• 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!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

anti immigration laws?

That's a better example.

Now what precisely is racist about wanting to restrict immigration? Secondly, I'm going to assume that your concern is that the motivation for immigration restriction is rooted in stopping the spread of multiculturalism and if so, I'm still not understanding how wishing to maintain the culture of one's parents is Exhibit A in a trial of racism. If this is your argument then it seems that the only way to refute the charge of racism is to renounce a desire to maintain a "white culture" and to embrace some hybrid cultural mishmash. Are Japanese racists for wanting to maintain a distinct Japanese culture?

The language (as pointed out by MildSteel) that Rush and his ilk use?

As already noted, 1.) this is a red herring and 2.) Rush is not the Republican Party.

the refusal to accept Pres Obama's birth certificate?

Again, not the policy of the Republican Party and a position held by a fringe movement of Republicans. Should the Democrats be judged by their fringe movement of supporters of Adult-Child sex?

so called "voter id" laws that result in disenfranchising people of color?

Even UN election monitors are surprised that America allows people to vote without ID. This doesn't go on in any other Western nation. Secondly, shouldn't it be in the interests of Democrats to address the concerns of Republicans who think that Democrats steal elections via voter fraud? What is wrong with an honest election where every voter is verified?

I mean seriously, if they aren't appealing to racist whites, why are they doing all that?

Ask guys like me or ask other Republicans. If you go in thinking that racism is behind every policy, then you're probably not prepared to change your position when explanations are provided.
 
I never knew about this "thug" thing being a underground word for a black whatever. Hell I call unions, thugs all the time. Mobsters were all called "thugs". Druggies are "Drug Lords" but to me they are all "Thugs".

Some professor tells me not to use the word "Thug" get the hell out of here. When I see a "thug" I'll call him a thug, I don't give a damn what color he his.

Well that's your prerogative. But people engaged in politics have to be aware of the types of terms they chose to use as labels. If they are wise, they will avoid terms that could be misunderstoodl
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Got it, you deny there are provisos protecting your right to speak freely. :doh

No you didn't get it. I deny that there is a such thing as free speech to protect. I acknowledge that I agree to abide by the laws of a government that assumes that such a right exists.
 
You can assert it's not a racial term, and that's your prerogative. However there are many people who do not agree with you, and I provided a reference to demonstrate that. The thing is this, Republicans can go on engaging in such behavior and try to brush it off like it's nothing. But they will have to live with the results.

Your politically correct BS, makes me puke. I don't give a damn if their are people that don't agree with me. I count you as one of them. And I damn sure don't agree with you as there are many people who don't agree with you. So you better change your ways and make yourself more agreeable.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

But the topic is rights in general, not the security of those in power.

you asked be if rights are not secure, then no rights are secure, no structure of a government..its anarchy.

when dictatorship, is in power there is a structure, order, rights of the general population may not be secure from government, but they are from other people.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

No you didn't get it. I deny that there is a such thing as free speech to protect. I acknowledge that I agree to abide by the laws of a government that assumes that such a right exists.

Good, because government is protecting that right of free speech. It does not assume that right exist, it knows that right exist and it's exactly why it protects it.
 
Well that's your prerogative. But people engaged in politics have to be aware of the types of terms they chose to use as labels. If they are wise, they will avoid terms that could be misunderstoodl

Geee Obama flat out lies to the American people and he could care less and liberals give him a pass, Dingy Harry lies on the Senate floor and he could give a **** and liberals eat it up. So they don't care about political correctness when it comes to lying to the American people. Thug, thug, thug, no one gives a crap and I don't care if they do.
 
Last edited:
That's a better example.

Now what precisely is racist about wanting to restrict immigration? Secondly, I'm going to assume that your concern is that the motivation for immigration restriction is rooted in stopping the spread of multiculturalism and if so, I'm still not understanding how wishing to maintain the culture of one's parents is Exhibit A in a trial of racism. If this is your argument then it seems that the only way to refute the charge of racism is to renounce a desire to maintain a "white culture" and to embrace some hybrid cultural mishmash. Are Japanese racists for wanting to maintain a distinct Japanese culture?



As already noted, 1.) this is a red herring and 2.) Rush is not the Republican Party.



Again, not the policy of the Republican Party and a position held by a fringe movement of Republicans. Should the Democrats be judged by their fringe movement of supporters of Adult-Child sex?



Even UN election monitors are surprised that America allows people to vote without ID. This doesn't go on in any other Western nation. Secondly, shouldn't it be in the interests of Democrats to address the concerns of Republicans who think that Democrats steal elections via voter fraud? What is wrong with an honest election where every voter is verified?



Ask guys like me or ask other Republicans. If you go in thinking that racism is behind every policy, then you're probably not prepared to change your position when explanations are provided.

Speaking of people not prepared to change their position - if you can't see why all the things I've listed are examples of why the Repub party is perceived as racist, then honestly I don't know what to say to you except - Enjoy your bubble of denial.
 
Speaking of people not prepared to change their position - if you can't see why all the things I've listed are examples of why the Repub party is perceived as racist, then honestly I don't know what to say to you except - Enjoy your bubble of denial.

Now it's my fault that you employ screwy logic? Rush Limbaugh says X therefore the Republican Party is racist. Sorry, but that "logic" just doesn't wash. If being logical now equates to being racist, then all hope for liberals coming back to rationality is lost.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

You sure fling poo and hope everyone is too busy ducking to read it. What whacky radical Progressives do you refer to? You are good at throwing trite phrases and labels about.

Not sure what you think a nationalist socialist is, but the Teddy Progressives were far from that. If you read their party platform from 1912 is a curious mix of marxist, socialist, strong nationalism, and woman's rights. Can call 'em lots of things but not Nazis.

Actually you miss the point of this thing called PROGRESS. Once it was a matter of fact not to be questioned that there was a thing called the White Man's Burden. Now not so much. You attempt to both freeze and parse the category as you see fit.

It is funny how a CON thinks he knows what 'the other guy' stands for, more like what he wants to fashion to be his strawman to argue against.

Nationalism has always been around in America. Before the mid 1960's it would be safe to say that the vast majority of Americans were nationalist be they liberals, socialist, conservatives, Democrat or Republican. Call it nativism, patriotism or nationalism.

Progressive before the 1970's were always nationalist, definitely not internationalist because internationalism is un-American like hyphenated-Americanism is un-American.

RR: Teddy Roosevelt: "No Room in This Country for Hyphenated Americans"

Marxist, internationalist socialist were not nationalist and always wanted to overthrow the American government either through force or since the 1970's from within.

Nationalist socialist were around before Nazism.

Who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance and directed that school children should salute the American flag with the hand pointed out towards the flag ? An American nationalist socialist who was also a supporter of the progressive movement.

Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg


BTW: From the early 1900's until 1965 it was the progressives who wrote our immigration laws.
UVM History Review vol. 6 Dec. 1994: Lund

A good read. -> https://archive.org/details/reportsimmigrat00dillgoog
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

That's right, and as a result of that, there is no way to objectively state that a person has a right or not. Without government, that would merely be an subjective exercise.

Watch this and figure out what side you are on.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

And my response to you is that, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as free speech. Therefore there is no right to protect, as far as I'm concerned. You may not agree, but that's your opinion and is a subjective value judgement. What we can do agree to abide by the laws of a government that says there is such a thing. That's about it.
It seems to me that it would be better to at the very least pretend that a right to free speech exists, rather than not.
 
You are a smart guy and I respect your intelligence. But I fail to understand why you are trying to provide cover for such outrageous behavior. It is simply unacceptable.

But just in case you don't understand what I'm saying, here's a reference for you:

Caldwell: Is "thug" the new word of choice for bigots? - The Denver Post



The point is this, Republicans need to stop race baiting in this way, that's if they want to make their party more attractive.

Surely you must realize that your request is impossible to fulfill. For better or worse, for right or wrong, there is a faction of people in the GOP who simply are very racially conservative and they see the party as representing those conservative racial interests. And if that results in basically a white persons party - with a large share of that being a white males party - that is simply the result of both the constituency of the party as well as the policies they will support and back which in turn attract more of those same people. Its a cycle with no ind or change in sight.

It seems foolish for GOP spokespersons to say that they have to attract decent numbers of minorities while at the same time having no policies which would attract minorities in any number beyond the mere token or two. It simply does not work that way.

Republicans cannot make their party more attractive to minorities without making it less attractive to many of the people who already see it as their party of choice. Its a catch 22 for them and with demographic projections it only spells disaster for them unless they can find a way out. And of course they have found a way out...... its called voter suppression of those who will not vote for you.

That is the solution to their problem.
 
Your politically correct BS, makes me puke. I don't give a damn if their are people that don't agree with me. I count you as one of them. And I damn sure don't agree with you as there are many people who don't agree with you. So you better change your ways and make yourself more agreeable.

Well whoever you I like your spirit. Reminds me of myself!!! lol
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Good, because government is protecting that right of free speech. It does not assume that right exist, it knows that right exist and it's exactly why it protects it.

I can say I know I have a billion dollars, but that doesn't mean it's true.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

I can say I know I have a billion dollars, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Of course, but you don't have a billion dollars so there is nothing to protect.
 
Geee Obama flat out lies to the American people and he could care less and liberals give him a pass, Dingy Harry lies on the Senate floor and he could give a **** and liberals eat it up. So they don't care about political correctness when it comes to lying to the American people.

If you are referring to me, I find it repulsive when any politician lies. I'm surely no big Obama fan.

Thug, thug, thug, no one gives a crap and I don't care if they do.

LMAO

Thug, thug, thug
Three men in a pub
One took a chug
And fell on the rug!!!

LMAO
 
You are a smart guy and I respect your intelligence. But I fail to understand why you are trying to provide cover for such outrageous behavior. It is simply unacceptable.


what is outrageous behavior?

something that someone formulated to be outrageous by writing something in a news paper.

not everyone in the world see things thru the prism you see them through....does that make what you think be unacceptable......unacceptable for everyone, i am sure things you would view as acceptable many other people would not.

But just in case you don't understand what I'm saying, here's a reference for you:

Caldwell: Is "thug" the new word of choice for bigots? - The Denver Post

i would like to know how you draw from the idea that a man, just like any other man has the ability though writing a story can change the meaning of words.

the dictionary defines "thug" as a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

this is not the first time in the last several years this sort of things has occur, were people want to change words to suit their own means,.......and frankly its getting very tiring with people doing it.

the public has already encountered these already:

i don't like Obama policies------racist

i don't like Obama's nomination---racist

we need to reduce federal spending-- racist

we need to cut taxes --racist

we need to shrink the government--racist

The point is this, Republicans need to stop race baiting in this way, that's if they want to make their party more attractive.

the republican party is made up of several factions, it does not all think the same.

but if you mean by attractive?.....offering groups things [commodities]....that is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Watch this and figure out what side you are on.

Since you are conservative, here's some Viereck for you

"Man was born free" (said Rousseau, with his faith in the natural goodness of man) "but is everywhere in chains." "In chains, so he ought to be," replies the thoughtful conservative, defending the good and wise and necessary chains of rooted tradition and historical continuity, upon which depend the civil liberties, the shared civil liberties of modern liberals and conservatives, and parliamentary monarchists, and democratic socialists. Without the chaos-chaining, and id-chaining heritage of rooted values, what is to keep man from becoming Eichmann or Nechayev-what is to save freedom form "freedom?"

That's real conservatism, and is why I said, conservatism as an ideology, I don't have a problem with. It's how the modern Republican party practices it's so called conservatism that bothers me. I gave three ways that I thought it could be corrected.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

It seems to me that it would be better to at the very least pretend that a right to free speech exists, rather than not.

Your point is well taken.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Of course, but you don't have a billion dollars so there is nothing to protect.

Whoever you are, you are ok in my book!!! lol

I like that.
 
Surely you must realize that your request is impossible to fulfill. For better or worse, for right or wrong, there is a faction of people in the GOP who simply are very racially conservative and they see the party as representing those conservative racial interests. And if that results in basically a white persons party - with a large share of that being a white males party - that is simply the result of both the constituency of the party as well as the policies they will support and back which in turn attract more of those same people. Its a cycle with no ind or change in sight.

It seems foolish for GOP spokespersons to say that they have to attract decent numbers of minorities while at the same time having no policies which would attract minorities in any number beyond the mere token or two. It simply does not work that way.

Republicans cannot make their party more attractive to minorities without making it less attractive to many of the people who already see it as their party of choice. Its a catch 22 for them and with demographic projections it only spells disaster for them unless they can find a way out. And of course they have found a way out...... its called voter suppression of those who will not vote for you.

That is the solution to their problem.

since you feel you can analyze the GOP and their problems, then you must have formulated the problems with the DNC, please share them with us.

after all, we don't want a one-sided partisan presentation do we?
 
Back
Top Bottom