Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the Party of Jim Crow deserve your vote?

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:35:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

Exactly!

Oh, which party were you talking about? :D

An extremely high number of members of both major parties fit this description at various times. And thus at one time or another their party could be said to fit this description.

Did you consider adding "NAC" to this, so we would know whether that was true?
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:47:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:35:55 AM, proglib wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

Exactly!

Oh, which party were you talking about? :D

An extremely high number of members of both major parties fit this description at various times. And thus at one time or another their party could be said to fit this description.

Did you consider adding "NAC" to this, so we would know whether that was true?

mmmm When one doesn't like the question, just change it. It isn't about members.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:58:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:54:24 AM, Lizard wrote:
Theres a Jim Crow party now?

Same Party, Law was reversed by Court. Meaning, w/o Court intervention would still be the law.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 6:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

You mean whoever happens to be catering to the south at any given point in history?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 9:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

Why would someone vote on hundred year old issues?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 11:08:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

This is why:

http://cardsagainsthumanity.com...
Tsar of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 7:54:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 6:11:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/8/2013 8:16:01 AM, logicrules wrote:
Why would someone vote for the Party that supported Jim Crowe, supported the KKK, and traditionally relied upon propaganda over substance to make its points?

You mean whoever happens to be catering to the south at any given point in history?

No
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 8:10:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.

Political parties have changed drastically over the past couple hundred years. They look nothing alike today.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:17:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 8:10:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.

Political parties have changed drastically over the past couple hundred years. They look nothing alike today.

They looked alike 200 years ago? FYI neither party is that old
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:20:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:17:29 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 8:10:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.

Political parties have changed drastically over the past couple hundred years. They look nothing alike today.

They looked alike 200 years ago? FYI neither party is that old

The democratic party of the United States is over 200 years old... look it up. Even if it wasn't, you're being unnecessarily difficult.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:24:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:20:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:29 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 8:10:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.

Political parties have changed drastically over the past couple hundred years. They look nothing alike today.

They looked alike 200 years ago? FYI neither party is that old

The democratic party of the United States is over 200 years old... look it up. Even if it wasn't, you're being unnecessarily difficult.

Wrong....First Democrat Andrew Jackson 1829....got a few years to go. Whigs and Torries.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:24:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tell me how it's beneficial to judge today's political parties based on what stances they took 100-150 years ago. It does not tell us anything about today, because every member of the old parties are dead. Sorry, but your view is stupid.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:27:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:24:12 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:20:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:17:29 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 8:10:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 7:55:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2013 7:40:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't care what a political party has done in the past. That is irrelevant to anything important, i.e., what stance is taken on today's issues.

Good to know, let us ignore the past as an indicator.

Political parties have changed drastically over the past couple hundred years. They look nothing alike today.

They looked alike 200 years ago? FYI neither party is that old

The democratic party of the United States is over 200 years old... look it up. Even if it wasn't, you're being unnecessarily difficult.

Wrong....First Democrat Andrew Jackson 1829....got a few years to go. Whigs and Torries.

Whatever. The wiki page had 1792 listed as well. But really, it doesn't matter. When I say 200 years, I mean AROUND 200 years. Lol, you're difficulty on understanding this is probably why you can't understand why it's stupid to judge political parties on what they believed 100-150 years ago... you're thinking is really rigid.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:28:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:24:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Tell me how it's beneficial to judge today's political parties based on what stances they took 100-150 years ago. It does not tell us anything about today, because every member of the old parties are dead. Sorry, but your view is stupid.

LOL I prefer to learn from the foundations of the party rather than their contemporary propagandists. He who knows not history is doomed to repeat it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:32:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:28:38 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:24:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Tell me how it's beneficial to judge today's political parties based on what stances they took 100-150 years ago. It does not tell us anything about today, because every member of the old parties are dead. Sorry, but your view is stupid.

LOL I prefer to learn from the foundations of the party rather than their contemporary propagandists. He who knows not history is doomed to repeat it.

What makes you think the 'contemporary propagandists' are not the party now? The United States used to condone slavery, does that mean the United States is ALWAYS considered an evil slave-owning nation? No. Things change. Get over it. Democrats today do not support Jim Crow laws, so you cannot blame them for what people a hundred years ago did just because they called themselves 'democrats.'
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:35:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:32:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:28:38 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:24:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Tell me how it's beneficial to judge today's political parties based on what stances they took 100-150 years ago. It does not tell us anything about today, because every member of the old parties are dead. Sorry, but your view is stupid.

LOL I prefer to learn from the foundations of the party rather than their contemporary propagandists. He who knows not history is doomed to repeat it.

What makes you think the 'contemporary propagandists' are not the party now? The United States used to condone slavery, does that mean the United States is ALWAYS considered an evil slave-owning nation? No. Things change. Get over it. Democrats today do not support Jim Crow laws, so you cannot blame them for what people a hundred years ago did just because they called themselves 'democrats.'

I never said they were not. I claim they are propagandists. Nothing to get over....1920 that party knew better and oppressed, that is he same now. The only change is the reason given.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:35:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Democrat's should be judged on their current policies, not on a preposterous doctrine of inherited guilt.

Still, the history is worth understanding. It's not true that Republicans supported segregation. Democrats ruled the South for a hundred years after reconstruction. Woodrow Wilson segregated the civil service, a significant boost in racial discrimination.

Condi Rice told about her father wanting to register to vote in the old South. Democrats wouldn't register Black people to vote, but the Republicans were eager to register voters. So he became a Republican.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.

No,,,,not even close and certainly non essential.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:35:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Democrat's should be judged on their current policies, not on a preposterous doctrine of inherited guilt.

Still, the history is worth understanding. It's not true that Republicans supported segregation. Democrats ruled the South for a hundred years after reconstruction. Woodrow Wilson segregated the civil service, a significant boost in racial discrimination.

Condi Rice told about her father wanting to register to vote in the old South. Democrats wouldn't register Black people to vote, but the Republicans were eager to register voters. So he became a Republican.

Your straw man is noted. The foundation of the party, as well as its current positions, are the same. The party of "we know best" has not changed. As to Condi....When her father was registering in the South, blacks were no permitted to be Democrats. Blacks preferred the Party of Lincoln. Today, there are many distinctions one can make, but not an iota of difference from then.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:49:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:42:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.

No,,,,not even close and certainly non essential.

I don't mean you're literally claiming that. It's a parallel to your view, to show you how absurd it is.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:49:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:42:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.

No,,,,not even close and certainly non essential.

I don't mean you're literally claiming that. It's a parallel to your view, to show you how absurd it is.

I got that.....and it isn't parallel or even close. To claim that a particular is equivalent to a universal is fallacious. All Democrats are Human but not all humans are Democrat. Ergo, it is you, using your preferred pronoun, who is absurd.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:35:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Democrat's should be judged on their current policies, not on a preposterous doctrine of inherited guilt.

Still, the history is worth understanding. It's not true that Republicans supported segregation. Democrats ruled the South for a hundred years after reconstruction. Woodrow Wilson segregated the civil service, a significant boost in racial discrimination.

Condi Rice told about her father wanting to register to vote in the old South. Democrats wouldn't register Black people to vote, but the Republicans were eager to register voters. So he became a Republican.

For the record, there was a faction of Republicans who were pro-segregation, but that was largely because the north has its own racists to be pandered to.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:30:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:41:50 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:49:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:42:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.

No,,,,not even close and certainly non essential.

I don't mean you're literally claiming that. It's a parallel to your view, to show you how absurd it is.

I got that.....and it isn't parallel or even close. To claim that a particular is equivalent to a universal is fallacious. All Democrats are Human but not all humans are Democrat. Ergo, it is you, using your preferred pronoun, who is absurd.

Let's put it this way.

Does it make sense for me to point to Lincoln's views on constitutional issues as representative of modern day Republicans?
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:44:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:30:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/9/2013 12:41:50 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:49:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/9/2013 11:42:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/9/2013 9:33:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, what you're claiming is that because Hitler was a human, I should be blamed for also being a human because he was a bad human.

No,,,,not even close and certainly non essential.

I don't mean you're literally claiming that. It's a parallel to your view, to show you how absurd it is.

I got that.....and it isn't parallel or even close. To claim that a particular is equivalent to a universal is fallacious. All Democrats are Human but not all humans are Democrat. Ergo, it is you, using your preferred pronoun, who is absurd.

Let's put it this way.

Does it make sense for me to point to Lincoln's views on constitutional issues as representative of modern day Republicans?

Sure......but not the same, makes sense though. Lincoln was a great president, not because he was great but because he won the war. Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Threats on the Justices, even his idea of Union....I consider all of that ve bad. On issues of civil rights, voteing and humanity....Id go with GOP.