• 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

"Some" is not the complete reality. The fact is that a conservative Democrat is still going to redistribute, game the system, and get creative with people's taxes, then take credit for the projects they fund.

Then he's not a conservative, is he?
 
I said the Democrats caused them, stop misrepresenting my statements or I will report you. I'm getting tired of these little games of yours.

Get off your high horse. If I misunderstood you, just correct me, don't go whining that you'll tell on me.

Creating the income tax isn't the same thing as creating loopholes for it. My statement stands.
 
Last edited:
What a crock.

That shows just how ignorant you are and how unwilling you are to learn.

History is real. It happened. Just denying it doesn't change that.
 
Get off your high horse. If I misunderstood you, just correct me, don't go whining that you'll tell on me.
No, I specifically stated Democrats created the loopholes, you misrepresented what I said which you are famous for, I'm not going to allow you to do that. You either are going to start debating honestly or I'm going to report you.
 
"Some" is not the complete reality. The fact is that a conservative Democrat is still going to redistribute, game the system, and get creative with people's taxes, then take credit for the projects they fund. Misterman is wrong.

and you have the complete reality?
I watched the DEM types do their best to keep blacks out of jobs, then turn around and criticize them for not working.
I watched the DEM types keep blacks out of their all white neighborhoods and then criticze them for living in slums.
I watched the NAVY steer blacks into the menial professions, the jobs that would keep them poor, instead of the technical jobs that would pay well in civilian life later on.
One of my high school friends dad was a deputy sheriff who was racist as they come, and he bragged about how he and his fellow deputies would get hired by schools to keep the blacks from attending ball games at the all white schools.
My dad, a lifelong democrat union machinist, turned Republican after he got first hand knowledge of how his own union treated blacks.
Republicans weren't much better, I suspect, but then I didn't know any in the early 60's.

The south was an ugly place in the 50's and 60's.....
 
No, I specifically stated Democrats created the loopholes, you misrepresented what I said which you are famous for, I'm not going to allow you to do that. You either are going to start debating honestly or I'm going to report you.

Sigh.

You said Democrats created the loopholes.

Then you cited creation of the income tax as an example.

I noted that creating the tax itself isn't creation of a loophole. There were no "loopholes" in the original income tax.

You got all mad and said you'd report me.

If you have a problem with what I said, explain it. I have yet to see you explain yourself adequately. I don't think I'm misrepresenting you. This is part of debate.
 
and you have the complete reality?
I watched the DEM types do their best to keep blacks out of jobs, then turn around and criticize them for not working.
I watched the DEM types keep blacks out of their all white neighborhoods and then criticze them for living in slums.
I watched the NAVY steer blacks into the menial professions, the jobs that would keep them poor, instead of the technical jobs that would pay well in civilian life later on.
One of my high school friends dad was a deputy sheriff who was racist as they come, and he bragged about how he and his fellow deputies would get hired by schools to keep the blacks from attending ball games at the all white schools.
My dad, a lifelong democrat union machinist, turned Republican after he got first hand knowledge of how his own union treated blacks.
Republicans weren't much better, I suspect, but then I didn't know any in the early 60's.

The south was an ugly place in the 50's and 60's.....
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.
 
Last edited:
Sigh.

You said Democrats created the loopholes.

Then you cited creation of the income tax as an example.
You can stop the games. I said they created the current income tax, I didn't say it was "to create the loopholes" it was to assert that they know how it works and what it's failings are. Also they know which groups need it to continue. The loopholes were a result of all politicians, but especially Democrats using the weaknesses and failings of the tax law to write backdoors towards avoiding paying more in taxes. The more money you have the more accessible these back doors are.

I noted that creating the tax itself isn't creation of a loophole. There were no "loopholes" in the original income tax.

You got all mad and said you'd report me.
You completely misrepresented the argument, and still are.
 
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.

Of course they were conservative. They would proudly say so. It is possible to be conservative and racist at the same time. Just like it's possible to be a Democrat and conservative at the same time. There is no single definition of Democrat, or of conservative.

I am not using this as a smear to say that all conservatives are racist. At the same time, nobody should try to smear Democrats or liberals as racist either.

The truth is the Democrat party never was conservative, not even truly moderate if we are being honest

The fact that this would mean that pretty much the entire South elected a bunch of liberals for 100 years after the Civil War should at least make you stop and think about what you're saying.
 
You can stop the games.
I'm not playing games. You can stop whining and start having a discussion.

I said they created the current income tax, I didn't say it was "to create the loopholes" it was to assert that they know how it works and what it's failings are.

Fine, whatever. You had responded directly to a claim that they didn't. It sure as hell looked like this is what you were arguing.

The loopholes were a result of all politicians, but especially Democrats

I see you've softened a little, that's progress.

You completely misrepresented the argument, and still are.

I called it as I saw it. If I was wrong, just explain and don't go whining. I'll accept your explanation.
 
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.

I agree. I have never said this means conservatism= racism. You need to stop saying that Democrat=liberal=racism.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's get away from the personal stuff and stay away from it.
 
The KKK was founded by Democrats. You might want to check that trap's maintenance.

That's true, but we all know that it is the Republicans that are now racist......... the libs tell us so. :roll:
 
Maybe someone was late on a mafia payment.
 
Maybe someone was late on a mafia payment.
:rofl Okay, the randomness of that made me laugh. There is a well known mafia family in NOLA, but I seriously doubt these two were involved with that, then again, it is La.
 
I agree. I have never said this means conservatism= racism. You need to stop saying that Democrat=liberal=racism.
Never meant to imply that, but when people say that Democrats were conservative during racist years I will naturally assume they are trying to make the ideological connection. Democrats were never truly conservative, except for the states rights issue which they dropped well into the late 1800's.
 
Never meant to imply that, but when people say that Democrats were conservative during racist years I will naturally assume they are trying to make the ideological connection.

You can't assume anything.

Democrats were never truly conservative, .

Yet they were conservative in pretty much every sense of the word, and described themselves as such.

except for the states rights issue which they dropped well into the late 1800's

And then promptly revived in the 1950s.
 
You can't assume anything.



Yet they were conservative in pretty much every sense of the word, and described themselves as such.


And then promptly revived in the 1950s.
Point 1) With the constant implications in the modern political age there are no other choices IMO 2) They weren't exactly fiscally conservative and sidestepped the constitution on multiple occasions, a true conservative would never do that. Notice I said a true conservative and not a Republican. 3) The fifties did not see a return to state's rights in the least, it saw a temporary slowdown in the regulatory push to be taken back up in the sixties and furthered into the seventies.
 
Point 1) With the constant implications in the modern political age there are no other choices

Sorry, but you don't get to assume things. I don't do it with you, kindly don't do it to me or anyone else.

It's funny how you say there are no other choices when you're taking the choice away in the first place.

IMO 2) They weren't exactly fiscally conservative and sidestepped the constitution on multiple occasions, a true conservative would never do that.

No true Scotsman, you mean?

Notice I said a true conservative and not a Republican.

Thank you!

3) The fifties did not see a return to state's rights in the least,

I meant the Southern Democrats revived it as a cause.
 
Sorry, but you don't get to assume things. I don't do it with you, kindly don't do it to me or anyone else.

It's funny how you say there are no other choices when you're taking the choice away in the first place.
Fair enough.




I meant the Southern Democrats revived it as a cause.
Only on certain niche issues though, which is problematic. Either states own the rights guaranteed in the constitution completely or not.
 
Only on certain niche issues though, which is problematic. Either states own the rights guaranteed in the constitution completely or not.

You think civil rights, the granting of millions of people their full rights as citizens as promised in our Declaration of Independence after hundreds of years of slavery and abuse, is a "niche issue?"
 
You think civil rights, the granting of millions of people their full rights as citizens as promised in our Declaration of Independence after hundreds of years of slavery and abuse, is a "niche issue?"
Not in the truest sense of the word. What I mean in this particular instance is that the Dems in those days wanted the right to enforce racial codes specifically on the state/local levels but could have cared less about S.Security, and other programs, they were concerned about one singular issue being state/local level. This is why I used niche, similar to people who only voted based on their abortion stance, environment issues, etc. and throw out the rest of the politics as criteria. While the other singular issues are big F-ing deals(to quote the VP), they can cause secondary problems or ignorances when they become a singularity in campaigning.
 
Not in the truest sense of the word. What I mean in this particular instance is that the Dems in those days wanted the right to enforce racial codes specifically on the state/local levels but could have cared less about S.Security, and other programs, they were concerned about one singular issue being state/local level. This is why I used niche, similar to people who only voted based on their abortion stance, environment issues, etc. and throw out the rest of the politics as criteria. While the other singular issues are big F-ing deals(to quote the VP), they can cause secondary problems or ignorances when they become a singularity in campaigning.

Are you sure about that? My understanding and quick research shows that they took plenty of conservative stances on things like SS and social programs too. And they sure as hell weren't pro-abortion either.
 
Are you sure about that? My understanding and quick research shows that they took plenty of conservative stances on things like SS and social programs too. And they sure as hell weren't pro-abortion either.
I don't really see how any of the party's could have had a stance on abortion then, it was an example of niche issues that are important. With SS though, the Dems are the party that introduced it, don't see how they could be conservative towards it.
 
I don't really see how any of the party's could have had a stance on abortion then, it was an example of niche issues that are important.

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.

With SS though, the Dems are the party that introduced it, don't see how they could be conservative towards it.

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:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition]Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The conservative coalition, in the United States, was an unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, minority of the Democratic Party. Aside from 1949 to 1951, it controlled the United States Congress from 1939 to 1961 and remained a potent force until the mid-1980s.

History
In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had won a second term in a landslide, sweeping all but two states over his Republican opponent, Alf Landon. For the 1937 session of Congress the Republicans would have only 17 Senators (out of 96 total) and 89 congressmen (out of a total of 431). Given his party's overwhelming majorities, Roosevelt decided he could overcome opposition to his liberal New Deal policies by the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, which had struck down many New Deal agencies as unconstitutional. Roosevelt proposed to expand the size of the court from nine to fifteen justices; he could then "pack" the court with six new justices who would support his policies.

However, many conservative Southern Democrats strongly opposed the plan. Among their leaders were Senators Harry Byrd and Carter Glass of Virginia and Vice-President John Nance Garner of Texas. U.S. Senator Josiah Bailey (D-NC) released a "Conservative Manifesto" in December 1937.[1] "Give enterprise a chance, and I will give you the guarantees of a happy and prosperous America," Bailey said. The document called for a balanced federal budget, state's rights, and an end to labor union violence and coercion.[1] Over 100,000 copies were distributed and it marked a turning point in terms of congressional support for New Deal legislation.[1]

Democratic opposition to Roosevelt's "court packing" Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 was first led by coalition Democrat and House Judiciary Committee chairman Hatton W. Sumners. Sumners refused to endorse the bill, actively chopping it up within his committee in order to block the bill's chief effect of Supreme Court expansion. Finding such stiff opposition within the House, the administration arranged for the bill to be taken up in the Senate. Congressional Republicans decided to remain silent on the matter, denying pro-bill congressional Democrats the opportunity to use them as a unifying force. Republicans then watched from the sidelines as their Democratic coalition allies split the Democratic party vote in the Senate, defeating the bill. In the 1938 congressional elections the Republicans scored major gains in both houses, picking up six Senate seats and 80 House seats. Thereafter the Southern Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress would often vote together on major economic issues, thus defeating many proposals by liberal Democrats. Truman's Fair Deal was passed during a brief period of liberal control in 1949–51.
 
Back
Top Bottom