• 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!

Police for me, not for thee

Ahlevah said:
When I say "liberals," I'm not talking about classical liberals. They have nothing in common with modern liberals or liberalism, which is really an outgrowth of 19th Century progressive thought. There's no comparison between Schumer, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Bernie, et al and the Founders who included the 2nd Amendment in our constitution.
Click to expand...

Liberal means liberal. Hasn't changed. Here, let me help...

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion"

Liberalism - Wikipedia.

Anyone who doesn't advocate liberal values isn't a liberal, doesn't matter what you, he or anyone else says. You don't get to tell me what liberal means. I have a dictionary and access to encyclopedias if I need to ask.
 
d0gbreath said:
A good person is highly subjective.
Click to expand...
sure
Usually both sides in any war claim to be the good people.
Click to expand...
of course and an individual can look back and say "the allies were the good guys against the Nazis and the North was the good guys against the South". Were the Allies and the North perfect, hell no, far from it. Were they better than literal Nazis and slave owners? Yes, clearly.
Revolutionaries must be authoritative enough to say "what we say goes", but are usually overthrowing those that beat that by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
occasionally, and I'd agree that they mean well in the beginning. But that "must be authoritative enough" bit is always what leads them down the dark path of murder and terror. Certainly none of the revolutionaries (Reign of Terror clowns, Russian Commies and Chavez)I mentioned in the previous post were better than those they were over throwing.
 
poweRob said:
That's because a percentage of nothing is rather high. More Dems in TOTAL voted for it than Repubs. So your figure ****ing just failed. :lol:
Click to expand...
Of course. And do you know why? I'll explain. There were far more Democrats than Republicans at the time these votes were taken.. Conversely more Democrats voted against the Bill than did the Republicans.

The only one way to get a fair idea of where the Parties stood at the time and that is percentages. A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it. If you're still confused ask a friend.

SOUTHERN CONSERVADEMS, which is today's republicans, voted against it. Northern Dems voted for it.
Click to expand...
Southern Democrats are still Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans are Southern Republicans. However many people, as they became better educated and more familiar with the outside world naturally switched to the Republican Party, the Party which had always opposed racism. The Democrats still remain racist but are much more subtle, or just ignorant of it, now.
 
dead0man said:
sureof course and an individual can look back and say "the allies were the good guys against the Nazis and the North was the good guys against the South". Were the Allies and the North perfect, hell no, far from it. Were they better than literal Nazis and slave owners? Yes, clearly.occasionally, and I'd agree that they mean well in the beginning. But that "must be authoritative enough" bit is always what leads them down the dark path of murder and terror. Certainly none of the revolutionaries (Reign of Terror clowns, Russian Commies and Chavez)I mentioned in the previous post were better than those they were over throwing.
Click to expand...

I do agree that once the over-throwers come into power they become the evil corrupt ones that threw out the evil corrupt ones. Absolute power...
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Of course. And do you know why? I'll explain. There were far more Democrats than Republicans at the time these votes were taken.. Conversely more Democrats voted against the Bill than did the Republicans.

The only one way to get a fair idea of where the Parties stood at the time and that is percentages. A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it. If you're still confused ask a friend.

Southern Democrats are still Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans are Southern Republicans. However many people, as they became better educated and more familiar with the outside world naturally switched to the Republican Party, the Party which had always opposed racism. The Democrats still remain racist but are much more subtle, or just ignorant of it, now.
Click to expand...

That snake oil bull**** will only sell with the ignorant at best. Which is why liberals don't buy that lie.
 
poweRob said:
That snake oil bull**** will only sell with the ignorant at best. Which is why liberals don't buy that lie.
Click to expand...
You have no logical counter argument to the posted facts but are relying on your liberal feelings instead. I'm used to that.
 
Nickyjo said:
They are not taking away police protection. They are considering reforms. "Re-forming" the departments, perhaps to serve their community better.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are by crippling the cop's ability to enforce our laws. If you really wanted to serve these crime ridden communities you would want more police and stricter enforcement of the rule of law.
 
Da Mole said:
Yes, they are by crippling the cop's ability to enforce our laws. If you really wanted to serve these crime ridden communities you would want more police and stricter enforcement of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, so long as the police obey the law as well. That’s the reason why people are considering reform.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
You have no logical counter argument to the posted facts but are relying on your liberal feelings instead. I'm used to that.
Click to expand...

Your failed argument has been beaten to death repeatedly.
 
poweRob said:
That snake oil bull**** will only sell with the ignorant at best. Which is why liberals don't buy that lie.
Click to expand...

LOL! 2+2=5, right? As long as the party says so!


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap
 
Grand Mal said:
Liberal means liberal. Hasn't changed. Here, let me help...
Click to expand...

The word hasn't changed, but your source is conflating 17th and 18th Century classical liberalism with modern 21st Century progressivism. Democrats like those comprising The Squad have about as much in common with those who inspired the American and French revolutions, such as John Locke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as Adam Smith does with Karl Marx. They don't believe in equality before the law. They believe in power and using the law to take it from those who have it to give to those who don't. They don't support limited government or free markets, and they sure as **** don't support my right to own a gun.
 
Anthony60 said:
I didn’t ask for a break down of the votes. We know the Democrats filibustered it and couldn’t pass it, even though they had huge majorities.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap
Click to expand...

Can you please dispense with the dishonest deflections. You had correctly postulated that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite the large majority of Democrats that existed at the time. I replied to that by pointing out the Democratic vote was geographically split between Confederate/slave states and Union/free states. You asked me to prove that and I pointed you in the direction where you would be able to find that information yourself. Which you apparently still refuse to do. But the nonetheless Democrats like Mike Mansfield who worked a way to introduce the bill by bypassing the Judiciary Committee, to Lyndon Johnson's expert political twisting of arms eventually garnered enough votes to secure cloture and put the bill to a vote. A vote on which Johnson agonized aloud about to a personal aide the night before. Lamenting that passage of the bill would likely mean the loss of the South to the Democrats for the next 50 years. And his prophecy was correct. Shortly after the Act was passed the slow and steady defection of the 'Dixiecrats' had begun. Which further accelerated under Nixon's 'Southern Strategy" that sought to exploit the racism of the South to grow the Republican party's numbers and influence in the South. So by the time Ronald Reagan was elected the South was securely in the hands of the Republican party.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
The word hasn't changed, but your source is conflating 17th and 18th Century classical liberalism with modern 21st Century progressivism. Democrats like those comprising The Squad have about as much in common with those who inspired the American and French revolutions, such as John Locke or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as Adam Smith does with Karl Marx. They don't believe in equality before the law. They believe in power and using the law to take it from those who have it to give to those who don't. They don't support limited government or free markets, and they sure as **** don't support my right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

That right there is why you get this wrong.
The topic is liberals, not Democrats. How come someone who has participated in a political discussion group for over ten years still doesn't know something as basic as that?
Here's a clue for you. Anyone who doesn't believe in liberal principles isn't a liberal, no matter what you, he or anyone else says.
 
Grand Mal said:
Liberal means liberal. Hasn't changed. Here, let me help...

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion".
Click to expand...

LOL! This is hilarious! I thought it was a joke first, but it's even funnier that it isn't! Liberals generally support free markets (NO!), limited government (NO!), individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (NO!), and...democracy??? So, let's take the leader of the Democrat party today, A-oc. She hates all of these things. Goes for Pelosi, Schumer, the weasel guy, etc..

God, they hate to even use the word "Liberty". I don't think Obama ever used it in his eight years.

Absolutely fantastic. Open your eyes!
 
Atomic Kid said:
Can you please dispense with the dishonest deflections. You had correctly postulated that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite the large majority of Democrats that existed at the time...
Click to expand...

Maybe the quote you are looking for is "I'll have those n*ggers voting democrat for the next 200 years."

And don't play those BS games with me, feigning that you think I wanted a source for the vote tallies. That is some stupid bull crap, how could you think I would fall for that garbage? If you can't answer, then give up, don't answer a question that you wished I asked.

Get this through your head... The Democrats filibustered and tried to block that bill. They could have easily passed it with only Democrat votes. They didn't. The Republicans made the difference and got it passed. No one gives a crap about the gymnastics that you are trying to use to slice and dice it to look like something else. So, save that crap for the low information types, without whom the Democrats couldn't ever win another election.
 
Anthony60 said:
LOL! This is hilarious! I thought it was a joke first, but it's even funnier that it isn't! Liberals generally support free markets (NO!), limited government (NO!), individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (NO!), and...democracy??? So, let's take the leader of the Democrat party today, A-oc. She hates all of these things. Goes for Pelosi, Schumer, the weasel guy, etc..

God, they hate to even use the word "Liberty". I don't think Obama ever used it in his eight years.

Absolutely fantastic. Open your eyes!
Click to expand...

Listen. You guys are so bloody ignorant you don't know the difference between 'liberal' and Democrat. You are so woefuully ignorant that you actually point to the ways Democrats aren't liberal and say that shows that liberals aren't liberal. How stupid is that? How can you be here in a political discussion group and not know what liberal means?
Damn. I tell anyone from anywhere in the world I'm a liberal and they know what I mean but an American conservative is so ignorant of what words mean that they have to be taken by the hand and led to this...

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion."

Liberalism - Wikipedia.

But go ahead, tell me how your brilliant insight into politics has made you able to redefine a key word and adjust the perception of the most influential political theory in modern history.
This oughta be good. If you actually try.
 
Anthony60 said:
Maybe the quote you are looking for is "I'll have those n*ggers voting democrat for the next 200 years."

And don't play those BS games with me, feigning that you think I wanted a source for the vote tallies. That is some stupid bull crap, how could you think I would fall for that garbage? If you can't answer, then give up, don't answer a question that you wished I asked.

Get this through your head... The Democrats filibustered and tried to block that bill. They could have easily passed it with only Democrat votes. They didn't. The Republicans made the difference and got it passed. No one gives a crap about the gymnastics that you are trying to use to slice and dice it to look like something else. So, save that crap for the low information types, without whom the Democrats couldn't ever win another election.
Click to expand...

You're the one playing BS games, as per usual. You're using a completely unproven quote.

Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?

Rating
Unproven
Click to expand...

You don't think anyone here sees through you ignorant passive-aggressive rants? Damn! You're incapable of even being able to follow a simple conversation in which you were directly involved for Christ's sake. What you can't seem to get through your head that there was a Democrat Southern Bloc that was opposed to anything dealing with civil rights for black people in this country. That Southern Bloc is what initially prevented a cloture for ending the filibuster. Republicans did help, Northern Republicans that is, but Democrats like Johnson played key roles that without which it may not have succeeded. No one is going to argue that Johnson was not a crass and vulgar Southern politician who often spoke just like one and he didn't exactly buck but even embraced the Jim Crow politics of the South in order to secure his ambitions to accede to higher office. But he did have a secret. A promise to himself that if he was ever to find himself in position of power he would use that power to an end the post Civil War racist inequality of the South and bring it kicking and screaming to being more in step with the modern world. And trust me if I ever wanted to save anything for low information types I'll will be keeping you in mind.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Listen. You guys are so bloody ignorant you don't know the difference between 'liberal' and Democrat.
Click to expand...

I may be bloody ignorant about a lot of things, but of one thing I am certain: Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders would have sucked dog balls as Founding Fathers.
 
Ahlevah said:
:doh Try reading the OP's first sentence in Post #1:
Click to expand...

The OP is not in the discussion about the meaning of 'liberal' or 'liberalism'. You are. The word liberal doesn't even appear in the OP.
 
Ahlevah said:
:doh Try reading the OP's first sentence in Post #1:
Click to expand...

That's it? That's what you got from everything that's been said here about the definitions of the primary competing political philosophies in the modern world? A stupid bicker over one word?
Gawd. Why did you bother?
Better question- why did I?
 
Grand Mal said:
That's it? That's what you got from everything that's been said here about the definitions of the primary competing political philosophies in the modern world? A stupid bicker over one word?
Gawd. Why did you bother?
Better question- why did I?
Click to expand...
Which 'liberals' of today hold those views you quoted? They would apply more to Conservatives, those who want to 'conserve' the rights and freedoms people have fought for over the centuries.
 
The idea of transferring resources away from the police to mental health and community outreach departments has merit. I think even a lot of cops would say they are being sent out to situations where LEOs are not appropriate.

OTOH, the first time a mental health team goes out on a call and some of them get stabbed by a knife-wielding person having a psychotic break, what will happen then? Will we go back to sending out the cops who are trained to handle unstable situations like this? Will we send the cops along with the mental health teams? That will get expensive.

This seems like an idea that has not had a chance to fully bake yet.
 
Atomic Kid said:
You're the one playing BS games, as per usual. You're using a completely unproven quote.

Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?



You don't think anyone here sees through you ignorant passive-aggressive rants? Damn! You're incapable of even being able to follow a simple conversation in which you were directly involved for Christ's sake. What you can't seem to get through your head that there was a Democrat Southern Bloc that was opposed to anything dealing with civil rights for black people in this country. That Southern Bloc is what initially prevented a cloture for ending the filibuster. Republicans did help, Northern Republicans that is, but Democrats like Johnson played key roles that without which it may not have succeeded. No one is going to argue that Johnson was not a crass and vulgar Southern politician who often spoke just like one and he didn't exactly buck but even embraced the Jim Crow politics of the South in order to secure his ambitions to accede to higher office. But he did have a secret. A promise to himself that if he was ever to find himself in position of power he would use that power to an end the post Civil War racist inequality of the South and bring it kicking and screaming to being more in step with the modern world. And trust me if I ever wanted to save anything for low information types I'll will be keeping you in mind.
Click to expand...
LBJ deserves little credit in that he was acting politically and could well have said that quote attributed to him. The real credit belongs to Dwight Eisenhower, the same guy who sent in the military to allow the desegregation of schools, and then to JFK.

Eisenhower, who also initiated the national highways program, is seldom recognized as the great President he was. Probably because he was a Republican and that reality runs afoul of the enlightened history the Democrats have invented for themselves. Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom