• 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!

Brutal attack on Republican fundraiser appears politically motivated

Vader said:
The operative word in that sentence is "WAS" ... now it's used to keep dishonest business scum from raping the public.
Click to expand...

YOu think it is dishonest for a business to pay as little as possible to obtain a commodity known as labor?

You seem not to have a very good understanding of the reality of global markets

Companies exist to make a profit for their owners. The pillowheaded utopian nonsense that corporations exist to provide people jobs is one of the reasons why this country is waning rapidly. A job is nothing more than a company obtaining the necessary commodity known as labor.

If a company once made steel pots and pans and shifted to making only plastic or aluminium pots and pans no one would claim the company is dishonest for not renewing its contract with a steel or iron suppier.

If a company no longer needs 100 employees but only 60 so be it. And saying it is dishonest to pay as little as possible in order to get the quantity and quality of labor it needs is as stupid as claiming a company should pay more than the going rate for steel or plastic
 
justabubba said:
at gun point, eh

obviously had to be a NRA registered republican wielding that weapon

and as factual as the OP
Click to expand...

Oh, was it supposed to be factual? But isn't this the "blogs" forum? LOL
 
misterman said:
But are you saying they would have supported abortion rights if it did become an issue?

It did become one in 1973, and there were still more than a few Southern Democrats back then.



How many times do I have to say this - the parties aren't monolithic, most of the southern Democrats were conservatives who often parted ways with their liberal counterparts in the North.

Here's some more good history for you:

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaking what people consider themselves versus reality. Democrats can call themselves conservative, but if they expand the federal or really any role of government past necessary and proper they are not conservatives. Many of those southern votes expanded powers past what was necessary and proper, thus, not really all that conservative.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think you are mistaking what people consider themselves versus reality. Democrats can call themselves conservative, but if they expand the federal or really any role of government past necessary and proper they are not conservatives.
Click to expand...

Hey, fine.

Southern Democrats before the 1960s were mostly conservatives.

Many of those southern votes expanded powers past what was necessary and proper, thus, not really all that conservative.
Click to expand...

Examples please.
 
misterman said:
Hey, fine.

Southern Democrats before the 1960s were mostly conservatives.



Examples please.
Click to expand...
I'm punching out for the night but will have to look it up later.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm punching out for the night but will have to look it up later.
Click to expand...

Good luck.

The bottom line is that you're trying to establish that the South between 1860 and 1960 was teeming with liberals. It's just not going to work out.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No doubt, Dems ran it. My problem is people trying to say "yeah but they were conservative" to try and use some kind of race smear. The truth is the Democrat party never was conservative, not even truly moderate if we are being honest.

EDIT- I don't really know if political lean made a difference back then towards race relations either if we're being honest. But it is offensive to have people trying to assign something as disgusting as racism to a political lean to shame people away from it or smear. Let's win on ideas people, not political gotcha games.
Click to expand...

Sorry for jumping in this late. But if the Democrats in the south were never conservative then why did they separate from the Union to create a confederacy based on strong states rights and a weak central government?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think you are mistaking what people consider themselves versus reality. Democrats can call themselves conservative, but if they expand the federal or really any role of government past necessary and proper they are not conservatives. Many of those southern votes expanded powers past what was necessary and proper, thus, not really all that conservative.
Click to expand...

Any research done yet?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Haven't had time.
Click to expand...

Yet you have time to post alot.

I provided you with some links, you could just start there.

Trust me, looking for evidence that the South was completely controlled by a bunch of liberals from 1860-1960 is going to be fruitless.
 
misterman said:
Yet you have time to post alot.

I provided you with some links, you could just start there.

Trust me, looking for evidence that the South was completely controlled by a bunch of liberals from 1860-1960 is going to be fruitless.
Click to expand...
Don't be a smartass, seriously. You are asking for over 80 years of voting records pertaining to a political party versus their ideological lean. Actually scratch that, you are asking me to go back to the 1800's when the real seeds of expansion started. You think that's a small order?
Fine then, this is what you get, take it or leave it.
- Bull Conner, Chicago, local expansionist, race riots; not conservative.
- Robert Byrd, Former Klansman, just about everything funded federally in his state has his namesake, spending went out of control on his watch, fiscally extremely liberal, dropped the N bomb on national T.V. not so long ago.
- FDR, national, expanded the federal role of government with help from a Democrat congress, era of Jim Crowe was in full effect, did not end it, spent tons of money on the federal expansion, did not de-segregate the U.S. military.
- Democrat congress of the 1960's, filibustered the Civil Rights act and were big spenders. Their own president John F. Kennedy had to fight them tooth and nail to reduce the tax rates.
- Bill Clinton/Ted Kennedy, in a conversation about BHO Clinton mused about the fact that the "boy would have been fetching us coffee a few years ago", Clinton's record speaks for itself.

Again, since you want to play these games and then try to structure the argument we're done here. If you even try to spin it that these self-proclaimed liberals were conservative then you aren't being honest.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Don't be a smartass, seriously. You are asking for over 80 years of voting records pertaining to a political party versus their ideological lean. Actually scratch that, you are asking me to go back to the 1800's when the real seeds of expansion started. You think that's a small order?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not asking you to do that at all.

Other people have done that kind of thing already. You simply need to read their results.

There are plenty of books and web links about the Southern Democrats out there.

- Bull Conner, Chicago, local expansionist, race riots; not conservative.
Click to expand...

Um, so Bull Conner was a liberal?

Really?

This shows what you're really doing here - defining conservative and liberal to fit your needs.

- Robert Byrd, Former Klansman, just about everything funded federally in his state has his namesake, spending went out of control on his watch, fiscally extremely liberal, dropped the N bomb on national T.V. not so long ago.
Click to expand...

Yes. One guy.

- FDR, national, expanded the federal role of government with help from a Democrat congress, era of Jim Crowe was in full effect, did not end it, spent tons of money on the federal expansion, did not de-segregate the U.S. military.
Click to expand...

And not a Southerner and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

- Democrat congress of the 1960's, filibustered the Civil Rights act and were big spenders. Their own president John F. Kennedy had to fight them tooth and nail to reduce the tax rates.
Click to expand...

And the Southern Democrats were conservatives, the northerners liberal. You can't point to the whole Congress and judge factions based on it. That's a logical fallacy.

- Bill Clinton/Ted Kennedy, in a conversation about BHO Clinton mused about the fact that the "boy would have been fetching us coffee a few years ago", Clinton's record speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Kennedy is also not a Southerner. Clinton was elected after the 1960s.

Again, since you want to play these games and then try to structure the argument we're done here. If you even try to spin it that these self-proclaimed liberals were conservative then you aren't being honest.
Click to expand...

Ask any scholar, read any book - you will find that the Southern Democrats were conservative by every sense of the word. It's a well-known and well-accepted fact of history. You were unaware of this because you made simplistic assumptions. Now you know better. Chalk it up to a learning experience. I am not here to humiliate you, but if you continue to deny this basic fact, you'll do that to yourself.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Don't be a smartass, seriously. You are asking for over 80 years of voting records pertaining to a political party versus their ideological lean. Actually scratch that, you are asking me to go back to the 1800's when the real seeds of expansion started. You think that's a small order?
Fine then, this is what you get, take it or leave it.
- Bull Conner, Chicago, local expansionist, race riots; not conservative.
- Robert Byrd, Former Klansman, just about everything funded federally in his state has his namesake, spending went out of control on his watch, fiscally extremely liberal, dropped the N bomb on national T.V. not so long ago.
- FDR, national, expanded the federal role of government with help from a Democrat congress, era of Jim Crowe was in full effect, did not end it, spent tons of money on the federal expansion, did not de-segregate the U.S. military.
- Democrat congress of the 1960's, filibustered the Civil Rights act and were big spenders. Their own president John F. Kennedy had to fight them tooth and nail to reduce the tax rates.
- Bill Clinton/Ted Kennedy, in a conversation about BHO Clinton mused about the fact that the "boy would have been fetching us coffee a few years ago", Clinton's record speaks for itself.

Again, since you want to play these games and then try to structure the argument we're done here. If you even try to spin it that these self-proclaimed liberals were conservative then you aren't being honest.
Click to expand...

Was the south just pretending to be conservative when they broke off from the Union to form a confederacy of states based on States rights and a weak central government?
 
PogueMoran said:
Was the south just pretending to be conservative when they broke off from the Union to form a confederacy of states based on States rights and a weak central government?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they were also pro-slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom