Thanks.

Yes, Goldwater supported a few toothless pieces of legislation that didn't do anything. There was literally no progress coming from Congress in civil rights from the 1870's to 1964.

Well of course not. Congress was Democratically controlled for most of that period.

The only legislation that could address the problems were the "overly intrusive" type by Goldwater's and Reagan's standards. Mississippi was running a police state, and the conservative movement aided and abetted them.

As good as the act was, it was contrary to what the constitution says are the rights of the states. They do have an argument that federal enforcement was necessary, which I do agree with, but having it pushed on the states was a violation.

The legislation had a good purpose and it was effective, but I think Goldwater was right to criticise the creeping power of the federal government.

Quite frequently. It's easier to run up margins in the electoral college (which rewards appropriate diffuseness in support, as opposed to magnitude) with only a marginal edge in the popular vote. Looking at elections since 1932, the only times that the electoral college margin was closer than in 1968 were 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004. And those five happen to be the closest elections in the popular vote.

'68 was a strange election. I think '72 better reflects the strength of Nixon.

While that may be true, that would make a hypothetical election without Wallace a landslide. Not 1968. And there's a bit of self-pwnage there: LeMay famously wanted to use nukes in Vietnam. That's about where the conservative movement was in terms of foreign policy; Nixon was to the left of these guys.

Indeed, he was, which is why LeMay and Wallace were splitting off his votes. Without them, you see a landslide as in '72.

Perot took votes disproportionately from Clinton.

According to whom?

Which is why when Perot went away Bush won again? I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

It's in irrelevant question. You're pretending that your statement is something other than what it was. Again, Al Sharpton did not get 90% of the black vote.

It's point well taken obviously since you refuse to answer the question. A white Jesse Jackson would not have been as successful, regardles of his ties to Dr. MLK.

Some rationality? Just a little bit...

Rationality!= what you believe. Have I said you aren't reasonable?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you always make logical fallacies in your arguments?

Just because conservatives have been responsible for most of the racism in the 20th Century US, doesn't mean that ALL conservatives are racists.

Where's the evidence of this? I've already shown that proportionally Republicans were far more likely to support bills favouring civil rights then the Democrats.

I asked about Margaret Sanger, and you said she was a liberal, until you got to her racism. So my question is this, is it possible for a liberal to be racist, or is it a no true scotsman.

You say, no liberal can be racist, and yet when shown one you go and say, well not true liberal...

Interestingly enough, two conservatives. And I'd say that Reagan did far more for states rights than any 20th Century politician.

Which is why he supported the Civil Rights bill?

Are you telling me that invading another country is NOT expanding a war? Seriously... take a step back and think about what you've posted for a second here.

I am.

Was the declaration of war by Argentina on the Third Reich an expansion of the second world war?

And? They still involved violating just laws to correct unjust ones, which was the point. No one said anything about violent protests.

What just law did he violate? I think it's rich you saying that liberals can't be racist when you said Jim crow was legitimate since it was supported by the majority of the people.

But if you want examples of non-violent protests, plenty of union demonstrations you can look at (and I can't wait to see you try to say unions are conservative)

Like in Seattle I suppose?

Sure, liberals can have peaceful protests, but I'd be hard pressed to show a conservative protest that was violent.

[Ramo]

You crashed my laptop. Thanks.

Sounds like you have some spyware. I'm not sure what to say. Cut down on the porn?

Well of course not. Congress was Democratically controlled for most of that period.

Yes. Southern Democrats generally opposed meaningful civil rights legislation. Conservatives in the Republican Party, like Reagan and Goldwater, felt the same way. When the Dem leadership pushed through such legislation, these white supremacist conservatives disproportionately flocked to the Republican banner. I don't know why you're so unwilling to acknowledge this historical fact.

The legislation had a good purpose and it was effective, but I think Goldwater was right to criticise the creeping power of the federal government.

So why are you blaming Southern Democrats in Congress when you apparently sympathize with their opposition to federal civil rights legislation?

'68 was a strange election. I think '72 better reflects the strength of Nixon.

[...]


Indeed, he was, which is why LeMay and Wallace were splitting off his votes. Without them, you see a landslide as in '72.

Complete non-sequiter ('72, incidentally, also was a very strange election). And in '72, Nixon was clearly the pro-war candidate running against clearly anti-war McGovern.

It's point well taken obviously since you refuse to answer the question.

Because it's a dumb question and has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier argument.

According to whom?

Polls after Perot dropped out, and got back into the race. Perot voters went to Clinton.

Which is why when Perot went away Bush won again? I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

Because the following are true:
1992 = 2000
Clinton = Gore
HW = W
Nader = nonexistent

Have I said you aren't reasonable?

My rationality isn't in question...

[Ramo]

Which is why he supported the Civil Rights bill?

He did not.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

Congress overrode the veto.

Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where's the evidence of this? I've already shown that proportionally Republicans were far more likely to support bills favouring civil rights then the Democrats.

Weren't you the one who said Republicans aren't the same thing as conservatives?

What political persuasion were Southern Democrats? That's right... they be conservatives.

I asked about Margaret Sanger, and you said she was a liberal, until you got to her racism. So my question is this, is it possible for a liberal to be racist, or is it a no true scotsman.

Cite? Or are you trying to put words again into other people's mouths?

And liberals can be racists, but for the most part, it's a conservative viewpoint. After all, liberalism is about shunning tradition for that which brings more liberty. Racism doesn't necessarily fit well in that framework... however an ideology that wants to conserve the past would... I wonder where I could find such ideology... hmmm.

You say, no liberal can be racist, and yet when shown one you go and say, well not true liberal...

There be that whole putting words in mouths thing.

Which is why he supported the Civil Rights bill?

Ramo dealt with this.

I am.

Is your bed at the sanitarium booked?

Was the declaration of war by Argentina on the Third Reich an expansion of the second world war?

Actually, it is. It brought Argentina into the conflict. Now is it a large expansion? No, of course not. Was the US bombing Cambodia a large expansion of the Vietnam War? Of course it was.

What just law did he violate? I think it's rich you saying that liberals can't be racist when you said Jim crow was legitimate since it was supported by the majority of the people.

You know... trespassing. What exactly do you think sit ins do?

Like in Seattle I suppose?

So the Seattle riots are like every union demonstrations? Have you ever seen a strike? You don't have to answer that, I know the answer is no.

I'd be hard pressed to show a conservative protest that was violent.

What about protests to school busing and all the blacks that were injured during those? To speak of one.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And liberals can be racists, but for the most part, it's a conservative viewpoint. After all, liberalism is about shunning tradition for that which brings more liberty. Racism doesn't necessarily fit well in that framework... however an ideology that wants to conserve the past would... I wonder where I could find such ideology... hmmm.

There seems to be enough poor white Northerners and white Sotuherners who proclaim themselves to be Democrats, but are still racist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I've made the point, and you should be well aware, Democrats does NOT equal liberal.

Southern Dems are, still, far more conservative than the national party. Like Northeast Reps are far more liberal than the national party.

[Ben Kenobi]

Weren't you the one who said Republicans aren't the same thing as conservatives?

What political persuasion were Southern Democrats? That's right... they be conservatives.

So Robert Byrd is a conservative?

Cite? Or are you trying to put words again into other people's mouths?

Do I really have to cite your own words?

And liberals can be racists, but for the most part, it's a conservative viewpoint. After all, liberalism is about shunning tradition for that which brings more liberty.

Liberals are also all about the protectionism, and immigration controls. Sure, liberty is fine, but once liberals got ahold of the US immigration policy, they started excluding people they didn't like. Welfare was for true Americans only.

Racism doesn't necessarily fit well in that framework... however an ideology that wants to conserve the past would... I wonder where I could find such ideology...

What motivation would a Christian have to be racist?

Actually, it is. It brought Argentina into the conflict. Now is it a large expansion? No, of course not. Was the US bombing Cambodia a large expansion of the Vietnam War? Of course it was.

According to whom? I don't believe adding Argentina to the second world war was an expansion, it was states jumping on the bandwagon so they would be counted with the victors.

Cambodia isn't an extension of the Vietnam war, just because you spread the peanut butter further doesn't mean you are adding peanut butter to the bread.

You know... trespassing. What exactly do you think sit ins do?

Ah, ok. Was it illegal for him to be there in the first place?

So the Seattle riots are like every union demonstrations? Have you ever seen a strike? You don't have to answer that, I know the answer is no.

Well obviously not. Let's see. My mom is a nursing instructor and I used to stand with them when they were on strike. I stood with the teachers at my old high school just a year ago when the went on strike. At university I stood with the TA's.

Wasn't it you that commented my statement about not breaking picket lines to be a relic of my Canadian heritage?

What about protests to school busing and all the blacks that were injured during those? To speak of one.

Which was over 50 years ago. Ok.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo, I'm serious here. I tried to click on that site, and my laptop froze up. I don't have a clue wtf is going on there, but my laptop doesn't like that site.

Yes. Southern Democrats generally opposed meaningful civil rights legislation. Conservatives in the Republican Party, like Reagan and Goldwater, felt the same way. When the Dem leadership pushed through such legislation, these white supremacist conservatives disproportionately flocked to the Republican banner. I don't know why you're so unwilling to acknowledge this historical fact.

Who says I'm unwilling to acknowledge that fact? I'm just laughing that Robert Byrd is considered a staunch conservative.

So why are you blaming Southern Democrats in Congress when you apparently sympathize with their opposition to federal civil rights legislation?

I don't, I sympathise with the reasoning of Goldwater. I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose the bill, but I think he does have a point about why it's troublesome according to the constitutional rights of the states. I also think Johnson really didn't give a **** about federal expansion of the government into state areas of authority.

Because it's a dumb question and has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier argument.

So labelling an idea as dumb means you don't have to deal with it?

Polls after Perot dropped out, and got back into the race. Perot voters went to Clinton.

Which is why the split with Perot is considered a split on the right? I've never heard your analysis, I suspect it's unique.

My rationality isn't in question...

So if two people agree that makes the third wrong? I didn't know echo chambers improve accuracy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Republicans were leaders in the fight for liberty and equality. They gave us the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery, the 14th that made all persons born in the nation citizens and that nationalized civil liberty, and the 15th that prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Ramo, this is what your site says.

Goldwater said the 1964 act violated states' rights. Goldwater (and Reagan) also opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act as "unnecessary" -- though without it blacks had been effectively disenfranchised and with it they regained the right to vote.

Does he have a quote from either? He also says that 'a number of republicans opposed the bill', and then says that Southern Democrats don't count as Democrats, which is a no-true scotsman fallacy.

I'm sorry Ramo, I was hoping to get the word from the horses' mouth not a partisan warrior who has problems with the truth and the usual scotsmen which always appear in this debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So Robert Byrd is a conservative?

A) West Virgina is not and never has been a Southern state.

B) Byrd is against gay marriage, was against don't ask don't tell, opposes affirmative action, praised the selection of John Roberts and Sam Alito for SCOTUS, and has voted against partial birth abortions (though is pro-choice).

So if you don't consider him a conservative (and, personally, I don't because of his beliefs on economic matters, regardless of his social conservatism on a number of issues), I don't see how you can consider him a liberal either.

Do I really have to cite your own words?

Yes, go ahead, and then we can see how badly you misinterpreted the statement... and laugh at you.

Liberals are also all about the protectionism, and immigration controls. Sure, liberty is fine, but once liberals got ahold of the US immigration policy, they started excluding people they didn't like. Welfare was for true Americans only.

The Emergency Quota Act for European immigrants was set in 1921. The Harding Administration was liberal? Subsequently the Immigration Act of 1924, to further restrict immigration was pushed through during the Coolidge Administration... another liberal?

The National Origins Formula came about in 1927 (Coolidge again).

In addition, President Truman (no conservative) was responsible for the Displaced Person's Act of 1948, allowing more legal immigration in after WW2.

And the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 abolished the national origins quotas, under the Johnson administration.

Not saying that some liberals, especially unions, don't want to limit legal immigration, but the history seems to show that, on the whole, liberal Presidents like legal immigration while conservative ones don't.

What motivation would a Christian have to be racist?

Why don't you ask Christian Southern white plantation owners prior to the Civil War?

Cambodia isn't an extension of the Vietnam war, just because you spread the peanut butter further doesn't mean you are adding peanut butter to the bread.

Seriously, someone who doesn't believe that bombing Cambodia was an expansion of the Vietnam War, is literally brain dead. It shows a complete inability of rational thought.

Ah, ok. Was it illegal for him to be there in the first place?

It was when the owners of the establishments asked him to leave.

Well obviously not. Let's see. My mom is a nursing instructor and I used to stand with them when they were on strike. I stood with the teachers at my old high school just a year ago when the went on strike. At university I stood with the TA's.

Wasn't it you that commented my statement about not breaking picket lines to be a relic of my Canadian heritage?

And yet, you seem to assume that liberal protests have to be violent. What is this doublethink day for you?