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.
Oh I get it. Back then, when democrats were racist, they were actually republican. And, back then, when republicans were pro-union, they were actually democrats?
"Fiction can be fun!!" - Ace Ventura
The thread is about conservatism vs liberalism. You seem completely lost here, brother!
It's rather important not to confuse the Republican/Democrat dichotomies of the past with the liberal/conservative divide.
It's funny how clever little words like "dichotomy" seemingly give the green light to perceive a situation as whatever is convenient or fitting to your narrative.
The FACT is, nobody in this country is any different than anyone else. On any particular day, time, place, or situation, if you take political buzzwords and topics aside, people will, by and large, always come to similar conclusions.
Pro-religion/anti-religion clearly being the wild-card factor.
Oh I get it. Back then, when democrats were racist, they were actually republican. And, back then, when republicans were pro-union, they were actually democrats?
"Fiction can be fun!!" - Ace Ventura
Where was the democratic stronghold pre civil rights? In the south. Where's the republican stronghold now? In the South. If you're suggesting that the culture of the south went through a HUGE 180 degree transformation in 40 years, you're an idiot. Both PARTIES changed--not the people. People sign on to support the party that represents their values at any given time.
Where was the democratic stronghold pre civil rights? In the south. Where's the republican stronghold now? In the South. If you're suggesting that the culture of the south went through a HUGE 180 degree transformation in 40 years, you're an idiot. Both PARTIES changed--not the people. People sign on to support the party that represents their values at any given time.
It's funny how clever little words like "dichotomy" seemingly give the green light to perceive a situation as whatever is convenient or fitting to your narrative.
The FACT is, nobody in this country is any different than anyone else. On any particular day, time, place, or situation, if you take political buzzwords and topics aside, people will, by and large, always come to similar conclusions.
Pro-religion/anti-religion clearly being the wild-card factor.
I don't really understand how you can describe it as a wild card though. For many people, religion provides a moral compass that is stringently adhered to. It all but guarantees how 20-30% of this country votes. Wild card?
Edit: I re-read & see what you mean, and agree. But I think you're understating how divisive the political labels can be. Sure they're illusory, but to what extent, if seemingly everyone thinks they're real?
I don't really understand how you can describe it as a wild card though. For many people, religion provides a moral compass that is stringently adhered to. It all but guarantees how 20-30% of this country votes. Wild card?
Wild card = bias
Pro-religion people tend to draw conclusions based upon the teachings of the institution itself without considering their own personal moral compass
Anti-religion people tend to draw a contradictory conclusion to any religious narrative, without considering their own personal moral compass
In other words, it's a clear imbedded bias that even transcends politics, but my point stands. 99% of political, social, and economic issues in this country affect everyone the same, but that is not how people think.
I didn't miss your point--the point you made was dumb, and I explained how you were wrong.
No, I get it. You seem to think that I have my head up my ass for implying that conservative is synonymous with republican and progressive is synonymous with democrat.
I'm curious why this board has such a hard time differentiating between social conservatism/liberalism and political parties.
The OP asks about "social conservatives" and the rabid posters start making gotcha comments about Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats in the south used to be socially conservative, btw. Many could switch parties at will, if it meant getting on a less crowded ticket or raising more money with little fear of repercussion from voters.
I think you raise an interesting point, but part of the problem is that social conservatism isn't really conservative, in the sense that it's become all about big intrusive government. Another part of the problem is that the parties have become so polarized, and identified with the labels of conservative or liberal, that they've kind of lost all meaning. It's a "if it's democratic, it's got to be liberal, and if it's republican it's got to be conservative" thing, even when the roles are actually reversed in some instances. It makes zero sense.
No, I get it. You seem to think that I have my head up my ass for implying that conservative is synonymous with republican and progressive is synonymous with democrat.
Bla bla. I get it. How dare I think that.
Now go get your foodstamps.
ooooh. Can't make a point so you throw an insult instead. Classy. I'd change that to HISTORICALLY synonymous...
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.
Classy. I'd change that to HISTORICALLY synonymous...
