U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:48 PM
 
61,831 posts, read 52,978,645 times
Reputation: 18640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
One word: Solvency. That's my problem with any program this government puts together.

What's your plan for affording all these Big Government Programs? Seeing that we're $16 Trillion in debt, i'd assume you have a plan in mind, right?
What does any of this have to do with workers rights, womens rights, and civil rights? That is mainly what the OP is talking about.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:51 PM
 
61,831 posts, read 52,978,645 times
Reputation: 18640
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0618 View Post
You do realize it was southern dems who were against civil rights and it was the partyof lincoln (reps) who was against slavery.
You do realize that there has been a switch since then. The southern Democrats were basically right-wingers by today's standards. They joined the Republican Party in the 1970s. The Republican Party of Lincoln's time is not the same Republican Party as today. That argument is a straw man argument.

Furthermore, you do realize that Lincoln wanted Black slaves deported from the USA and sent to Central America. Am I saying that the Democrats of that day were any better? No. I'm saying the argument being presented is rather fallacious.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:53 PM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,148 posts, read 23,679,129 times
Reputation: 23390
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81 View Post
This thought occurred to me as I was listening to NPR on the way to work. I mean, from workers' rights, women's rights, in the early 20th century, to Social Security, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, and now the Affordable Care Act, it seems like they always lose the battles over their implementation. And then they also lose in the court of public opinion. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Any thoughts on why the right never seems to win in the end?

For reference, this is the story I heard on Morning Edition: NPR Media Player
Social Security is supposed to be bankrupting the country.
Blacks and women were the votes that got Obama elected.
Medicare sucks.
The ACA is probably going to be the final nail on our country's coffin.
Women won the right to murder their offspring.

If everybody is free to take care of themselves; why are we being asked to do it for them?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:54 PM
 
61,831 posts, read 52,978,645 times
Reputation: 18640
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Why are lefties actions always unconstitutional?

Why are their policies always based on coercion?
Why is the question being answered by more questions, instead of just a straight answer?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,881,434 times
Reputation: 3389
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
Who left our men to die in Benghazi?

Who let guns way into mexico and the cartel only to be used to murder American law enforment officers like Brian Terry?

Also the dems were again civil rights, they blocked the same bill back in 1957, 1959, and 1960...so yeah wrong again..
The Democrats were on the right at the time... This thread isn't about a political party, it's about left vs right.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 08:58 PM
 
61,831 posts, read 52,978,645 times
Reputation: 18640
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
Social Security is supposed to be bankrupting the country.
Blacks and women were the votes that got Obama elected.
Medicare sucks.
The ACA is probably going to be the final nail on our country's coffin.
Women won the right to murder their offspring.

If everybody is free to take care of themselves; why are we being asked to do it for them?
Let's just call this what it is. Everyone is looking out for their own best interests. Blacks and women look out for their best interest, because historically, they have caught alot of crap. Now the abortion, I'm not for that. But aside from that, this is what I see. As of late, Democrats aren't much help, and the Republican Party has pretty much shown me I can't trust it.

And who are you referring to when you say "we"?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,121,619 times
Reputation: 1072

No. You knock me out.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:01 PM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,148 posts, read 23,679,129 times
Reputation: 23390
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Let's just call this what it is. Everyone is looking out for their own best interests. Blacks and women look out for their best interest, because historically, they have caught alot of crap. Now the abortion, I'm not for that. But aside from that, this is what I see. As of late, Democrats aren't much help, and the Republican Party has pretty much shown me I can't trust it.

And who are you referring to when you say "we"?
Taxpayers. Responsible people who are part of the solution instead of the problem. We live conservative lives, send money to charities and are blasted by the people we are helping who have no appreciation for our sacrifices.

I heard a speaker yesterday tell about feeding the hungry for five years and going on to another job. When he told the group he had been feeding he was leaving their reaction was nothing and some had been there the entire five years.

Our co-workers sponsored a family one Christmas and many gave more than they could afford to do it. We chose a wonderful person to take the presents to the lady and her child. She came back in tears because the woman was so rude to her. Most of us would have been happy to get what we gave her and her child. No appreciation.

I think the moral to this is that we only appreciate what we earn. Throwing money at something is not going to fix anything. Giving people things they don't earn will amount to nothing. And charging taxes to a person that needs the money and giving it to others is wrong.

Last edited by NCN; 10-07-2013 at 09:23 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:03 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,188,742 times
Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
Why does the Left lie about the Republican party being on the wrong side of history?

The Republican party Abolished slavery

The Republican party Pass the 1964 Civil rights Act, which was passed on a similar bill they tried to pass in 1960 and 3 years before in 1957.

Mean while the left wants to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, reward illegal immigrates which amnesty and the ability to vote(I wonder which party they will choose), and paint anyone who stands in their way as "Racist" "Nazis" or "Domestic Terrorist"

Why does the Left lie about History, their will, and their intent? is it because no sane person would vote for them?(but then again that might be we they are importing 30,000,000 million illegals on top of 1.2,000,000 legal immigrated, to "Cast ballots Americans just are not willing to cast")

What is your take on this..
My take on this is that you have it backwards. It's the right that lies about Democrats being on the wrong side of history

The 13th amendment was 148 years ago and that's the only one you have right.

As for the 1964 Civil Rights act that was passed by a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and signed by a Democratic President. It was in fact supported by both sides and both sides voted for it. The claim that Republicans supported the 1964 CRA and the Democrats opposed it is a lie. There was a division on the vote but is wasn't on party lines it was on regional lines. The north voted for it and the south voted against it, in both cases by huge margins, about 90% or so. Also worth nothing is that if you look at the vote factoring in the north south division you find that in both cases the Democrats voted for it by a higher percentage. A higher percentage of northern Democrats voted for it and a higher percentage of southern Democrats voted for it. Also interesting here is that 1964 was a Presidential election year. The nominees were chosen after the vote for the 1964 CRA and the Republicans chose a man who not only voted against it but he also voted against the filibuster. The Democrats on the other hand chose the man who had signed the 1964 Civil Rights act. Another person who voted against the CRA was Strom Thurmond and it wasn't the Democrats who swooned over him at his 100th birthday. It also wasn't a Democrat who gushed about how swell it would have been if he had been elected President in 1948 when he ran on the segregation ticket.

Then there's the con lie about the history of woman's right to vote. One con lie there is that in 1878 Senator A.A. Sargent, a Republican, introduced a measure in the Senate to give women the right to vote. That part is true. The lie comes with the con claim that it was the Democrats who killed it. It wasn't the Democrats who killed it in 1878 it was the Republicans. In 1878 the Senate was controlled by the Republicans and Senator Sargent's measure never made it out of the Republican controlled Senate Committee on Elections and Privileges. The standard con story about woman's right to vote is that the measure came up four more times and was killed by the Democrats each time. That's only half true, the fact is it was killed by a Democratic Congress twice and a Republican Congress twice. But probably the craziest con lie is the one that for the 40 years between 1878 and the passage of the 19 amendment (41 really) the Congress was dominated by the Democrats. It was the Republicans who dominated the Congress during those 40 years, and I do mean dominated. For half of those 40 years the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, including 10 consecutive years toward the end. And when it did pass both parties voted for it
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:04 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,953 posts, read 4,823,243 times
Reputation: 1717
The problem in America, as I see it, is that we went from voting for the party (and the candidate) that we believe in, to voting for the candidate that represents the lesser of two evils, to the candidate that we feel won't screw up as badly as the other one.

I don't think the founding fathers, or even the Greeks, thought democracy should work this way.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top