Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#202 Oct 08 2015 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Imperial Speakership! Boehner's regime!

I assume he'll want to get the fuck out of town before, oh, say... December 11th? By Nov 30th, he'll be giving his gavel and tiara to the House janitor.


Amusing factoid about this that I wasn't aware of until just the last few days. Apparently, anyone can be Speaker of the House. It does not have to be an elected representative in the House itself. Just have to have a majority in the House agree on the choice. So yeah, could be the janitor. Or Donald Trump. Kill two birds with one stone on that one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Oct 08 2015 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.
gbaji wrote:
That's the point so many people don't seem to get.
Yes, context is easy to ignore if you think no one is paying attention. But nice try.
gbaji wrote:
Are going to constantly get their facts wrong, like you've done?
See, you're wrong a dozen times over again and repeated yourself. Thanks for proving me right, again.

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 5:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#204 Oct 08 2015 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Well. If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives.?
Well. If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that lots of Democrats (ie the Southern ones) were the conservatives then. But you've decided again and again on this forum to ignore the truth when you don't like it. Echo chamber and all that.


Dammit, lolgaxe!Smiley: mad

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 3:57pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#205 Oct 08 2015 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?


Because I'm not creating a criteria for marriage status qualification based on whether it would make it easier for that couple to adopt. You are. I have repeatedly rejected that as a good reason to expand the marriage status.

By your argument, why not expand marriage to siblings then? Why not parents and adult children? Heck. Why not whole families? Why not groups of people? If two people is a more stable condition for raising children than one, wouldn't three be better? Or 5? Or 10? We could argue that any number of people greater than one should be allowed to marry by your argument, because all of those have the same result with regard to potential for that larger number of people adopting children.

It's a really weak argument for expanding marriage.

Quote:
The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.


Again though, then why not argue for offering the same deal to everyone? You're offering it just to SS couples. Why the restriction? I get the whole slippery slope fallacy thing, but when your argument literally is a slippery slope, and you've provided no reason it shouldn't slide further, then it's a perfectly valid response. Clearly, unless you are arguing for further expansion, there must be some other criteria for marriage that is stronger than just "if we let them marry, they might adopt". Can you tell me what that criteria is now? Prior to SSM, that criteria was simple: "Grant marriage status to the set of all couples who might procreate". Now? What is it? What purpose does it serve? And where is the boundary for that status within the context of that purpose?

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 11:56am by gbaji


Your argument is quite literally, retarded.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#206 Oct 09 2015 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Dammit, lolgaxe! Smiley: mad
You can have the next part where he says it doesn't count because semantics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#207 Oct 09 2015 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So has Ryan been strong armed into "running" for Speaker yet? He's got to be pissed about the leaks of Boehner making personal pleas to him: If he runs, he gets stuck with a shit job he absolutely doesn't want. If he doesn't, he's an asshole who wouldn't take one for the team to preserve the GOP leadership.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 9:21am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#208 Oct 09 2015 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
On one hand, he's been pretty adamant about not wanting to be the House Speaker. On the other hand, so have a handful of the candidates for the presidency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Oct 09 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but if he did want to be Speaker, the time to speak up would have been early on before McCarthy was made the assumed shoo-in. Given the current state of the GOP, being Speaker now will be a thankless task where you get to explain to a bunch of people out for your blood that, no, we can't just let the US default or refuse to raise the debt limit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210 Oct 09 2015 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
I can't imagine anyone wants to be Speaker any more than anyone wants to leave the Olympics with a bronze. Just throwing out the possibility that he's holding out for a better deal and leaving that in his pocket to fall back on.

Carly Fiorina seems to believe that a degree in Medieval History is what's missing in our fight against ISIS. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, because no one ever expects a Spanish Inquisition. Also "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" would be great bit of foreign policy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#211 Oct 09 2015 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, I'm sure plenty of people want to be Speaker under better circumstances. Pelosi seemed to enjoy the job but then she wasn't leading a party rotting out from the inside.

Ryan potentially has higher aspirations than Congress. Maybe Secretary of the Treasury (rumors say), maybe president some day. Leading the House while it's hellbent on sabotaging government out of pique will probably hurt his chances rather than advance them. There's also a major fundraising aspect to it which Ryan is reportedly very adverse to. He's probably the best candidate the GOP has on paper but, from a personal standpoint, he's going to hate it.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 10:46am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212 Oct 09 2015 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, to give credit to Gbaji, there is a rumor of McCarthy having an affair with Rep Renee Ellmers although both (naturally) deny it and it doesn't seem to have much mainstream traction. But a major GOP donor reportedly sent McCarthy an email the other day saying that he needed to quietly drop out before said donor was forced to make it into a big story.

Here's a photo of the two in order to facilitate your imagining them grunting under some scratchy hotel comforter and sweatily trying to justify the argument for government heterosexual marriage benefits. The other guy would holding the camera or something, I guess.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 10:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#213 Oct 09 2015 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Is that Bill Nye the Science guy?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#214 Oct 09 2015 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
***
1,061 posts
The USA did so well against the Taliban, it can be truly confident of a strategic victory against ISIS.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#215 Oct 09 2015 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mitt Romney called Paul Ryan to push him to take the Speakership. 'Cause there's a guy Paul Ryan should be taking career advice from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#216 Oct 09 2015 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also endorsing Ryan is Democratic Rep Luis Gutierrez who says that Ryan would great for taking up and passing a comprehensive ("Amnesty!!") immigration reform bill Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Oct 09 2015 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Next up, Huckabee will give him spiritual and historical advice.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#218 Oct 09 2015 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.


Um... No. The government wasn't handing out or receiving dowries. You're being ridiculous.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.


You're reverse defining conservative and liberal in order to fit your current narrative (yes, Semantics!). I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

The larger point you're missing in your grand labeling scheme is the ideas behind the positions. Why does one hold a position on an issue? And in the case of marriage, the argument in Loving was that since mixed race couples fulfilled the procreative aspect of marriage, and were producing children in their relationships, then not granting them marriage statuses was a violation of their rights. Key point being that it was the fact that they procreated that required them to be allowed to marry.

That same procreative argument is today being used by one "side" of the SSM issue to argue that *** couples should not be granted that status, since they don't meet the same criteria. Regardless of what labels we use, the argument for granting marriage licenses to mixed race couples also applies as an argument against granting those licenses to SS couples. You're free to spin your head around trying to figure out which side was which then, who shifted parties for what reasons in-between, etc. But that doesn't really address the issue at hand right now.

One "side" has been consistent in how it applies the concept of marriage status and benefits. The other "side" plays fast and loose with it and seems primarily to want to use the status (among many other government benefits) as a bargaining chip to get various identity groups to support them politically. Guess which side you are on?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Oct 09 2015 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
I'm curious, Gbaji.

Assuming conservatives largely oppose SSM now and liberals largely favor it, do you believe in 30 years that conservatives will still claim to have opposed SSM and while liberals favored it?

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 7:56pm by Allegory
#220 Oct 09 2015 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

I assume you've never actually looked at historical electoral maps, particularly those around the 1950s and 1960s. It's no doubt just a wacky coincidence that the same band of states who were the only ones to vote for Stevenson in 1952 & 1956 were, in 1964, the only ones to vote for Goldwater. All the Democrats in those states just suddenly had an epiphany about how awesome Goldwater was, completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Act, and changed their party affiliation on a lark.

Honestly, you don't even have to answer this and embarrass yourself further.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Oct 09 2015 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
Must be hard for gbaji to be in a party so chock full of hateful, bigoted racist because he's totally not any of those things.Smiley: frown

I'll pray for you immortal soul, lil' buddy!

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 8:16pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#222 Oct 09 2015 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,227 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.


Um... No. The government wasn't handing out or receiving dowries. You're being ridiculous.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.


You're reverse defining conservative and liberal in order to fit your current narrative (yes, Semantics!). I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

The larger point you're missing in your grand labeling scheme is the ideas behind the positions. Why does one hold a position on an issue? And in the case of marriage, the argument in Loving was that since mixed race couples fulfilled the procreative aspect of marriage, and were producing children in their relationships, then not granting them marriage statuses was a violation of their rights. Key point being that it was the fact that they procreated that required them to be allowed to marry.

That same procreative argument is today being used by one "side" of the SSM issue to argue that *** couples should not be granted that status, since they don't meet the same criteria. Regardless of what labels we use, the argument for granting marriage licenses to mixed race couples also applies as an argument against granting those licenses to SS couples. You're free to spin your head around trying to figure out which side was which then, who shifted parties for what reasons in-between, etc. But that doesn't really address the issue at hand right now.

One "side" has been consistent in how it applies the concept of marriage status and benefits. The other "side" plays fast and loose with it and seems primarily to want to use the status (among many other government benefits) as a bargaining chip to get various identity groups to support them politically. Guess which side you are on?


Are you being serious? GOP mastered framing and redefining reality as seen fit to match current needs. Guess why liberuls have become a pejorative, and why entitlements have become such an emotionally laden word. Hint, it did not happen by accident.

Credit where credit is due, Rs have had much better understanding of theatrics and marketing. Ds are only now trying to catch up ( though by and large with lame efforts along the lines of 'hurr durr, he is pro-life, but doesn't mind death from guns' ).

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#223 Oct 10 2015 at 5:31 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,146 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also endorsing Ryan is Democratic Rep Luis Gutierrez who says that Ryan would great for taking up and passing a comprehensive ("Amnesty!!") immigration reform bill
I'm not familiar with all 700 congressmen, but Ryan seems a million times better than Mccarthy or that other guy trying to run.
#224 Oct 10 2015 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
I'm pretty excited about the potential outcome of the speakership race. It was great to see the House pull out the Discharge Petition for the Export-Import Bank, yesterday. I don't even really care whether I support it or not. I'm just glad there might be some slight sign of actual willingness for bipartisan work in America, rather than the typical "B-Rock 'The Islamic Shock' Hussein Superallah Obama can't keep getting away with this" mentality in DC. Also, the bit Stephen Colbert ran the other night about Kevin McCarthy was pretty fucking funny.

There is apparently both a Republican and Democratic debate coming to Wisconsin during the primaries. The Republican debate is next month and I'm going to try to go to both.

Oh, and since this is the first time I've posted on ZAM in over two years, I thought you might all find it nifty that I went to DC and sat in line, beginning on Friday April 24, 2015 to sit in for the Obergefell v. Hodges oral arguments at SCOTUS. It was pretty amazing and I loved witnessing SCOTUS live in person. I also wore my cheesehead and made a bunch of media stories, including Face the Nation, right before they introduced that Douchey McDoucherton, Tony Perkins. Here's a pic with my SCOTUS entry pass as #39.



Edited, Oct 10th 2015 8:05pm by Paskil
#225 Oct 10 2015 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pretty awesome that you got to witness that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#226 Oct 10 2015 at 11:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,227 posts
Paskil wrote:
I'm pretty excited about the potential outcome of the speakership race. It was great to see the House pull out the Discharge Petition for the Export-Import Bank, yesterday. I don't even really care whether I support it or not. I'm just glad there might be some slight sign of actual willingness for bipartisan work in America, rather than the typical "B-Rock 'The Islamic Shock' Hussein Superallah Obama can't keep getting away with this" mentality in DC. Also, the bit Stephen Colbert ran the other night about Kevin McCarthy was pretty fucking funny.

There is apparently both a Republican and Democratic debate coming to Wisconsin during the primaries. The Republican debate is next month and I'm going to try to go to both.

Oh, and since this is the first time I've posted on ZAM in over two years, I thought you might all find it nifty that I went to DC and sat in line, beginning on Friday April 24, 2015 to sit in for the Obergefell v. Hodges oral arguments at SCOTUS. It was pretty amazing and I loved witnessing SCOTUS live in person. I also wore my cheesehead and made a bunch of media stories, including Face the Nation, right before they introduced that Douchey McDoucherton, Tony Perkins. Here's a pic with my SCOTUS entry pass as #39.



Edited, Oct 10th 2015 8:05pm by Paskil


I am jelly. That said, I am not sure whether bipartisan work is so good for the little guy ( like me ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#227 Oct 10 2015 at 11:20 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Pretty awesome that you got to witness that.


Two things:

1. If you listen to the actual oral arguments, you know there was a crazy dude that jumped up between question one and two. Two things about that: First, that guy was right in front of me. There was a chair with an 8x10 printout that said "reserved." When they sat that guy, he was crazy looking and it was partway into oral arguments (like 30 minutes in). I would almost think that he was sat there intentionally to make the anti-same sex marriage side seem crazy. Seriously, when the guy jumped up and started screaming, he almost knocked me out of my chair and you could hear him for almost 10 minutes after his interruption. He really didn't do the anti-animus arguments any favors.

2. It was amazing witnessing the justices in action. I would never have expected the calm and relaxed environment. Thomas spent a good portion reclined so that you couldn't see his face, staring at the ceiling. There was also a good chunk of time where he was deep in conversation with Breyer. It was obvious that Breyer asked some questions for him through the process. Disappointing to see that Thomas was only quiet because he got others to do his job.

Seriously, though, I loved being there. I am a total nerd and SCOTUS oral arguments were amazing, and I would totally be there again, even for a boring case.
#228 Oct 12 2015 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guess which side you are on?
The one that analyzes all the information available to come to a logical conclusion, regardless of personal opinions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#229 Oct 13 2015 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
Democratic Debate tonight. CNN is setting an extra podium to the side in case Biden shows up. Much like every other debate, don't expect much actual content. Probably a Trump rant or two. Starts during Flash and Agents of SHIELD, so pretty much ensuring no one will actually watch it.

Also, apparently Paul Ryan is now not conservative enough.

Edited, Oct 13th 2015 10:41am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#230 Oct 13 2015 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
Holy ****, what would make these fools happy?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#231 Oct 13 2015 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Starts during Flash and Agents of SHIELD, so pretty much ensuring no one will actually watch it.
I'd be more content watching a snail crawl than watching either of those shows.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#232 Oct 13 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Starts during Flash and Agents of SHIELD, so pretty much ensuring no one will actually watch it.
I'd be more content watching a spoon rust in a pail of fresh water than watching either of those shows.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#233 Oct 13 2015 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
If you're trying to hint at not liking those shows you should just say it and not be so subtle about it. Not everyone can pick up on those cues.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#234 Oct 13 2015 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If you're trying to hint at not liking those shows you should just say it and not be so subtle about it. Not everyone can pick up on those cues.
They're not worth speaking to.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#235 Oct 13 2015 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,061 posts
Samira wrote:
Holy ****, what would make these fools happy?


Have you seen the film 'Blade Runner'?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#236 Oct 13 2015 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
***
1,061 posts
To be fair, for some of them its more Handmaid's Tale. Did they ever make a film of that book? I ask because all conservatives are illiterate.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#237 Oct 13 2015 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
I ask because all conservatives are illiterate.

My Bible done tell me that readin' is for the Devil.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#238 Oct 13 2015 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
That should be "fer the Devil" you illiterate hillbilly
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#239 Oct 14 2015 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
There's probably a niche market for Bible audiobooks, but I imagine that'd first require finding someone who would be willing to read all of it and then finding people willing to listen to all of it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#240 Oct 14 2015 at 4:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

I assume you've never actually looked at historical electoral maps, particularly those around the 1950s and 1960s. It's no doubt just a wacky coincidence that the same band of states who were the only ones to vote for Stevenson in 1952 & 1956 were, in 1964, the only ones to vote for Goldwater. All the Democrats in those states just suddenly had an epiphany about how awesome Goldwater was, completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Act, and changed their party affiliation on a lark.


Gee. I can't imagine how federal action to end segregation and Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised blacks in the south might result in a shift of political party votes from the party that had been using those systems to maintain power to the party that had been fighting against them for the better part of a century. You're right! It must have been that the GOP became racists, and then suddenly, despite the tools of racial control having been dismantled, this magically allowed them to rise to power.

Or. The much more logical explanation could be that once the racist tools were removed, the Dems could no longer maintain power in the south. Nah! That's just crazy!

Quote:
Honestly, you don't even have to answer this and embarrass yourself further.


Not embarrassment at all. Just a better understanding of the history of the issue. Here's an interesting read on the subject. Sure dismiss it because it's National Review, if you want. Um... It's not like liberal sources are going to talk about this. They'd much prefer to stay silent and let the myth makers just spread the false assumption about some kind of party switch up on race. Here's a relevant section:

Quote:
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.

Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this — I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.


But hey. Let's not let some facts get in the way of a good myth.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Oct 14 2015 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Gee. I can't imagine how federal action to end segregation and Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised blacks in the south might result in a shift of political party votes from the party that had been using those systems to maintain power to the party that had been fighting against them for the better part of a century

Your argument is that, following the Civil Rights Act, all the blacks exercised their voting rights to start voting Republican and flipped the states?

Well, that's... interesting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Oct 14 2015 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Gee. I can't imagine how federal action to end segregation and Jim Crow laws which disenfranchised blacks in the south might result in a shift of political party votes from the party that had been using those systems to maintain power to the party that had been fighting against them for the better part of a century

Your argument is that, following the Civil Rights Act, all the blacks exercised their voting rights to start voting Republican and flipped the states?


No. I'm saying that as the principles of civil rights became more prevalent in the South, and as the principles of segregation became less acceptable, the voters tended away from the party that supported segregation and to the party that supported civil rights. You do understand that while the angry white racist railing against change is a great visual to evoke, the reality is that the change he most railed against was his fellow whites adopting civil rights positions. Those are the views that changed, and those are the voters who shifted to the GOP.

The southern white vote became less racist, and thus they voted for the less racist party (that's the GOP in case you're still confused).

Quote:
Well, that's... interesting.


Yes, it is. And if you actually study the pattern of states flipping from Dem to GOP during the time period in question, you'll see that the deep south states where not the first southern states to flip. They were the last. It was younger southern white voters who moved to the GOP first, while the older ones clung to the Democratic party instead. It was the newer migrants to the area following an upswing in post war prosperity in the south who voted GOP, while the locals continued to vote for the Dems. This pattern is overwhelming. And honestly, it has far less to do with race as it did with economics. But one can argue strongly that to whatever degree race did have an impact on white votes in the south, it overwhelmingly was the result of white voters adopting the ideals of civil rights and thus voting for the party that actually supported civil rights rather than the party that opposed it for as long as they could, and then only adopted it if they could use it to push a more socialist economic platform along the way.

The one irony in the whole thing is that blacks voted majority for the Dems even while the Dems were openly in support of segregation and Jim Crow, and continue to do so now. There's some interesting analyses for this, but that's pretty much an entire topic itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#243 Oct 14 2015 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that as the principles of civil rights became more prevalent in the South, and as the principles of segregation became less acceptable, the voters tended away from the party that supported segregation and to the party that supported civil rights

Oooohhhh... so your argument is that the white man was somehow held down in Alabama by racist Democratic policies. And, when freed of those policies (somehow via the CRA?) he started voting Republican while the black community flocked to the segregationist platform.

That's... slightly less interesting and maybe a little more insane.
Quote:
And if you actually study the pattern of states flipping from Dem to GOP during the time period in question, you'll see that the deep south states where not the first southern states to flip.

The Civil Rights Act passed in July 1964. Here's the 1964 electoral map from November of that same year.

Yeah, totally late to the GOP party, those guys Smiley: laugh

Edited, Oct 14th 2015 8:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#244 Oct 14 2015 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that as the principles of civil rights became more prevalent in the South, and as the principles of segregation became less acceptable, the voters tended away from the party that supported segregation and to the party that supported civil rights

Oooohhhh... so your argument is that the white man was somehow held down in Alabama by racist Democratic policies. And, when freed of those policies (somehow via the CRA?) he started voting Republican while the black community flocked to the segregationist platform.


Um... No. WTF? I'm saying that after WW2, the makeup in the south changed dramatically as economic prosperity brought more people into the area, making segregation less popular among whites over time. In the 50s and 60s, this tipped the conflict over and the electorate moved away from the party that had previously maintained power via support for segregation and Jim Crow, to the party that was against those things.

You really have no clue how the civil rights period went, do you? I suppose you think that it was 100% about black folks marching and singing "we shall overcome", to an entirely racist pro-segregation white crowd, and nothing changed opinion wise before or since? That's... insane. The reality is that white opinions about segregation had been changing in the south for a couple decades. The folks holding things up were the old guard, mostly old white Democrats, who held political power and resisted change.

The voters moved to the GOP because the GOP wasn't the party of racists. The idea that the percentage of white racists in the south never changed, and they all just moved to the GOP, and that's why they started winning in the south is just plain wrong. It's nonsensical. The voters changed from a majority that supported segregation and thus running on a segregation platform was the route to power (ie: the Democrats), to a non-segregation platform (actually an economic platform that really didn't have anything to do with race at all).

The point you and many liberals just can't seem to get through your heads is that race ceased to be a winning platform issue in the south like 50 years ago. The GOP has *never* run on that platform, vague claims of coded messages and "southern strategies" aside. Voters moved to the GOP because the GOP was *not* the party of racism. I'm just not sure how many different ways I can say this.

Quote:
Quote:
And if you actually study the pattern of states flipping from Dem to GOP during the time period in question, you'll see that the deep south states where not the first southern states to flip.

The Civil Rights Act passed in July 1964. Here's the 1964 electoral map from November of that same year.


You're cherry picking one year and one election and missing the broader pattern. In that one year it's possible that racists in the south, in a last gasp effort to hold power, and thinking that Goldwater was a racist himself, voted for him on what was otherwise a weak platform. But that's the outlier. It's not reflected in the congressional races. And it's not reflected in the 1968 presidential election, nor those after that point. The pattern was that the peripheral south states went GOP first, and the deep south states last.

I'm looking at the pattern over time. You're looking at one election. That's not enough to see a pattern. Go look at the same map for the previous 5 elections and the 5 after that. Then you'll see a different pattern.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#245 Oct 14 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
The folks holding things up were the old guard, mostly old white Democrats, who held political power and resisted change.
You know what you call an old white guy in a position of political power who resists change? A conservative.

gbaji wrote:
The voters moved to the GOP because the GOP wasn't the party of racists. The idea that the percentage of white racists in the south never changed, and they all just moved to the GOP, and that's why they started winning in the south is just plain wrong.
There is not an smiley on Alla's that truly represents my reaction to your utter failure of comprehending reality, so I guess I'll have to settle for:

Smiley: looney
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#246 Oct 15 2015 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You really have no clue how the civil rights period went, do you?

This would be a lot more stinging if you could form an actual argument.
Quote:
The voters moved to the GOP because the GOP wasn't the party of racists.

In 1964, after the passage of the CRA by Johnson, the deep south went Republican. In 1968, they all voted for segregationist George Wallace. So your argument is NOW that all the poor oppressed anti-racists were forced to vote Democratic until 1964, then they were freed of their shackles to vote non-racist Republican -- for one cycle then they all voted for the segregationist. then they went back to non-racist Republicans (except for regional son, Jimmy Carter, who couldn't even hold the south for two cycles).
Quote:
You're cherry picking one year and one election and missing the broader pattern.

You're cherry picking the year most likely to show a response to Civil Rights legislation! How UNFAIR!

Smiley: laugh

Go read some more right wing blogs, Gbaji. It'll make you feel better.

Edited, Oct 15th 2015 8:01am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#247 Oct 15 2015 at 7:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In non-Gbaji is insane political news, another Republican House member has spoken out saying that the Benghazi hearing is political and designed to take down Clinton. This is after a former GOP staffer on the committee said he was fired for not going after Clinton hard enough.

Not to congratulate my own powers of prediction but...
Back on March 15, I wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you arguing that we should just ignore anything Clinton does because of who she is? What exactly does she have to do before you'll agree that maybe an investigation is justified?
No, I'm saying, factually, that the GOP will trip over their own dicks in the mad rush to be the one who sticks it to her. As history has proven.


____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#248 Oct 15 2015 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
49,563 posts
gbaji wrote:
The point you and many liberals just can't seem to get through your heads is that race ceased to be a winning platform issue in the south like 50 years ago.
Immigrants are bad, Mexicans are all rapists and criminals, track tourists by fingerprint ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#249 Oct 15 2015 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cadillac welfare queens, Obamaphones, minorities want to vote for Santa Claus...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Oct 15 2015 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert will plea guilty to evading federal banking reporting laws in a deal entered today. It's reported that the feds are requiring a one year prison term as part of the plea bargain plus whatever other fine or restitution is included.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Oct 15 2015 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,207 posts
And Ben Carson's medical license is being revoked?

Jeb Bush's campaign is cutting back, whatever that means in context.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)