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 10-08-2013, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 9,586,346 times
Reputation: 2532

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Ah yes, the circle is almost complete. The Dems began as the party of slave owners, and unless things change they will once again be the party of slaveholders. Ironic, isnt it?
Great post the left wing nut jobs are enslaving the poor
Rate this post positively

 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,038 posts, read 32,560,789 times
Reputation: 7855
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Great post the left wing nut jobs are enslaving the poor
Ah yes, if only the left would agree to end all the safety nets so that the working poor can fall even deeper into poverty.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:10 AM
 
42,727 posts, read 27,416,300 times
Reputation: 14312
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Amazing, isnt it? Maybe the problem is that your critics are the product of liberal controlled public schools, and cant read at all.
Amazing.

Political parties aren't static. They change and evolve. The Democratic party TODAY is the left-leaning party. The Republican party TODAY is the right-leaning party. The Tea Party contingent of the Republican party is FAR-right leaning.

Right-leaning is conservatism and nationalism.

Left-leaning is liberalism and progressiveness.

In the 1860's, the BRAND-NEW Republican Party was left-leaning and progressive and Northern. Exclusively Northern. There were no Republican Party candidates in the South at all. Not for local politics, not for state politics, not for national politics. Abraham Lincoln's name did not appear on any Southern ballots for President. It's important to note this, because the political parties at that time were REGIONAL, not NATIONAL parties. Abraham Lincoln's election represented the FIRST election where one part of the country controlled the Presidency and the federal government. Republicans at that time represented the urban areas of the nation.

The parties have essentially switched places on the political spectrum. Democrats now represent the more urban areas of the nation, which tend to be left-leaning, liberal and progressive. Republicans now represent the more rural areas of the nation, which tend to be right-leaning, conservative, and nationalistic.

Minorities have always tended to gravitate to the more urban areas of the country, for jobs and housing. Therefore they gravitate to whichever party represents the more urban perspective. Nowadays that's Democrats. 150 years ago that was Republicans.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,700 posts, read 4,525,120 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by curly_Q View Post
Would you also acknowledge that liberal tenured university professors, as one example, often struggle themselves with moving into the future? They sometimes fear and obstruct online education and technology in favor of bricks and mortar schools, and demand costly low return-on-investment liberal arts general education requirements for even the poorest and financially strained students?
Really? You think Conservatives are leading the push for MORE spending on bringing technology to the classroom? Yeah, there are stubborn liberal professors, but they're usually butting their heads against progressive liberal professors.

Quote:
Would you also acknowledge that labor unions have a way of shifting the burden to younger workers to support those who have more seniority, last hired first fired, regardless of performance? And those unions pensions will be straining younger generations.
Yes. What's your point? Would you acknowledge that the main opposition to the progress of workers rights -- safety standards, 40-hour work week, labor laws, etc -- were Conservatives?

Quote:
Would you also acknowledge that teachers unions are struggling with the demand from younger people to have charter schools and vouchers? Education reform is older and unionized teachers struggling against progress from younger teachers who don't favor unions and who expect better quality inner city schools.
Really? Inner city students are clamoring for vouchers? Young teachers are opposed to teacher unions?

Quote:
Would you also acknowledge that often civil rights leaders still live in the past, and when they file frivolous discrimination lawsuits against entire cities and school districts, they take money away from the poor minority children who live in those cities? And they ignore black-on-black crime to focus on incidents like the one with George Zimmerman?
Civil Rights leaders ignore black-on-black crime? Have you ever looked into what [fill in whatever Civil Rights leader you want] has said about black-on-black crime? I'm pretty sure you haven't b/c if you did you'd understand how blatantly ignorant & uninformed your point was.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,700 posts, read 4,525,120 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000 View Post
Freeing the slaves is a kind of a big one to miss! Lincoln was a Republican, Republicans freed the slaves.

Don't forget the Republican Party itself was actually a marriage of the Whigs & the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic party who broke away from the Democratic pro-slavery platform.

You also missed being against the KKK. Yes the KKK was founded during the Reconstruction as a backlash. They were essentially insurgents against the Republican led Union/North. They went around killing Blacks & White Republicans. Wanna guess what party these White Southerners supported?

I've never voted Republican in my life, but the OP & your posts are ignorant.
I've asked this before, and there's always a whole lot of silence: Were Lincoln's Republicans the Conservatives or Liberals of their time?

Were the Reconstruction-era Democrats the Conservatives or the Liberals of their time.

I don't really expect you to answer b/c like the rest of your ilk, this little fact is too much to deal with, you'll just end up leaving the conversation all together. It's really no loss considering this was your contribution.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Location: St Paul
7,712 posts, read 4,216,564 times
Reputation: 4992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
When are you people going to figure out the difference between Right/Left and Democrat/Republican? You are the ignorant one. Republicans used to be progressive/liberal (along with Northern Democrats). Southern Democrats were the anti-Civil Rights conservatives who later defected to the Republican party.
So now party doesn't matter? All the crap the Democrats are responsible for can just be shrugged off as "those were actually right wingers"? That's a nice trick!

Today I suppose it's the right wingers in the Democratic party who've attacked 7 countries that posed no threat to us, maced/batoned anti-corporate protesters, rounded-up/incarcerated war protesters, are strip searching our children/elderly at our airports, set the Marijuana cause back 20 years, gave more Governing power to Wall St than any administration in US history, developed a secret "kill list" of US Citizens to kill without due process, Ok'd a comprehensive domestic spying program against the the citizenry, sold guns to the Mexican cartels, allowed BP to spill oil into the Gulf in exchange for campaign money & has openly discussed ending/taxing free speech. I get it now, it's not the Democrats at all who're behind this, it's "right wingers" within the party...priceless.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:37 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,080,841 times
Reputation: 4165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81 View Post
ok. whatever.
Whatever.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:39 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 1,709,627 times
Reputation: 844
Because their conservative social and religious views force progress to take a backseat to tradition.

It doesnt matter if the conservatives were/are called democrats, republicans, or whigs.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:41 AM
 
Location: St Paul
7,712 posts, read 4,216,564 times
Reputation: 4992
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
I've asked this before, and there's always a whole lot of silence: Were Lincoln's Republicans the Conservatives or Liberals of their time?

Were the Reconstruction-era Democrats the Conservatives or the Liberals of their time.

I don't really expect you to answer b/c like the rest of your ilk, this little fact is too much to deal with, you'll just end up leaving the conversation all together. It's really no loss considering this was your contribution.
You're talking in circles, what does this even mean? The Republicans were formed by the anti-slavery Democrats who broke away & joined the Whigs to create the Republican party. Who does that leave in the Democratic party if the anti-slavery wing left?

I get it though, you win or you win because you change the rules depending. When the Republicans do something stupid it's because they're Republicans & their party is bad. When the Democrats do something stupid it's because of "right wingers", who're actually Republicans within the Democratic party & that is no reflection on the Democrats. Nice trick, but it's just that, a trick.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-08-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Plymouth Meeting, PA.
4,967 posts, read 2,594,820 times
Reputation: 2517
so what? Just because you sheep go with popular opinion doesn't mean that its always the right thing.
Learn to think for yourselves.


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
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 10:17 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