Our New King

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
No numbnuts, I meant that without Democrats, blacks still wouldn’t be able to vote.
[/quote]

This is absolutely incorrect.

Blacks can vote in spite of Democrats.

The Civil Rights Act, in 1865 or 66, gave blacks every freedom enjoyed by other citizens including suffrage.

It passed in Congress despite Democrat nays and was VETOED by Andrew Johnson (Democrat), was sent back to the Republican controlled Congress and was overridden.

One of the greatest misconceptions of the 19th-21st century is that “Democrats” carry the Civil Rights mantle. Major legislation that gives true equality to minorities have passed under Republican administrations. Unless you consider welfare a Civil Rights issue, eg. New Deal and Great Society, which are Democrat abhorrations.

The Voting Acts Right legislation in the 1960’s was essentially redundant wording of the 15th Amendment and clarified some things. To it’s credit, that was a Dem majority congress-- good for them, it only took 100 years for them to catch up.

An aside-- Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.

A quick history link for good measure:

LMAO-- To think The “Radical Republican Congress” fought tooth and nail to grant blacks equal rights. How many people realize that? What the Hell to they teach in schools these days-- that Bill Clinton was the first black president?

42

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Half our citizens don’t even be bother to vote.

Considering our population, this may not be a bad thing.

My god, I’ve been talking to kids at my school about politics… I thought the College-Liberal-ignoramus was a caricature or an unfair stereotype… it’s fucking UNBELIEVABLE <_<

Of course, the conservatives are hardly any better. They fall into the retarded stereotype the libs have made to hate and don’t see any problem with that. Then again, our conservative newspaper WAS founded by HH’s favorite woman (other than Ayn Rand I suppose) :D.

I honestly don’t want the kids here who think that McCain is going to “give money directly to the oil companies and start a war with Russia” voting. Of course, I also don’t want the “if you burn the American flag you’re an unamerican cunt who should be thrown into prison” crowd voting either.

/sigh

[/quote]

I don’t even bother discussing politics at college, and I just try to avoid solicitations as much as possible. Seriously one day there was a group of four protester in front of the dining hall, trying to solicit people on the sidewalk. I made round about path to the back entrance just to avoid having to talk to them.

43

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
No numbnuts, I meant that without Democrats, blacks still wouldn’t be able to vote.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Blacks can vote in spite of Democrats.

The Civil Rights Act, in 1865 or 66, gave blacks every freedom enjoyed by other citizens including suffrage.

It passed in Congress despite Democrat nays and was VETOED by Andrew Johnson (Democrat), was sent back to the Republican controlled Congress and was overridden.

One of the greatest misconceptions of the 19th-21st century is that “Democrats” carry the Civil Rights mantle. Major legislation that gives true equality to minorities have passed under Republican administrations. Unless you consider welfare a Civil Rights issue, eg. New Deal and Great Society, which are Democrat abhorrations.

The Voting Acts Right legislation in the 1960’s was essentially redundant wording of the 15th Amendment and clarified some things. To it’s credit, that was a Dem majority congress-- good for them, it only took 100 years for them to catch up.

An aside-- Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.

A quick history link for good measure:

LMAO-- To think The “Radical Republican Congress” fought tooth and nail to grant blacks equal rights. How many people realize that? What the Hell to they teach in schools these days-- that Bill Clinton was the first black president?[/quote]

This was my mistake. There was a paradigm shift in the 60s that occurred and changed the nature of politics.

What I should have said was “progressives”, or liberals.

44

[quote]JoeG254 wrote:

I don’t even bother discussing politics at college, and I just try to avoid solicitations as much as possible. Seriously one day there was a group of four protester in front of the dining hall, trying to solicit people on the sidewalk. I made round about path to the back entrance just to avoid having to talk to them.

[/quote]

I remember when I was at college some cunt got into an argument with an Army recruiter on campus. It was a disgusting display of pseudo-intelluctualism on her part, and I was embarrassed for her.

After that, I made a point of always shaking recruiter’s hands any time I saw them on campus, and telling them that we were proud of them.

They would always ask me if I had served in the Army before… I guess those were the only people that were nice to them on campuses.

It was disheartening…

45

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
No numbnuts, I meant that without Democrats, blacks still wouldn’t be able to vote.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Blacks can vote in spite of Democrats.

The Civil Rights Act, in 1865 or 66, gave blacks every freedom enjoyed by other citizens including suffrage.

It passed in Congress despite Democrat nays and was VETOED by Andrew Johnson (Democrat), was sent back to the Republican controlled Congress and was overridden.

One of the greatest misconceptions of the 19th-21st century is that “Democrats” carry the Civil Rights mantle. Major legislation that gives true equality to minorities have passed under Republican administrations. Unless you consider welfare a Civil Rights issue, eg. New Deal and Great Society, which are Democrat abhorrations.

The Voting Acts Right legislation in the 1960’s was essentially redundant wording of the 15th Amendment and clarified some things. To it’s credit, that was a Dem majority congress-- good for them, it only took 100 years for them to catch up.

An aside-- Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.

A quick history link for good measure:

LMAO-- To think The “Radical Republican Congress” fought tooth and nail to grant blacks equal rights. How many people realize that? What the Hell to they teach in schools these days-- that Bill Clinton was the first black president?

This was my mistake. There was a paradigm shift in the 60s that occurred and changed the nature of politics.

What I should have said was “progressives”, or liberals. [/quote]

Nope, you should have said Democrats, because that’t what you actully thought. Wrong again dipshit. but nice try.

46

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Nope, you should have said Democrats, because that’t what you actully thought. Wrong again dipshit. but nice try.[/quote]

No… I’m actually quite aware of the politics. I know, pretty well, that the titles of the party change. Andrew Jackson wouldn’t be a Democrat now, and I doubt Lincoln would find much in common with the Republicans.

Isn’t it past your bedtime?

47

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There’s as many mindless conservative voters as there are democratic ones.

I agree with this idea. I would only change “conservative” to “Republican”. True small-c ‘conservatives’, in my experience know and understand exactly why they vote the way they do. There are as many mindless “Republicans” as there are mindless “Democrats”.

So true.

There is such a thing as an intelligent informed liberal. I just wish they’d come clean and declare their hatred for the United States as founded, disown the constitution and simply state that they want a different country.

We could shake hands, disagree and fight.

Watching Obama with his bullshit pandering “I love this country toooooo much to…” is what kills me. STFU LIAR!!! Go play in your socialist nursery with Biden, Frank and Pelosi asshole.

You can sing Mikhalkov’s Hymn in barbershop quartet together.[/quote]

You no longer have to worry about Obama. The current Republican adminstration (along with the support of the Democrats) has officially transferred the government to Socialism. With their bailout, the government now owns Banks, Insurance Companies, all of the financials formally known as wall street and all of the junk mortagages written and lets not forget the 25 Billion just written to cover the “Big 3” automakers. It won’t stop here the airlines have been waiting in the wings (pun intended) for the government to take them over and transfer all costs to the American taxpayer. So capitalism is officially dead in the USA. But we can still pretend that socialism doesn’t exist because it is still more important that the corporate thief can pay his car payment (on a car costing more than the average house) than we provide medical care to keep that 12 year old from dying of cancer. With a uiversal health plan how would the insurance companies (now the government) and the pharmaceutical companies keep raping the average working class in the name of high profit. No, Obama is without a platform, socialism is already here and so yesterday.

48

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There’s as many mindless conservative voters as there are democratic ones.

I agree with this idea. I would only change “conservative” to “Republican”. True small-c ‘conservatives’, in my experience know and understand exactly why they vote the way they do. There are as many mindless “Republicans” as there are mindless “Democrats”.

So true.

There is such a thing as an intelligent informed liberal. I just wish they’d come clean and declare their hatred for the United States as founded, disown the constitution and simply state that they want a different country.

We could shake hands, disagree and fight.

Watching Obama with his bullshit pandering “I love this country toooooo much to…” is what kills me. STFU LIAR!!! Go play in your socialist nursery with Biden, Frank and Pelosi asshole.

You can sing Mikhalkov’s Hymn in barbershop quartet together.

You no longer have to worry about Obama. The current Republican adminstration (along with the support of the Democrats) has officially transferred the government to Socialism. With their bailout, the government now owns Banks, Insurance Companies, all of the financials formally known as wall street and all of the junk mortagages written and lets not forget the 25 Billion just written to cover the “Big 3” automakers. It won’t stop here the airlines have been waiting in the wings (pun intended) for the government to take them over and transfer all costs to the American taxpayer. So capitalism is officially dead in the USA. But we can still pretend that socialism doesn’t exist because it is still more important that the corporate thief can pay his car payment (on a car costing more than the average house) than we provide medical care to keep that 12 year old from dying of cancer. With a uiversal health plan how would the insurance companies (now the government) and the pharmaceutical companies keep raping the average working class in the name of high profit. No, Obama is without a platform, socialism is already here and so yesterday.
[/quote]

Ummm…they haven’t done it yet. But the rest of this is correct and quite disturbing.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:

Nope, you should have said Democrats, because that’t what you actully thought. Wrong again dipshit. but nice try.

No… I’m actually quite aware of the politics. I know, pretty well, that the titles of the party change. Andrew Jackson wouldn’t be a Democrat now, and I doubt Lincoln would find much in common with the Republicans.

Isn’t it past your bedtime?[/quote]

No…your actully full of shit and trying to recover.

Please enlighten all of us with your knowledge of Lincoln and why he would not be a republican? What would he be?

Not Many Democrats of the past would still be Democrats today. I’ll give you that. Althought there was a bit of a facination with Communism in the 50s and early 60s.

50

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Not Many Democrats of the past would still be Democrats today. I’ll give you that. Althought there was a bit of a facination with Communism in the 50s and early 60s.[/quote]

It started much earlier than that with progressive populism in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The “Populist” party had a platform largely geared at government ownership of railroads. Remember at that time, the railroads were expanding exponentially with the demand of transporting capital across the country. Enter petroleum and industrial politics.

Woodrow Wilson came out of this group-- basically anti-capitalists. The seeds of today’s Leftist movement in the US were sewn there. The term that I like to use “Class Warfare” was attributed to the Populists before the year 1900.

Can folks see why History is so important? You must know where we’ve come from to understand where we are going.

You hear people talk about wars in the middle east going on for centuries. This battle’s age is coming up on 100 years. “Workers Paradise” and “Class Warfare” vs. lassazi-fare (sp?) economic policy and true capitalism. The difference is now that with an almost universal education system, people are much dumber now. (that was an attempt at sarcasm and irony)

51

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Please enlighten all of us with your knowledge of Lincoln and why he would not be a republican? What would he be?
[/quote]

The freeing of slaves and leading the Civil War was about as progressive as one can be.

Abolitionists were certainly not conservatives, and although Lincoln was far from one himself, abolitionists themselves were part of Lincoln’s party. The Republican party was, at that time, far more progressive socially than the Democrats.

I don’t know that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, but I don’t think he would be a Republican. He fought a war that was, more or less, about having a stronger centralized government as opposed to the states (which many say is a Democrat idea) and the elimination of slavery (a socially progressive idea).

I don’t know that he would be a Democrat, but he would not be a republican. That’s very doubtful.

[quote]
Not Many Democrats of the past would still be Democrats today. I’ll give you that. Althought there was a bit of a facination with Communism in the 50s and early 60s.[/quote]

As I said, the parties have changed and mutated. They are far from their original incarnations, and they’re much different than they were even 40 years ago.

Dixiecrats would not be Democrats now. George Wallace would not be a democrat.

52

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
dhickey wrote:

Not Many Democrats of the past would still be Democrats today. I’ll give you that. Althought there was a bit of a facination with Communism in the 50s and early 60s.

It started much earlier than that with progressive populism in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The “Populist” party had a platform largely geared at government ownership of railroads. Remember at that time, the railroads were expanding exponentially with the demand of transporting capital across the country. Enter petroleum and industrial politics.

Woodrow Wilson came out of this group-- basically anti-capitalists. The seeds of today’s Leftist movement in the US were sewn there. The term that I like to use “Class Warfare” was attributed to the Populists before the year 1900.

Can folks see why History is so important? You must know where we’ve come from to understand where we are going.

You hear people talk about wars in the middle east going on for centuries. This battle’s age is coming up on 100 years. “Workers Paradise” and “Class Warfare” vs. lassazi-fare (sp?) economic policy and true capitalism. The difference is now that with an almost universal education system, people are much dumber now. (that was an attempt at sarcasm and irony)[/quote]

A mix of both is needed, and I think most people understand that.

The free market is still the free market, and America is still very capitalist. But corporations and the like are about the bottom line, and need oversight. Capitalism needs to be watched, because Laissez-faire capitalism, in whatever incarnation it existed in, leads to massive amounts of crime on many levels.

I think you are exagerrating the class warfare ideal. That day is dead.

53

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I think you are exagerrating the class warfare ideal. That day is dead.[/quote]

I think you have not heard a word Obama has said.

54

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I think you are exagerrating the class warfare ideal. That day is dead.

I think you have not heard a word Obama has said.[/quote]

I know where you’re going, but the days of people beating on Molly Maguires is gone. If you think Obama’s statements are engaging in “class warfare”, then I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But I still believe you’re exagerrating.

55

Not so much Molly Maguires as just Marxist leanings. That’s no exaggeration.

56

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Not so much Molly Maguires as just Marxist leanings. That’s no exaggeration.[/quote]

That’s why Irish likes him.

57

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Only democrats can be mindless.
[/quote]

And people that think like this…