Poly is making me right wing

[MrFun]

Originally posted by 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.

Of course, sometimes "states' rights" arguments can be opposite of what I mentioned - they can be used toward positive ends.

But the Lost Cause mythology of American Civil War would have people believe that Southern states seceded purely on principle of states' rights while ignoring the evil ends Southern states wanted to achieve with "states' rights."

[MOBIUS]

Ben, WTF?

You lost when I even bothered reading your posts (er, page 1, I think) and I know you're losing now even though I'm not reading them.

Why are you making yourself look like even more of a mug with each extra post you write?

You can certainly stop as far as I'm concerned, because I ceased to be entertained by your idiocy long ago...

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Two steps.

You said two things:

"Southern Democrats were the only democrats who voted against the Voters Rights Act"

"Southern Democrats are really conservatives"

Hence my point of bringing up Byrd who was neither a Southern Democrat or conservative. I get two for one.

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

Progressive no, statist, yes.

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.

Do you have any roll calls? I can't find any online.

The first is the Emergency Quota Act which passed in 1921, after being presented many times during the Wilson administration. Coolidge tried to veto but it had a veto proof majority.

Yes, that means many republicans voted for the act, but the core of it's support were the democrats at the time.

It's misleading to say that once the republicans got in the bill came out of thin air.

Yet, only you would try to blame the anti-immigration laws and quotas on Democrats.

When it was sponsored by the Democrats, yes I do.

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.

Then we go back to the question I asked, which you refused to answer why Christians would be racist, since clearly Dr. King was one. You replied with a snarky question rather then answer an inconvenient question.

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

So why don't we debate over that rather then insulting. As I argued earlier, spreading peanut butter thinner isn't the same as adding on more peanut butter.

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.

I said they have 'no qualms' with the use of violence in demonstrations. Is there anything factually incorrect about that statement? Sure they can have peaceful ones, but socialists in particular don't have a problem with violent protests to acheive their ends.

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.

I agree. However, their Grand Wizard wasn't a conservative so why should we assume their opponents weren't?

[Ramo]

Do you have any roll calls? I can't find any online.

The first is the Emergency Quota Act which passed in 1921, after being presented many times during the Wilson administration. Coolidge tried to veto but it had a veto proof majority.

Yes, that means many republicans voted for the act, but the core of it's support were the democrats at the time.

If you don't have the roll call, why are you making this bald assertion?

We can very easily think this through. As Imran pointed out, the composition of Congress at the time looked like this:
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

The number that it takes to override a veto in the House is 290. Even if you assume that every 131 House Democrat voted for the legislation (which, again, is a bald assertion), the only way you get to a veto proof majority is if 159 House Republicans supported it as well. So, by definition, the legislation had considerably greater support among House Republicans than Democrats.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, beyond the fancy math called "multiplication" and "subtraction," we can apply a little bit of historical knowledge to this problem. The four non-Protestants who have secured one of the two major party nominations are Kerry (Catholic), Dukakis (Greek Orthodox), JFK (Catholic), and Smith (Catholic). Kerry can be ignored because nowadays a Catholic can secure either party nomination. But a Catholic did get the Democratic nomination in 1928 (Smith). So what does that tell you? Well, immigrants, specifically, the Immigrants who have customs and beliefs that are not representative of the majority have tended to be Democrats.

A little historical familiarity with America would tell you that immigrants have always been a huge Democratic constituency (specifically, in the North). In fact, the GOP was formed from a coalition of other parties including the anti-immigrant "Know Nothings." And the guy who started to liberalize immigration, JFK, obviously was a Democrat. To this day, the places with the highest rates of immigration, i.e. NY and CA, tend to be Dems, or at least are making states more Democratic. And of course, the Democratic Party is much more supportive of immigrant rights than Republicans to this day. And you can look at modern roll calls over immigration reform votes to figure this out.

I guess this is a long way of telling you that you're full of crap when you say things like this. Because you don't know anything about American politics. So please stop it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two steps.

You said two things:

"Southern Democrats were the only democrats who voted against the Voters Rights Act"

"Southern Democrats are really conservatives"

Hence my point of bringing up Byrd who was neither a Southern Democrat or conservative. I get two for one.

I've gone through this thread now and I can't find an instance of either Ramo or myself saying the first "quote". We've said that the vast majority of Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 were Southern Democrats. I don't think I've ever spoken about the Voters Rights Act here.

So... do you have a point? And can you find the first quote for me?

Progressive no, statist, yes.

Which means who could be on either side of the aisle, being a statist and all.

The first is the Emergency Quota Act which passed in 1921, after being presented many times during the Wilson administration. Coolidge tried to veto but it had a veto proof majority.

Yes, that means many republicans voted for the act, but the core of it's support were the democrats at the time.

How in the world do you get that means the core of its support were the Democrats at the time? If during the Wilson era (and President Wilson was, of course, a virulent racist) it was presented, but did not go through, but when there was a Republican majority and a Republican President, it sailed through, and with a veto proof majority? I could easily say that seems to me then that the core of its support were Republicans and a number of a Democrats came along with. Though it'd be silly to say that as well as the other because it sailed through! The vote was 78-1 in the Senate!

It's misleading to say that once the republicans got in the bill came out of thin air.

I never said that. But it is also misleading to blame it entirely, or even mostly, on the Democrats.

When it was sponsored by the Democrats, yes I do.

Who were the sponsors? Because I do know that the main architects of Immigration Act of 1924 were Congressmen Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed, two REPUBLICANS.

Then we go back to the question I asked, which you refused to answer why Christians would be racist, since clearly Dr. King was one. You replied with a snarky question rather then answer an inconvenient question.

You can't possibly be this dense. Do you really consider all Christians to hold exactly the same beliefs in all political issues? If so, then I guess you must be a liberal, since John Miller is.

So why don't we debate over that rather then insulting. As I argued earlier, spreading peanut butter thinner isn't the same as adding on more peanut butter.

Because you can't face facts. Because you are consumed by your need to demonize your enemy. I wasn't dealing in hyperboles, btw. I do find you to be as distasteful as Holocaust Deniers.

I said they have 'no qualms' with the use of violence in demonstrations. Is there anything factually incorrect about that statement?

Yes, loads. Ask socialists who are dedicated to peaceful solutions if they have "no qualms" about the use of violence in demostrations.

I agree. However, their Grand Wizard wasn't a conservative so why should we assume their opponents weren't?

Which Grand Wizard are you talking about? Or are you completely confused again?

[chequita guevara]

It should be pointed out that the early 20th Century GOP and Democratic Parties more or less reversed positions in the last century, or at least significant wings of them switched. Dixiecrats went to the GOP and progressives went to the Democrats.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I said they have 'no qualms' with the use of violence in demonstrations. Is there anything factually incorrect about that statement? Sure they can have peaceful ones, but socialists in particular don't have a problem with violent protests to acheive their ends.

Socialists have lots of qualms about using violence in demonstrations. We're opposed to it for the very simple fact that the state nearly always wins once violence is brought into the picture. We defend the right of people to defend themselves by any means necessary, but that's different from having "'no qualms' with the use of violence" in our demonstrations. The vast majority of the time, when there is violence at a demonstration, it was started by the state or by right-wing or hired thugs. We're the ones who always get blamed, even when the video clearly shows that we were attacked.

Case in point, the minor riot I was involved in last year. Despite video footage of our just standing there and our running away when attacked, print media in Miami coverage of the event all refused to state that it was the right-wingers who started the violence and were the only ones being violent. The media kept trying to portray it as a fight between two groups and that we had deliberately provoked it.

[Ramo]

Looking up the 1921 Emergency Quota Act (aka Johnson Quota Act), its sponsor appears to be the same Albert Johnson who was involved in the 1924 legislation. As Imran pointed out, A Republican.