• 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!

Beck, Palin Stress 'Honor' at Rally

How so, Pbrauer?

It was the Republicans who were iin the majority in voting for this bill and was opposed by moreso by the Democrats.

The original House version:[10]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[11]

* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:[10]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Democrats such as George Wallace and Orville Faubus, and of course the late Robert Byrd, should be remembered for their Democratic party membership as well as their very public racism. Since then I've seen no evidence that the Democrats have changed all that much, except in their rhetoric and opportunistic propaganda.
I think you should take another gander at those numbers. Who had the most votes Republican or Democrats. Percentages don't mean ****.
 
Are you saying we should have not gotten involved in World War I and World War II after being attacked at Pearl Harbor?
Did you know President Nixon campaigned on ending the war in Vietnam and yet over 20,000 of our service men died there.

I don''t believe that the Americans, or Canadians, should have gotten involved in WWI. Germany didn't attack America at Pearl Harbor, Japan did.

Richard Nixon still got the Americans out of Vietnam, a war begun and escalated by the Democrats.
 
I think you should take another gander at those numbers. Who had the most votes Republican or Democrats. Percentages don't mean ****.

Percentages mean nothing?

That Bill would not have passed were it not for the Republicans and it was the Southern Democrats who most opposed it. The history is clear and readily available.
 
I use Obi because it's short. Just as I used Jet.
And how has who changed, that is what I would like to know... have at it it too of you like.
Your and Jets views ought to be interesting.

.

The parties change along with society. It's a simple fact. I would say the modern republican party began with Reagan, and I would say the modern Democratic party with Clinton.
Using the parties of the past as a pro, or con, for something, or someone, or trying to compare them to the parties today isn't a proper use of history.
 
Read my post a few pages back about how it was a Northern, Southern divide between the Civil Rights act, not a Democratic, Republican divide.

Perhaps, Your Star, but the South was dominated by Democrats while the Republicans dominated the North. Ergo, it was the racist Democrats versus the non-racist Republicans.

I can understand though, if you are a Democrat, why you would want to muddy these waters.
 
You mean that the Democratic party isn't as racist as it once was Your Star?

I quite agree, but it certainly didn't occur without a great deal of pressure from the Republican Party.

Since that time the Democrats have been painting the Republicans as "racists", and many new Democrats appear to have bought into that idea. These people, while probably being quite decent in many other areas, are not terribly bright.

It was a north/south thing. Not a Democrat/Republican thing. Proven by these numbers

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%)
 
The parties change along with society. It's a simple fact. I would say the modern republican party began with Reagan, and I would say the modern Democratic party with Clinton.
Using the parties of the past as a pro, or con, for something, or someone, or trying to compare them to the parties today isn't a proper use of history.

Arguing whether it was Goldwater or Reagan is rather meaningless.
How would you and Jet define the parties, that's what I want to know.

.
 
The parties change along with society. It's a simple fact. I would say the modern republican party began with Reagan, and I would say the modern Democratic party with Clinton.
Using the parties of the past as a pro, or con, for something, or someone, or trying to compare them to the parties today isn't a proper use of history.

Then we would have to ask ourselves what drew people to the Democratic Party, knowing its racist past.

What do you think it was?
 
It was a north/south thing. Not a Democrat/Republican thing. Proven by these numbers

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%)

Yout Star, the elected leaders vote along party lines and are identified that way by their party by the public. While you can rightly claim that most racists were from the South it is also clear that they were racist Democrats. It is the Democrats who have the racist past, not the Republicans. That it abundantly clear.
 
You mean that the Democratic party isn't as racist as it once was Your Star?

I quite agree, but it certainly didn't occur without a great deal of pressure from the Republican Party.

Since that time the Democrats have been painting the Republicans as "racists", and many new Democrats appear to have bought into that idea. These people, while probably being quite decent in many other areas, are not terribly bright.

Some may say "racist", but I don't.

What I did say the other day, though, was this.

The Republican Party certainly has trouble appealing to minorities - blacks, Hispanics (this a new problem that Bush didn't have), gays.

That's not the same thing as saying they're racist, is it? And I don't think it's pretty safe to say.

Hell, I was scolded because I said, Glenn Beck doesn't appeal to black too much either. I backed that statement up by pointing to information from his own website that showed his demographics are only 2% black. The victim card was played again, saying I called Beck a racist.

I honestly think the race victim card is being played more and more by white conservatives. You can make a simple point: your message isn't working with minorities very well; back that with numbers; and then they say, "Don't call me racist! I work with a black!"

If conservatives have picked up on one thing from liberals, and Beck is one of the best at this, it's how to play the victim.

I mean seriously - Palin goes off on anyone who uses "retarded" for any reason (except Rush Limbaugh); but then supports Dr. Laura for using the n-word. And Dr. Laura claims to be a victim and acting as if she's getting fired - when she's her own boss.
 
Perhaps, Your Star, but the South was dominated by Democrats while the Republicans dominated the North. Ergo, it was the racist Democrats versus the non-racist Republicans.

I can understand though, if you are a Democrat, why you would want to muddy these waters.

And if you knew how to analyze history correctly you would know that the democrats had a stranglehold on the because Lincoln was a republican, and the resentment from the civil war made it hard for anyone to win in the south running under "Lincoln's party"
Also the republicans didn't dominate the north. Just look at my numbers in this post . I'm sorry, but facts destroy your narrative.
 
Last edited:
Do you realize there were many different faiths there on stage?
I don't think most people get offended by God, Jesus, talk even if they don't have a particular faith. I know I don't.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion.
Besides, I'm sure most people knew Beck and knew he had a strong faith. That's probably one reason they decided to go.
Most were probably praying the 40 days before the event because he suggested it.
Yea, I know he is a little kooky, but he is also a breath of fresh air.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only faith diversity I witnessed were Christians and a single Rabbi on stage. I have nothing against Christians... hell, I don't even have anything against Christians rallying in Washington D.C... but I don't understand why they couldn't have left Jesus out of this Restoring Honor event and focused more on God to be more inclusive of Jews, Muslims, and others. God is one thing, but Jesus is pretty much exclusive to Christianity. I honestly don't care that much... it was just a bit perplexing to me why there was so much focus on churches, Jesus and the bible.

:thinking
 
Some may say "racist", but I don't.

What I did say the other day, though, was this.

The Republican Party certainly has trouble appealing to minorities - blacks, Hispanics (this a new problem that Bush didn't have), gays.

That's not the same thing as saying they're racist, is it? And I don't think it's pretty safe to say.

Hell, I was scolded because I said, Glenn Beck doesn't appeal to black too much either. I backed that statement up by pointing to information from his own website that showed his demographics are only 2% black. The victim card was played again, saying I called Beck a racist.

I honestly think the race victim card is being played more and more by white conservatives. You can make a simple point: your message isn't working with minorities very well; back that with numbers; and then they say, "Don't call me racist! I work with a black!"

If conservatives have picked up on one thing from liberals, and Beck is one of the best at this, it's how to play the victim.

I mean seriously - Palin goes off on anyone who uses "retarded" for any reason (except Rush Limbaugh); but then supports Dr. Laura for using the n-word. And Dr. Laura claims to be a victim and acting as if she's getting fired - when she's her own boss.

I never refered to you as racist, Filmfestguy, but in fact Democrats, and of course Leftists, frequently refer to Republicans as racist while always denying, or spinning,their racist past. I agree they are having difficulty recruiting minority groups and that reflects the very successful campaign by Democrats that it was really the Republicans who were historically racist.
 
Percentages mean nothing?

That Bill would not have passed were it not for the Republicans and it was the Southern Democrats who most opposed it. The history is clear and readily available.

Southerners are still southerners, which party dominates the south NOW?
 
Some may say "racist", but I don't.

What I did say the other day, though, was this.

The Republican Party certainly has trouble appealing to minorities - blacks, Hispanics (this a new problem that Bush didn't have), gays.

That's not the same thing as saying they're racist, is it? And I don't think it's pretty safe to say.

Hell, I was scolded because I said, Glenn Beck doesn't appeal to black too much either. I backed that statement up by pointing to information from his own website that showed his demographics are only 2% black. The victim card was played again, saying I called Beck a racist.

I honestly think the race victim card is being played more and more by white conservatives. You can make a simple point: your message isn't working with minorities very well; back that with numbers; and then they say, "Don't call me racist! I work with a black!"

If conservatives have picked up on one thing from liberals, and Beck is one of the best at this, it's how to play the victim.

I mean seriously - Palin goes off on anyone who uses "retarded" for any reason (except Rush Limbaugh); but then supports Dr. Laura for using the n-word. And Dr. Laura claims to be a victim and acting as if she's getting fired - when she's her own boss.

the GOP has trouble appealing to people who see the government as their savior and whose leaders feel a need to blame racism for their peoples's troubles. THe dems have spent 80 years making many minorities the dependent wards of the state and their strategy has paid off in lock step voting patterns of those so addicted to handouts
 
Yout Star, the elected leaders vote along party lines and are identified that way by their party by the public. While you can rightly claim that most racists were from the South it is also clear that they were racist Democrats. It is the Democrats who have the racist past, not the Republicans. That it abundantly clear.

How is that abundently clear? Northern democrats were strongly in favor.

It was a North / South thing, as Your Star said.
 
I never refered to you as racist, Filmfestguy, but in fact Democrats, and of course Leftists, frequently refer to Republicans as racist while always denying, or spinning,their racist past. I agree they are having difficulty recruiting minority groups and that reflects the very successful campaign by Democrats that it was really the Republicans who were historically racist.

So, according to you blacks can't think for themselves?
 
And if you knew how to analyze history correctly you would know that the democrats had a stranglehold on the because Lincoln was a republican, and the resentment from the civil war made it hard for anyone to win in the south running under "Lincoln's party"
Also the republicans didn't dominate the north. Just look at my numbers in this post . I'm sorry, but facts destroy your narrative.

Yes, I agree that the Democrats wanted nothing to do with Lincoln because of the Slave issue, and of course those sentiments carried through to the very recent past. Only with the death of Robert Byrd is the old guard finally disappearing.

While you are obviously keen to make this a North/South issue, and thats fine, it is really a Republican versus Democrat issue and, even according to your own post, it was the Democrats who were the racists, disavowing Lincoln's struggles until just recently. A million excuses won't change the facts.
 
the GOP has trouble appealing to people who see the government as their savior and whose leaders feel a need to blame racism for their peoples's troubles. THe dems have spent 80 years making many minorities the dependent wards of the state and their strategy has paid off in lock step voting patterns of those so addicted to handouts

So, according to you, minorities want to be dependent and not work?
 
Then we would have to ask ourselves what drew people to the Democratic Party, knowing its racist past.

What do you think it was?

It's not that hard, honestly.

John F. Kennedy (with Johnson actually signing the legislation) is a huge hero in African-American households. As was his brother Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was in my hometown of Indianapolis on the night of Dr. King's assassination. He delivered the news to a large crowd (mostly inner-city blacks) that Dr. King had been killed. Indianapolis was the only city of major size to have no riots on that night. Robert Kennedy: Delivering News of King's Death : NPR

They were Democrats. That's not that hard to figure out. It doesn't help that Strom Thurmond (who ran for president specifically on a segregationist platform in 1948) switched to the Republican Party in 1964 as a result of the passage of Civil Rights legislation. And with him, South Carolina flipped from Democrat to Republican.

So, were Democrats the more racist party in the South at one point? Yes. Upon passage of the Civil Rights legislation of the early 1960s, they flipped to the Republican Party. For instance, Kennedy (a integrationalist Democrat) barely one South Carolina, and Republicans have won every election ever since.
 
No, a judge found that banning gay marriage violated the constitution. That is a large difference.

How? There was never an intention to extend the right to marry based on race to sexual preference which is the decesion he cited. Why even have ammendments if you can reintrepret law clearly not intended for what you are arguing?
 
It's not that hard, honestly.

John F. Kennedy (with Johnson actually signing the legislation) is a huge hero in African-American households. As was his brother Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was in my hometown of Indianapolis on the night of Dr. King's assassination. He delivered the news to a large crowd (mostly inner-city blacks) that Dr. King had been killed. Indianapolis was the only city of major size to have no riots on that night. Robert Kennedy: Delivering News of King's Death : NPR

They were Democrats. That's not that hard to figure out. It doesn't help that Strom Thurmond (who ran for president specifically on a segregationist platform in 1948) switched to the Republican Party in 1964 as a result of the passage of Civil Rights legislation. And with him, South Carolina flipped from Democrat to Republican.

So, were Democrats the more racist party in the South at one point? Yes. Upon passage of the Civil Rights legislation of the early 1960s, they flipped to the Republican Party. For instance, Kennedy (a integrationalist Democrat) barely one South Carolina, and Republicans have won every election ever since.

I can see why some Blacks would support the Democrats out of sympathy for JFK and Bobby Kennedy but not almost 50 years later. There are other issues which have arisen since then.

Yes, the South did change from solid Democrat to Republican but that could also be construed as them being eager to get rid of their racist past and start afresh with new beginnings. I believe that's been the attitude of the South since then, though remnants remain.
 
Back
Top Bottom