Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Republican Democrat Confusion?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 1:42:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't get how the parties evolved into what they are today.
Why is it that the Republicans are almost always associated/full of neoconservatives who have the correct fiscal/economic policies - or at least ones that are generally faithful to that of the Republican party from long ago - but advocate big government social policies that only limit personal freedoms? Wouldn't it make logical sense that supposedly small government advocates would be in favor of small government social views... I don't get it.

And why are the Democrats socially liberal and are all for small government and personal freedom, the ability to make your own choices without government intervention etc etc but are so freaking moronic, naive, ignorant, and unrealistic when it comes to any fiscal/economic issues?

Perhaps I just don't know the history of the parties well enough. But it makes sense to me that small government would not go hand in hand with big government social policies. Essentially what I ask is when and how did the religious right inject themselves into the Republican party? And how did the Democrats become socially liberal when a hundred and fifty ago they were the party of socially conservative racist slaveholders and it was the Republicans who wanted to free the slaves?! Confused!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 1:55:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone who looks at the state of politics and can still say "I want in on that sh!t" is probably not very intelligent.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:19:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not 100% sure. You'd have to see if there are any history buffs.

Minimum wage and union laws are actually inherently racist. Racism and discrimination has always existed. However, people are also greedy and profit. Blacks would be able to find work If they sold their labor cheaper then whites. While some whites were racists, they couldn't pass up a good bargain. This pissed of the white folks so they created minimum wage laws which makes it impossible to hire somone who voluntarily wants to work at a lower wage. Labor laws include closed shops, which means you can only work if you are a part of a union. Create a union without black focus, and hurray, you get state sponsored racist unions.

Now these laws are supposed to 'help' the poorer people. Even though it's complete BS.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:26:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 2:19:43 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm not 100% sure. You'd have to see if there are any history buffs.

Minimum wage and union laws are actually inherently racist. Racism and discrimination has always existed. However, people are also greedy and profit. Blacks would be able to find work If they sold their labor cheaper then whites. While some whites were racists, they couldn't pass up a good bargain. This pissed of the white folks so they created minimum wage laws which makes it impossible to hire somone who voluntarily wants to work at a lower wage. Labor laws include closed shops, which means you can only work if you are a part of a union. Create a union without black focus, and hurray, you get state sponsored racist unions.

Now these laws are supposed to 'help' the poorer people. Even though it's complete BS.

It is pretty ironic, given that minimum wage laws disproportionately affect minorities and younger people, when it's those subgroups that the laws were intended to help (allegedly, anyway).
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 5:55:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 2:19:43 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Minimum wage and union laws are actually inherently racist.

Bullsh1t.

Racism and discrimination has always existed. However, people are also greedy and profit.

This bit is true but none of the rest follows from it.

Blacks would be able to find work If they sold their labor cheaper then whites.

And why should they not be able to get work at the same rate of pay as white people?

While some whites were racists, they couldn't pass up a good bargain. This pissed of the white folks so they created minimum wage laws which makes it impossible to hire somone who voluntarily wants to work at a lower wage.

This is such a load of unsubstantiated crap. The rationale behind minimum wage laws is to ensure that employees are paid a fair wage and to help reduce discriminatory payment practices. Where is your justification for claiming MW is based on racism? Is it some sh1t you just thought up?

Labor laws include closed shops, which means you can only work if you are a part of a union.
Create a union without black focus, and hurray, you get state sponsored racist unions.

Are unions even able to discriminate in this way? The whole concept of unions is based on inclusion. Membership is voluntary, you just have to pay subs.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 6:01:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Alright, history lesson. Up until about William Jennings Bryan the Democratic-Republicans/Democrats were indisputably the good guys. The Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings and Republicans were the bad guys. (What with their support of protectionism, central banks, racism, corporate welfare an the like.)

You see, after the War of Northern Aggression, it was considered quite unpatriotic to vote Democrat. You see the Democratic Party was the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion." (Which sounds pretty good to me. :p)

The came the Progressive movement and the rest is history.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 6:08:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 5:55:21 AM, feverish wrote:
And why should they not be able to get work at the same rate of pay as white people?

Because blacks tend to be poorer than whites and have fewer job skills.

This is such a load of unsubstantiated crap. The rationale behind minimum wage laws is to ensure that employees are paid a fair wage and to help reduce discriminatory payment practices. Where is your justification for claiming MW is based on racism? Is it some sh1t you just thought up?

Minimum wages were the result of racism. This is a known fact.

"These physical and moral weaklings and degenerates must somehow be maintained at the expense of other persons. They may be provided for from their own property or savings by charity or from public funds with or without being set to work in whatever ways are within their capacity. But of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners for situations in the industrial organisation." - Sidney Web on the efficacy of the minimum wage

http://books.google.com...

Labor laws include closed shops, which means you can only work if you are a part of a union.
Create a union without black focus, and hurray, you get state sponsored racist unions.

Are unions even able to discriminate in this way? The whole concept of unions is based on inclusion.

Absolutely not. Unions use violence, either direct or indirect, to prevent the non-unionized from obtaining jobs, thereby restricting the supply of labor, thereby forcing the wages of their members up. That's the whole point.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 12:43:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well I think I can shed a little light. I know foreign policy wise, Republicans actually used to be the ones more opposed to war, he shift happened sometime during the cold war. Now though it seems that for the most part both parties are very big on wars. As far as social issues I am not so sure on but you can look a Barry Goldwater. However, I think that Republicans have been opposed to abortion at least since Roe v. Wade was passed. People also mistakenly classify Republicans as being anti Rights for Blacks and Democrats as pro but that is pretty much false in any period, although I will say that Abe Lincoln was not the great abolitionist he is made out to be.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 1:03:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Political parties are scams, just get over it.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 1:03:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Political parties are scams, just get over it.

Okay, that doesn't change the fact that they once stood for certain values and now stand for others, so I'm merely inquiring as to how and when they developed into what they are today if they used to be radically different...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:55:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 1:42:06 AM, jat93 wrote:
I don't get how the parties evolved into what they are today.
Why is it that the Republicans are almost always associated/full of neoconservatives who have the correct fiscal/economic policies - or at least ones that are generally faithful to that of the Republican party from long ago - but advocate big government social policies that only limit personal freedoms? Wouldn't it make logical sense that supposedly small government advocates would be in favor of small government social views... I don't get it.

And why are the Democrats socially liberal and are all for small government and personal freedom, the ability to make your own choices without government intervention etc etc but are so freaking moronic, naive, ignorant, and unrealistic when it comes to any fiscal/economic issues?

Perhaps I just don't know the history of the parties well enough. But it makes sense to me that small government would not go hand in hand with big government social policies. Essentially what I ask is when and how did the religious right inject themselves into the Republican party? And how did the Democrats become socially liberal when a hundred and fifty ago they were the party of socially conservative racist slaveholders and it was the Republicans who wanted to free the slaves?! Confused!

Well I can answer the neocon question. In terms of economic policy we prefer policies that promote growth, capital flow, investment, etc. This is the case because we believe with limited government intervention the greater populous will benefit.

Now, in terms of social policy neocon's hold the view that moral decay erodes societal unity which devolves into unresponded nihilism. The political philosopher Strauss whom a lot of neocon's base their views on argued that a large reason for the susceptibility of the german people to totalitarian policies was the large nihilistic sympathy ingrained in german society because of the post-modernist movements of Germany. As such, neocon's think that it is best to create a unified society around a classic natural rights theory (and I emphasize classic because some Straussian neocons view the enlightenment concept of natural rights as also a precursor to nihilism) which can only be upheld if nihilism doesnt take root in the US. Thats the short version.

And this links to the neocon view of foreign policy - having a foreign policy strengthens the unification at home as well as protects the world stage from devolving into an apolar system and having other countries take on a nihilistic form of thinking.

Now whats interesting is the fact that A LOT of this is disputed from even prominent members of neocon circles. The truth is hard to find because Strauss invented the school of philosophical interpretation known as Esotericism which holds that we must analyze political and philosophical texts by looking for esoteric meanings. And as such some have said Strauss himself wrote esoterically which makes analyzing his works very difficult.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 5:55:21 AM, feverish wrote:
At 7/1/2011 2:19:43 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Minimum wage and union laws are actually inherently racist.

Bullsh1t.

unsubstantial comment.

Racism and discrimination has always existed. However, people are also greedy and profit.

This bit is true but none of the rest follows from it.

Alright, we can agree on that.

Blacks would be able to find work If they sold their labor cheaper then whites.

And why should they not be able to get work at the same rate of pay as white people?

There is a difference between 'should' and 'is'. People shouldn't discriminate. People should have equal pay. However, racism and discrimination existed quite frequently in the past and still exist today.

However, If a greedy racist had to choose between hiring a white person at $5.15 a hour and a black person at $4.15 an hour, he would likely choose the black person, since he gets a better deal. However, If a minimum wage is set at $5.15 an hour, then the black person is now unemployed and the white person gets a job for more then he is worth.

While some whites were racists, they couldn't pass up a good bargain. This pissed of the white folks so they created minimum wage laws which makes it impossible to hire somone who voluntarily wants to work at a lower wage.

This is such a load of unsubstantiated crap. The rationale behind minimum wage laws is to ensure that employees are paid a fair wage and to help reduce discriminatory payment practices. Where is your justification for claiming MW is based on racism? Is it some sh1t you just thought up?

Well for one, it is blacks that have the highest unemployment.
I also have my Stossel videos:

Labor laws include closed shops, which means you can only work if you are a part of a union.
Create a union without black focus, and hurray, you get state sponsored racist unions.

Are unions even able to discriminate in this way? The whole concept of unions is based on inclusion. Membership is voluntary, you just have to pay subs.

In some places, especially in the past, the practice was common.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:09:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:43:28 PM, BennyW wrote:
Well I think I can shed a little light. I know foreign policy wise, Republicans actually used to be the ones more opposed to war, he shift happened sometime during the cold war. Now though it seems that for the most part both parties are very big on wars. As far as social issues I am not so sure on but you can look a Barry Goldwater. However, I think that Republicans have been opposed to abortion at least since Roe v. Wade was passed. People also mistakenly classify Republicans as being anti Rights for Blacks and Democrats as pro but that is pretty much false in any period, although I will say that Abe Lincoln was not the great abolitionist he is made out to be.

Sort of true. Truman and Kennedy were Cold War hawks, and so was Johnson to some extent. Nixon actually initiated the first SALT negotiations with the USSR. Also it was the southern democrats who were blocking civil rights legislation, and that was legislation that began under republican Eisenhower. It's very mixed really. Reagan redefined the republican party conservatism, and really created stark differences between the two parties.

The two party system in this country has allowed far greater deviation within the individual being elected in his or her party, than would a multi party system, where candidates can be more beholden to the party's platform and mission.

The last British election made me rethink the 2 party system, and I am more in favor of electing an individual, and his or her agenda, than a party's.

I hate party politics, and urge everyone to remain independent.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:10:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 1:03:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Political parties are scams, just get over it.
That is true, as even George Washington thought.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike