• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary[W:101]

Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

States rights? Don't hesitate to jump in PK.

Well, not just states rights but unfair tariffs on the south. (Morrill Tariff for example)
I would jump in, but not in this thread as it will COMPLETELY derail this one.
I stand by my statement. It wasn't about keeping/abolishing slavery, though.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Well, not just states rights but unfair tariffs on the south. (Morrill Tariff for example)
I would jump in, but not in this thread as it will COMPLETELY derail this one.
I stand by my statement. It wasn't about keeping/abolishing slavery, though.

Certainly there were other factors but this debate from Captain Courtesy seems to be that the South wasn't controlled by the Democrats who were pro slavery and the Republicans of the North who were anti slavery. Instead he is more keen to assign them other names.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Certainly there were other factors but this debate from Captain Courtesy seems to be that the South wasn't controlled by the Democrats who were pro slavery and the Republicans of the North who were anti slavery. Instead he is more keen to assign them other names.

I'm staying out of it until/unless it becomes about reasons/causes/purposes for the war and tactics involved. :)
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

I'd just like to say that the war wasn't begun or fought to preserve or end slavery.

I am aware of that. I was just responding to Grant's line of discussion.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Right. That is, as I have been saying, the issue. The Democrat controlled South, with their racist policies, fought the Republican controlled North, with their policies of human rights and freedoms. History is very clear on this.

What history is clear about is that it was a North vs. South issue. Democrats in the North mostly supported the North. Republicans in the South mostly supported the South. Partisanship was irrelevant.

It seems you are trying to squirm out of your previously held positions where it was 'sections' which were more important and the differences between Democrats and Republicans were not an issue.

No. Re-read my comments. It was sarcasm, mocking what you had said previously. Notice I used nearly the exact same words against you.

Yes, it seems i'll have to back and retrieve your quotes on the subject as your views on the subject tend to change.

No, my position has not changed... though I'm sure you wanted it to since you wanted an easier position to argue against.


No, it was not. It was a tradition among the Democrats but not the Republicans. And, as I mentioned, much of their philosophies continue to this day.

No, it was a tradition in the South. And as I mentioned, today's conservatives are the Democrats of that era.

We can discuss those issues later but, again, lets be clear that it was Democrats who opposed Black rights, not Republicans.

No, it was the South who opposed black rights... then and in the '60's. And in the 60's, Republicans were, percentage-wise, more against black rights than Democrats.

Again. It was Democrats vesrus Republicans. There is no denying that.

Again, it was South vs. North. There is no denying that.

No, it's not that complicated at all.

Seems to be to you.

No violation of human rights because of communism?? What a remarkable statement. It should be understood that Communism can only exist under a totalitarian system, and those countries who suffered under communist dictatorships were the worst places in the world in which to live.

Read what you wrote and compare it what I wrote. This demonstrates that you don't WANT to understand. You just want to be partisan and ignore anything that does not adhere to your world view. There are no human rights violations because of communism, because no true communistic government has ever existed. I said that once... and I just said it again. Do I need to ask you to repeat it so that we can both be sure that you got it? All governments that attempted to be communistic in nature turned to totalitarianism immediately. It's human nature and large scale sociology/psychology.

But when Ronald Regan, a Conservative, called Russia an 'Evil Empire', which it surely was, it was the liberals who protested the most. Anywhere people wanted to be free it was the liberals who protested that freedom, preferring that their ideologies trump basic human rights. Over 100,000,000 died and millions more had their lives ruined because of Communism but, as so often happens with the left, it wasn't the fault of the philosophy, only the methods of carrying it out. Well despite whatever flaws those Communist governments had at the time, the liberals certainly spoke up for them, freedoms and human rights be damned.

This just demonstrates your ignorance on this issue brought on by your partisanship. No lives were ruined because of communism... because communism has never truly existed as a governmental state. Totalitarianism is what it has always turned into. Please read up on history.

In fact liberals cannot define contemporary liberalism because it's all over the map. And course their take on Conservatives tends to based on what one person may have said in any particular time and that somehow defines all conservatives. No books on the subject need be read.

Conservatives only define liberalism based on what they are afraid of. Anything that frightens them, such as progress, they assign to liberalism. They also assign all of the things that they hate about themselves... bias, being reactionary, and closed-mindedness for example. It's amusing as it is sad.

It was a Democratic belief and still is. And i never said many, I said some, just as I said some Republicans may have supported slavery. But the divisions in the overall philosophies between the two parties were quite clear.

It was a Southern belief. And it is currently a Republican belief.

What 'historical revisionism'? The Democrats controlled the South at time and for over a hundred years after, while the Republicans controlled the North, where Black people were more free. That's not revision at all.

Of course it is. The issue was South vs. North. Democrats and Republicans were irrelevant. You are making a very simplistic correlation not causation logical fallacy. Simple historical revisionism based on lack of logic.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Captain Courtesy strikes again!

Notice what you did, Grant... a classic partisan hack act. Because Mr.Nick post as a conservative, you didn't comment on his idiotic post, but instead, even with my sarcastic disclaimer, you commented on mine. Just shows what I've said all along. Your posts never seem to have any kind of objectivity. You look at things through black/white glasses: conservative good, liberal bad. All cases, no exceptions. That's why you keep making errors on the situation with the Civil War. If you actually assessed the situation, you'd understand that you were absolutely wrong... as has been shown. But you have been blinded by your belief system and your posts reflect this.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Certainly there were other factors but this debate from Captain Courtesy seems to be that the South wasn't controlled by the Democrats who were pro slavery and the Republicans of the North who were anti slavery. Instead he is more keen to assign them other names.

Correlation not causation. The issue was South vs. North, states rights vs. federal rights, taxation, AND slavery. Partisanship was irrelevant.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

What history is clear about is that it was a North vs. South issue. Democrats in the North mostly supported the North. Republicans in the South mostly supported the South. Partisanship was irrelevant.
Right. With Democrats controlling the South and Republicans controlling the North. That's been well established. The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS
No. Re-read my comments. It was sarcasm, mocking what you had said previously. Notice I used nearly the exact same words against you.
Oh, I see. Leftist should avoid sarcasm, irony, etc. because it's too difficult to tell when they are being serious anyway.

No, it was a tradition in the South. And as I mentioned, today's conservatives are the Democrats of that era.
Yes, slavery and Jim Crow laws, supported by the Democrats, were a tradition in the South.

No, it was the South who opposed black rights... then and in the '60's. And in the 60's, Republicans were, percentage-wise, more against black rights than Democrats.

Yes, it was the Democratic South who opposed Black rights but you have offered no support for your contention that Republicans were against Black rights. In fact more Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

Again, it was South vs. North. There is no denying that.
Then why did you earlier call them areas or sections?

Read what you wrote and compare it what I wrote. This demonstrates that you don't WANT to understand. You just want to be partisan and ignore anything that does not adhere to your world view. There are no human rights violations because of communism, because no true communistic government has ever existed. I said that once... and I just said it again. Do I need to ask you to repeat it so that we can both be sure that you got it? All governments that attempted to be communistic in nature turned to totalitarianism immediately. It's human nature and large scale sociology/psychology.

Yes, since the Cold War ended Leftists claim it was not 'real' Communism, just a perverted form of the real Communism, but which is truly wonderful when done correctly.. However if that was the case why did Liberals (aka Useful Idiots) march for Communists and rail against Conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan, who rightly called the USSR an "Evil Empire". Leftists should have supported him and said yes, the Russians, Cubans, etc. are ruining the good name of Communism with their mass killings, gulags, etc., but they didn't. Instead they attacked the Republican President of the day, and many other conservatives, for pointing out the obvious.

This just demonstrates your ignorance on this issue brought on by your partisanship. No lives were ruined because of communism... because communism has never truly existed as a governmental state. Totalitarianism is what it has always turned into. Please read up on history.
I've actually been in a Communist country and have seen the horrors with my own eyes, and witnessed the propaganda even though our eyes told the truth. You may not want to call it Communism because it contradicts your idea of what Communism should be but in fact Communists knew what was going on behind the Iron Curtain and ignored it because they had to cling to their dream. When millions of people call themselves Communists I'll go along with their self description, not yours. Nazis say that Hitler ruined 'real' Nazism, Mussolini ruined 'real' Fascism, and so on. A pox on all their houses. People who can't even manage their own lives feel still feel they have the intellectual capacity to control the lives of millions of others.

Conservatives only define liberalism based on what they are afraid of. Anything that frightens them, such as progress, they assign to liberalism. They also assign all of the things that they hate about themselves... bias, being reactionary, and closed-mindedness for example. It's amusing as it is sad.
Then lets see examples of Republicans holding back the rights of Black people and then compare them with what the 'progressive' Democrats did.

It was a Southern belief. And it is currently a Republican belief.
It was the central issue with Democrats, and not only in the South. Did you see how well the Democrat George Wallace did? How can there be a Republican belief and not a Democrat belief?

Of course it is. The issue was South vs. North. Democrats and Republicans were irrelevant. You are making a very simplistic correlation not causation logical fallacy. Simple historical revisionism based on lack of logic.
Party philosophies over an issue like slavery are irrelevant? What about in modern times? Are the philosophies of different political parties still irrelevant as well?
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Correlation not causation. The issue was South vs. North, states rights vs. federal rights, taxation, AND slavery. Partisanship was irrelevant.

We've already determined there were other causes apart from slavery, but how can partisanship be irrelevant for any of those issues?
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Notice what you did, Grant... a classic partisan hack act. Because Mr.Nick post as a conservative, you didn't comment on his idiotic post, but instead, even with my sarcastic disclaimer, you commented on mine. Just shows what I've said all along. Your posts never seem to have any kind of objectivity. You look at things through black/white glasses: conservative good, liberal bad. All cases, no exceptions. That's why you keep making errors on the situation with the Civil War. If you actually assessed the situation, you'd understand that you were absolutely wrong... as has been shown. But you have been blinded by your belief system and your posts reflect this.

Mr.Nick said
I don't believe progressives know, or - better yet understand - the difference between a fact and a belief...

That seems quite clear, otherwise how would you explain someone like Barrack Obama getting the Presidency, or the Nobel Prize? The Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize not because he contributed to peace anywhere in the world but they simply believed that BHO would somehow mysteriously manage it, so gave it to him for this reason only. There are many such examples of misguided and foolish 'progressive' policies.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Right. With Democrats controlling the South and Republicans controlling the North. That's been well established. The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS
Correlation does not equal causation. The issue was the South.

Oh, I see. Leftist should avoid sarcasm, irony, etc. because it's too difficult to tell when they are being serious anyway.

Righties always have a difficult time detecting sarcasm. Personally, I think it's an issue with often being humorless, but that obviously depends on the individual.

Yes, slavery and Jim Crow laws, supported by the Democrats, were a tradition in the South.

Correlation does not equal causation. The South was the issue. You are going to keep running into this problem/logical fallacy. It keeps sinking your argument.

Yes, it was the Democratic South who opposed Black rights but you have offered no support for your contention that Republicans were against Black rights. In fact more Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

No, in 1964 more Democrats supported black rights both from a numbers perspective (fairly irrelevant) and a percentage perspective (completely relevant). I've posted this before, but I will again. Congressional results from voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The original House version:
• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Here are some of the important points that prove my position:

Here are some examples:

7 Southern Democratic Representatives supported the act (7%). NO Southern Republican Representatives supported it (0%).
9 Northern Democratic Representatives voted against the act (6%). 24 Northern Republican Representatives were against it (15%).

1 Southern Democratic Senator supported the act (5%). NO Southern Republican Senator supported it (0%)
1 Northern Democratic Senator voted against the act (2%). 5 Northern Republican Senators voted against it (16%)

Both the numbers and the percentages show that more Democrats than Republican supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also shows that the delineation issue was REGIONAL, not partisan.

You have been refuted.

Then why did you earlier call them areas or sections?

Because that's what "north" and "south" are.

Yes, since the Cold War ended Leftists claim it was not 'real' Communism, just a perverted form of the real Communism, but which is truly wonderful when done correctly.. However if that was the case why did Liberals (aka Useful Idiots) march for Communists and rail against Conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan, who rightly called the USSR an "Evil Empire". Leftists should have supported him and said yes, the Russians, Cubans, etc. are ruining the good name of Communism with their mass killings, gulags, etc., but they didn't. Instead they attacked the Republican President of the day, and many other conservatives, for pointing out the obvious.

Who is they? You are overgeneralizing. Just like "useful idiot" conservatives who hilariously believe that Obama is a socialist. You are talking about extremists who only know how to demonize.

I've actually been in a Communist country and have seen the horrors with my own eyes, and witnessed the propaganda even though our eyes told the truth.

No you haven't. You've been to countries run by totalitarian governments.

You may not want to call it Communism because it contradicts your idea of what Communism should be but in fact Communists knew what was going on behind the Iron Curtain and ignored it because they had to cling to their dream. When millions of people call themselves Communists I'll go along with their self description, not yours.

It ain't mine. It's the actual definition. If a group of people pervert a definition, that doesn't suddenly mean it's accurate.

Nazis say that Hitler ruined 'real' Nazism, Mussolini ruined 'real' Fascism, and so on. A pox on all their houses. People who can't even manage their own lives feel still feel they have the intellectual capacity to control the lives of millions of others.

Which is a good definition of totalitarianism, not communism.

Then lets see examples of Republicans holding back the rights of Black people and then compare them with what the 'progressive' Democrats did.

I posted numbers that show just that.

It was the central issue with Democrats, and not only in the South. Did you see how well the Democrat George Wallace did? How can there be a Republican belief and not a Democrat belief?

Thank you. You just FURTHER proved me correct. George Wallace was a Southerner.

Party philosophies over an issue like slavery are irrelevant? What about in modern times? Are the philosophies of different political parties still irrelevant as well?

Depends on the discussion.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

We've already determined there were other causes apart from slavery, but how can partisanship be irrelevant for any of those issues?

Because all of the issues that created the Civil War were based on the regional differences between the North and the South.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Mr.Nick said

That seems quite clear, otherwise how would you explain someone like Barrack Obama getting the Presidency, or the Nobel Prize? The Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize not because he contributed to peace anywhere in the world but they simply believed that BHO would somehow mysteriously manage it, so gave it to him for this reason only. There are many such examples of misguided and foolish 'progressive' policies.

And this is your opinion. Nothing more. It proves zero.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Correlation does not equal causation. The issue was the South.
Such as the climate?

Correlation does not equal causation. The South was the issue. You are going to keep running into this problem/logical fallacy. It keeps sinking your argument.

A direction was the issue, huh? And that makes sense to you.

No, in 1964 more Democrats supported black rights both from a numbers perspective (fairly irrelevant) and a percentage perspective (completely relevant). I've posted this before, but I will again. Congressional results from voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Here are the facts. Just scroll down. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both the numbers and the percentages show that more Democrats than Republican supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also shows that the delineation issue was REGIONAL, not partisan.
80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. That's a fact, Jack!
You have been refuted.
Fraid not. Just read the history.
Who is they? You are overgeneralizing. Just like "useful idiot" conservatives who hilariously believe that Obama is a socialist. You are talking about extremists who only know how to demonize.

Who is they?? Surely you should be able to tell from the context of the paragraph who 'they' is. 'They' are those who marched for the Communist and railed against Ronald Reagan for challenging the "Evil Empire". Whether or not this was the communism you might have preferred it was the Communism of the day. Despite Leftists knowing of all the evils wherever Communism was forcibly introduced they sided with it, and demonstrated against Ronald Reagan. Europe was as bad as anywhere else in the world for their anti Americanism, despite all that went on there.

No you haven't. You've been to countries run by totalitarian governments.
Yes, i know. It wasn't the 'real' communism of your dreams but it was nonetheless still being supported by leftists everywhere.

It ain't mine. It's the actual definition. If a group of people pervert a definition, that doesn't suddenly mean it's accurate.

So you are in favor of voluntary communism, are you? Has that ever enjoyed much success?

Which is a good definition of totalitarianism, not communism.
Well, whatever. It was what the Leftists of the day who were supporting it. Now of course they are saying this was not real communism. That excuse began almost as soon as The Wall came down.

Thank you. You just FURTHER proved me correct. George Wallace was a Southerner.
A Southerner who also won Democratic primaries in the north and spoke at the 1972 Democrat convention. He might have gone further in the Democratic primaries had he not been shot and hospitalized. Obviously he was more than a sectional candidate..
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

And this is your opinion. Nothing more. It proves zero.

I also gave an example. With just some basic research you can find a great deal more. Perhaps believing in Communism, Chairman Mao, and all the rest of it might have been the greatest example of belief over reality, and it was a doozy, but there are a great deal more.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Such as the climate?

What about climate?

A direction was the issue, huh? And that makes sense to you.

If you want to troll this thread rather than actually respond, let me know and I will act accordingly.

Here are the facts. Just scroll down. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. That's a fact, Jack!
Fraid not. Just read the history.

I already posted the facts FROM THAT VERY SOURCE. It was a regional issue, not a partisan one. You have been refuted... and you just refuted yourself. Good job.

Who is they?? Surely you should be able to tell from the context of the paragraph who 'they' is. 'They' are those who marched for the Communist and railed against Ronald Reagan for challenging the "Evil Empire". Whether or not this was the communism you might have preferred it was the Communism of the day. Despite Leftists knowing of all the evils wherever Communism was forcibly introduced they sided with it, and demonstrated against Ronald Reagan. Europe was as bad as anywhere else in the world for their anti Americanism, despite all that went on there.

So you can't answer who "they" was. Just as I expected.

Yes, i know. It wasn't the 'real' communism of your dreams but it was nonetheless still being supported by leftists everywhere.

Cool. So you have no actual response to my facts about communism and totalitarianism. Just as I expected.

So you are in favor of voluntary communism, are you? Has that ever enjoyed much success?

I never said the former. And I have already demonstrated that communism always turns into totalitarianism, so it would certainly seem that attempts at communism are always failures.

Well, whatever. It was what the Leftists of the day who were supporting it. Now of course they are saying this was not real communism. That excuse began almost as soon as The Wall came down.

So, again, no refutation, just standard partisan crap. So predictable.

A Southerner who also won Democratic primaries in the north and spoke at the 1972 Democrat convention. He might have gone further in the Democratic primaries had he not been shot and hospitalized. Obviously he was more than a sectional candidate..

Just like Strom Thurmond in 1948? :lol: :lol: :lol: He only received support in the South. Grant... you have been BADLY defeated here. This was a regional issue, not a partisan one. I know that you would prefer the opposite because of your agenda, but your agenda is baseless when it comes to factual information.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

I also gave an example. With just some basic research you can find a great deal more. Perhaps believing in Communism, Chairman Mao, and all the rest of it might have been the greatest example of belief over reality, and it was a doozy, but there are a great deal more.

Correlation does not equal causation. Logical fallacies do not help you.
 
Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

Yes, there were something like 20,000 who went to Liberia but of their own free will. The great majority of American Black people felt American.

Well now they feel African American.
 
Back
Top Bottom