Poly is making me right wing

[Imran Siddiqui]

not a partisan warrior who has problems with the truth

You mean like yourself?

[SlowwHand]

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

Or ask the northern Christians, or not, that brought about the need for labor unions in trucking, manufacturing, and other while using child labor, etc. ?

[Arrian]

[Conservatives have] been at the forefront of every major social change.

That's your claim. It is patently absurd.

The whole point of being conservative is that you don't WANT change, or perhaps want to change back to an earlier way, which can also be called reactionary. Neither holding the status quo nor turning back the clock is "being at the forefront of major social change."

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's your claim. It is patently absurd.

The whole point of being conservative is that you don't WANT change, or perhaps want to change back to an earlier way, which can also be called reactionary. Neither holding the status quo nor turning back the clock is "being at the forefront of major social change."

-Arrian

In no way do I want to appear to be on BK's side in anything, but your view is very linear. The way I see it there are a lot of people talking about change, and all they mean is different people having the power. Both conservatives and "liberals" share in this characteristic. Unfortunately, very few people believe in actual change, besides just a change in "leadership."

[Arrian]

Woah, hang on a minute. I'm not talking about campaign slogans here, but rather philosophies on various issues.

I specifically noted a conservative may want change - change back to a past way of doing things. Whether or not electoral change gets them that is entirely another matter (answer: they haven't gotten much of it from the Republicans, despite a lot of sound a fury).

A liberal may want change and not get it. Example: many people on the left/progressive wing of the Democratic party are still pissed at Bill Clinton for being a moderate.

So?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
A liberal may want change and not get it. Example: many people on the left/progressive wing of the Democratic party are still pissed at Bill Clinton for being a moderate.

Most Democrats still think very highly of Bill Clinton.

What I'm saying is that both conservatives and liberals can just use rhetoric. It's pretty obvious that's what BK is doing. No one is going for is claim that he believes in change, except where that change give certain people power over others.

[Ramo]

I'm just laughing that Robert Byrd is considered a staunch conservative.

I never said that they all became Republicans, but they became disproportionately Republican. All, most - those are distinct concepts. And Byrd is a conservative on social issues, for example opposing abortion and gay marriage. Doesn't that make him a conservative, according to your beliefs?

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.

Yes, that was the excuse conservatives used to uphold white supremacy. What's your point?

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

Labeling the "idea" dumb is recognition that it's beneath me to respond. Man up and admit that the original statement that you made was horse****.

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.

I suggest listening to different people. Specifically, people who don't insist King was a conservative. From Wiki:

After Bill Clinton secured the Democratic Nomination in the Spring of 1992, polls showed Ross Perot leading the race, followed by President Bush, with Clinton in third place after a grueling nomination process. However, as the economy continued to grow sour, the President's approval rating continued to slide, as the Democrats began to rally around their nominee. On July 9, 1992, Clinton chose Tennessee Senator and former 1988 Presidential candidate Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. to be his running mate[6]. As Governor Clinton's acceptance speech approached, Ross Perot dropped out of the race, being convinced that with a "revitalized Democratic Party," staying in the race would cause the race to be decided by the U.S House of Representatives[7]. Clinton gave his acceptance on July 17, 1992, promising to bring a "new convenant" to America, and to work to heal the perceived gap that had developed between the rich and the poor during the Reagan/Bush years. The Clinton campaign received the biggest convention "bounce" in history[8] which brought him from 25 percent in the spring behind Bush and Perot up to 55 percent to Bush's 31 percent.

After the convention, Clinton and Gore began a bus tour around the United States, while the Bush/Quayle campaign, in panic mode began to hammer at Clinton's character, in light of accusations of infidelity and dodging the draft. The Bush campaign emphasized its foreign policy successes such as Desert Storm, and the end of the Cold War. Bush also contrasted his military service to Clinton's lack thereof, and criticized his lack of foreign policy expertise. However, as the economy was the main issue, Bush's campaign floundered across the nation, even in Republican bastions[9], and Clinton maintained leads with over 50 percent of the vote nationwide consistently, while Bush typically saw numbers in the upper 30s[10]. As Bush's economic edge had evaporated, his campaign looked to energize its socially conservative base at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston, Texas. At the Convention, Bush's primary campaign opponent Pat Buchanan gave his famous "culture war" speech, hammering at Clinton and Gore's social progressiveness, and voicing skepticism on his "New Democrat" brand. After President Bush accepted his renomination, his campaign saw a small bounce in the polls, but this was short lived, as Clinton maintained his lead[11]. The campaign continued with a lopsided lead for Clinton through September[12], until Ross Perot decided to re-enter the race[13] Ross Perot's re-entry in the race was welcome by the Bush campaign, as Fred Steeper, a poll taker for Bush, said, "He'll be important if we accomplish our goal, which is to draw even with Clinton." Initially, Perot's return saw the Texas billionaire's numbers stay low, until he was given the opportunity to participate in two unprecedented three man debates. The race narrowed, as Perot's number's significantly improved as Clinton's number's declined, while Bush's numbers remained more or less the same from earlier in the race [14] as Perot and Bush began to hammer at Clinton on character issues once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

So if two people agree that makes the third wrong?

The fact that you have to ignore the entirety of King's largely social-democratic policy agenda to desperately cling to the belief that King is a conservative indicates that you are terribly, terribly wrong.

Does he have a quote from either?

I'd assume "unnecessary" was the quote he was using. Couldn't find another reference to Goldwater in a cursory google search, but, once more, here's Reagan:

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.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 520 Jul 2, 1991

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

He also says that 'a number of republicans opposed the bill',

That qualifies as a true statement. Particularly, the folks who took control of and shaped the GOP for the next few decades were opposed the bill. Like Goldwater and Reagan.

and then says that Southern Democrats don't count as Democrats, which is a no-true scotsman fallacy.

He didn't say that. Southern Democrats generally did become Republicans. Regardless of your fervent belief otherwise, that was the case.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by 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.

And don't forget the more liberal Republicans in California -- which included Republican California judges ruling in favor of equal marriage protection for gays and lesbians.

[Ben Kenobi]

I never said that they all became Republicans, but they became disproportionately Republican. All, most - those are distinct concepts. And Byrd is a conservative on social issues, for example opposing abortion and gay marriage. Doesn't that make him a conservative, according to your beliefs?

Some did, and some didn't of those who became Republicans, many of them remained social liberals.

Robert Byrd by the way is given a score of 50 from the NRLC so I don't know why I would consider him a conservative at all.

He supports abortion in all circumstances except for PBA, and he supports parental notification. That's hardly prolife at all.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Robert_Byrd_Abortion.htm

Yes, that was the excuse conservatives used to uphold white supremacy. What's your point?

My point is no matter how you sell it, the VRA did violated the provisions and rights given to states under the constitution. Your argument has to be that the benefits of the VRA upholds principles of the constitution that ought to supercede the rights of the states.

Instead, most brush off Goldwater's very correct remark. You have to make an argument that the VRA are justified in overriding these rights given to the states.

Labeling the "idea" dumb is recognition that it's beneath me to respond. Man up and admit that the original statement that you made was horse****.

Obviously not, because you've failed to address the question. Labelling an idea as stupid is more a reflection on you then the idea.

I suggest listening to different people. Specifically, people who don't insist King was a conservative.

Like the folks on Ramopedia.

Ross Perot dropped out of the race, being convinced that with a "revitalized Democratic Party," staying in the race would cause the race to be decided by the U.S House of Representatives.

Yes, because he was splitting the conservative vote allowing the democrats to run right up the middle.

The fact that you have to ignore the entirety of King's largely social-democratic policy agenda to desperately cling to the belief that King is a conservative indicates that you are terribly, terribly wrong.

Socially, he was very conservative, even if he has some economic liberal ideas. I'd say he balanced out as a conservative.

I'd assume "unnecessary" was the quote he was using. Couldn't find another reference to Goldwater in a cursory google search,

That's pretty flimsy ground.

That qualifies as a true statement. Particularly, the folks who took control of and shaped the GOP for the next few decades were opposed the bill. Like Goldwater and Reagan.

Neither Goldwater nor Reagan voted against the bill. Can you name the only Republican who voted against the VRA in the Senate?

Saying "a number" is very vague, when the vast majority of the Republicans supported the measure, and the vast majority of the opposition were southern democrats.

He didn't say that. Southern Democrats generally did become Republicans. Regardless of your fervent belief otherwise, that was the case.

Some did, some didn't.

[MrFun]

Benny, you do realize that historically in United States, the whole rheotric of "states' rights" was often used by white supremacists when they feared changes that would improve the lives of minority race members, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Where did I say it was?

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).

He supports abortion on demand, and has opposed restrictions on abortion, supports R v Wade. He has a mixed record on gay rights too.

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.

He's not a progressive. I'd have to think about that awhile, but he isn't a conservative.

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?

Both were overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats who wanted to restrict immigration on racial grounds to preserve the balance in the US.

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

I don't know. You ask them. You seem to equate racism = conservativism and Christianity = conservativism, therefore racism = Christianity.

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.

Define expansion = increasing overall troop counts. Cambodia did not increase troop counts. Ergo, bombing Cambodia did not expand the Vietnam war.

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

I asserted that the majority of violent protests are from liberals, which does not mean all liberal protests are violent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Benny, you do realize that historically in United States, the whole rheotric of "states' rights" was often used by white supremacists when they feared changes that would improve the lives of minority race members, right?

So that means all the confederates were racist?

[DaShi]

Yup, that's sound logic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Da Shi, that's my point. Just because people use a good argument for bad ends doesn't mean that states rights are a necessary argument in favour of racial inequality. States rights are neutral to the argument.

Now, my argument is that the fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be abrogated by state lines, and are thus not in the realms of the decision making of the states. A person is the same person whether he is in Tennessee or Kentucky. This is why the Voting Registration Act was a legitimate restriction of the rights of each state to decide for their own electorate. If the franchise is extended to every able bodied member, then this should not change from state to state, as it is a recognition of personhood.

A good question from Mr. Fun would ask this one: why did those who were racist use states rights to defend their argument? Then we might move further along into productive territory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where did I say it was?

When you responded to me saying "Southern Democrats" were conservative to "Robert Byrd was a conservative?".

Don't you even read your OWN posts? I know you don't read anyone else's.

He supports abortion on demand, and has opposed restrictions on abortion, supports R v Wade. He has a mixed record on gay rights too.

He's not a progressive. I'd have to think about that awhile, but he isn't a conservative.

Can't call him a liberal either, can you?

Both were overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats who wanted to restrict immigration on racial grounds to preserve the balance in the US.

Now here is the interesting thing. In 1921, 1924, and 1927, the Congress was run by Republicans, in both chambers. Let me break it down.

1921 (67th Congress)

Senate
Democratic (D): 37
Republican (R): 59 (majority)

House
Democratic (D): 131
Republican (R): 302 (majority)
Independent Republican (IR): 1
Socialist (S): 1


1924 (68th Congress)

Senate
Democratic (D): 42
Republican (R): 53 (majority)
Farmer-Labor (FL): 1

House
Democratic (D): 207
Republican (R): 225 (majority)
Farmer-Labor (FL): 2
Socialist (S): 1

1927 (70th Congress)

Senate
Democratic (D): 46
Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Farmer-Labor (FL): 1
vacant: 1

House
Democratic (D): 194
Republican (R): 238 (majority)
Farmer-Labor (FL): 2
Socialist (S): 1

And, of course, Republican Presidents all of these years (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover). Yet, only you would try to blame the anti-immigration laws and quotas on Democrats. Even if all the Democrats voted for them... they would have failed. Sorry, Republicans HAD to back them in order for them to go through.

I don't know. You ask them. You seem to equate racism = conservativism and Christianity = conservativism, therefore racism = Christianity.

Here we come to you don't read others' posts part. Didn't I say, many, many times that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a CHRISTIAN socialists? I know you want to try to put those words in my mouth, but they just won't fit there.

Define expansion = increasing overall troop counts. Cambodia did not increase troop counts. Ergo, bombing Cambodia did not expand the Vietnam war.

Why should I define "expansion" as that? Expansion means make bigger... that can be through more troops, or expanding the theater of the war.

This is quite easy here. Like, I said... brain dead. This is on part with Holocaust Denial now.

I asserted that the majority of violent protests are from liberals, which does not mean all liberal protests are violent.

Actually you didn't really. You said:

Socialism has no qualms about violent demonstrations to further the cause.

Which seems to indicate that you believe socialist protests are inherently violent. You make no distinctions between socialists who may use violence and those who abhor it.

You also fail to acknowledge all the counter protests to the civil rights movement, which, of course, involved killing those who agitated for equality. And the KKK liked to have violent demonstrations as well.