Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laughable post. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.
-Back in the 60's Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination.
-They opposed the sexual revolution of the late 60's.
-They think Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. Separation of church and state means nothing to your typical right-winger.
-They opposed (and still do) Roe v Wade. Personal freedoms do not apply to women and their own bodies.
-Their current campaign against gay rights is 100% at odds with America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights.
- The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses. The little people? Screw 'em.
Right-wing conservatism is as anti-freedom as it gets.
Laughable yourself. Goldwater and other conservatives opposed laws banning discrimination on grounds of freedom of association, as many libertarians do to this day. While I still support the CRA of 1964, I also can comprehend the legitimacy of the freedom of association argument. Just consider the contradictory nature of your language. You're arguing that 'federal laws banning....' amounted to an increase in personal liberty.
Many opposed the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) for example. But there was little to no effort by anyone to legislate against it. Show me where there was.
Give an example of conservatives attempting to "incorporate into law" Christian beliefs about sexuality. I'm not seeing it (and I am not a Christian. What I'm seeing here in the Seattle area is liberal Democrats continually using the power of government to enforce their beliefs about sexual morality.
Liberals cannot resist prodding into every nook and cranny of the life of the individual. They want to tell us what to eat, smoke, drink, and with whom to have sex. Most of all they want to dictate how the money we earn is to be spent.
Yes. As a matter of fact he has. As have you, in this very thread.
Okay then, let's hear all about it. Since you brought up that this President is "race baiting", and has "racially based policies", I would very much like you to give me some specific examples.
Okay then, let's hear all about it. Since you brought up that this President is "race baiting", and has "racially based policies", I would very much like you to give me some specific examples.
Well, do you ever notice how he walks around with that black skin of his? Clearly race baiting!
Okay then, let's hear all about it. Since you brought up that this President is "race baiting", and has "racially based policies", I would very much like you to give me some specific examples.
Can you do that? I would appreciate it, thanks.
I think many rightwingers here equate any mention of race with "race-baiting." In their minds even attempting to have a discussion about race is equal to "pulling the race card." And as we have seen from the various well documented incidences over the last few years, it is a discussion we need to have. But if you attempt to do so you are labeled as a race-baiter. It's how they control the debate to ensure that there is no discussion about it, at least not in any productive way.
Okay then, let's hear all about it. Since you brought up that this President is "race baiting", and has "racially based policies", I would very much like you to give me some specific examples.
Can you do that? I would appreciate it, thanks.
His administration filed an amicus brief in University of Texas v Fisher in favor of racial discrimination in university admissions. He engaged in some serious race-baiting with this DOJ Ferguson, MO report, claiming that the police there are waging some war of oppression against black people, with no evidence to back that up. His speech in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial was, again, race-baiting.
And there's this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/ny...anted=all&_r=0
And this: Holder, Duncan announce national guidelines on school discipline - The Washington Post
Why do you comment on national political issues if you don't know anything about it?
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
They will conclude that the current resident of 1600 was indeed an unqualified moron.....and it won't take 50 years.
I think many rightwingers here equate any mention of race with "race-baiting." In their minds even attempting to have a discussion about race is equal to "pulling the race card." And as we have seen from the various well documented incidences over the last few years, it is a discussion we need to have. But if you attempt to do so you are labeled as a race-baiter. It's how they control the debate to ensure that there is no discussion about it, at least not in any productive way.
All right, what does this race discussion that "we" need to have consist of? That white people are the cause of all of the problems in the world and are a plague upon poor black people? That there were once slavery and Jim Crow laws in this country? How is this something that "we" haven't all heard about 1,233,399 times?
You know what you did You started off with Rush Limbaugh then pivoted to the unnamed anonymous "conservatives"
Rush Limbaugh traffics in the same insane racist nonsense about President Obama as do many, many elected conservative officials as well as the majority of rank and file conservatives.
Laughable post. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.
-Back in the 60's Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination.
Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights acts was the diminution of personal liberty, not an expansion of it. At the time he saw private business owners being told what they could and could not do with their businesses and who they had to hire. He voted for two previous civil rights acts but that that the 1964 act went too far with Title II (public accommodations) and Title VII (fair employment). He could not see any constitutional grounds for the government delving in those areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
-They opposed the sexual revolution of the late 60's.
Yeah, that has worked out well...... seen the children in poverty by household numbers?
-They think Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. Separation of church and state means nothing to your typical right-winger.
Can you show me the recent votes for laws against unlawful carnal knowledge, laws banning divorce, laws to recriminalize adultery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
-They opposed (and still do) Roe v Wade. Personal freedoms do not apply to women and their own bodies.
The woman can do what ever she wants to her own body. She should not be allowed to violate the personal freedom of the person inside her. A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. Who is more helpless than an unborn baby?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
-Their current campaign against gay rights is 100% at odds with America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights.
Yeah, that would not be true. I believe every colony/state had laws against sodomy/homosexuality.
- The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses. The little people? Screw 'em.
It is odd that you consider forcing someone to join a union is an expansion of personal liberty.
Or to tell an individual how much they can sell their labor for is an expansion of personal liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Right-wing conservatism is as anti-freedom as it gets.
left-wing liberalism is as anti-freedom as it gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
I disagree and I explained why I disagree. The opposition to President Obama is mostly racially motivated. This is why the opponents play up his radical upbringing, his lack of love for America, his otherness, his not being a US citizen, that he is a radical muslim, palling around with terrorists, who hates America, etc. This is why his opponents view every action President Obama takes as seeking to destroy America.
How is Obama's radical upbringing racist? I'd oppose any doctrinaire Marxist.
How is Obama's lack of love for America racist? I'd oppose anyone who poohpoohed American exceptionalism, who went on a world wide apology tour, who so badly alienated so many fellow Americans.
I never believed he was born anyplace other than HI so I can't help you on that one and even though I know he is not a Muslim he sure goes out of his way to NOT criticize Muslims, even when they cut off the heads of Christians and goes OUT of his way to criticize Christians. But that isn't racist either.
[quote=Iamme73;39388497]Yes, its very obvious. I remember republicans and conservatives didn't like Bill Clinton and they made some outrageously insane complaints about him.
They associated him with liberalism and lax morals, of smoking dope, etc, but they never questioned whether he was American, they never said he was some kind of secret radical {he was an open radical}, socialist {pretty sure we did that too}, sent here to destroy America. They didn't say Bill Clinton didn't love America {kind of did}, they didn't say he was a muslim {okay, got me on that one}. They didn't say he supported terrorists. They didn't portray Bill Clinton as the other. {but accuse him of selling pardons, thank you Eric Holder}
If you'd like all the things we accused Bill Clinton of (and a lot of which he did) go research Lippo Group, Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Riady, John Huang, BCCI...... start there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
That stuff is 100% motivated by racism.
Think I have proved pretty conclusively that a) Democrats are scumbags and b) it has nothing to do with race.
I doubt you are even old enough to remember the Clinton years well and not the Reagan or Nixon years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You started off with Rush Limbaugh then pivoted to the unnamed anonymous "conservatives"
