DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Thanks for proving my point: Southern Democrats.
Republicans showing their true colors and true intent
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Thanks for proving my point: Southern Democrats.
Let's hear it for The Biffer!
christiefan915
Catalyst
Then you shouldn't let your party define you with idiocies like DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, banning gay/straight alliances in school, restricting women's right to choose, etc.
And kindly refrain from saying that some of these were passed during Dem administrations. The point is that righties, not lefties, are supportive of the above.
Furthermore, the Constitution had to be amended to allow some people the rights they have today. It certainly wasn't set up to guarantee equal rights to all.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm well aware of civil rights legislation that dates back almost 50 years. It's what the fringe righties want to do today that's troublesome.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I could argue all four points here but they have all been argued before in different threads. But let's stick to what you've responded to. I stated:
It has always been your Democrat Party that has infringed on rights for minorities and women, and it has always been the GOP who has fought for those rights. It is only after public opinion changed and these issues became popular that the Democrat Party has signed on to them, and now claims that they were with them all along. This is an undeniable fact.
I will note as well that it is you liberals who are now restricting the rights of developing babies the basic right to live.
christiefan915
Catalyst
We're talking about current events. The fact is that fringe righties want to define and limit some rights according to their social conservative viewpoints.
Liberals are supporting a law that was passed almost 40 years ago. If conservatives don't like that law, work harder to get it repealed. The fly in this ointment is that many conservatives support the law also, otherwise it could have been overturned in previous repub administrations.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Your first argument seems tho be that 'OK, we Democrats have infringed on rights in the past, but we're not doing it now'. As I stated in the post that you responded to, it is only after public opinion changed and these issues became popular that the Democrat Party has signed on to them.
With regards to your second argument, Roe v. Wade is not a law, but a court decision made by unelected judges. That decision allows States to regulate abortions after the first trimester and to ban them after viability. Yet the liberal position is to allow abortions up to the moment of birth. That doesn't seem to be in support of the original decision at all.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
First of all, DOMA and DADT, were both signed into law by President Clinton, who is not a member of the Republican party. Neither of these laws deny any fundamental right to any American, according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Both laws, it can be argued, protect fundamental rights of others. With DOMA, the right to religious freedom is protected, and with DADT, the right to privacy is protected. Now, it doesn't really matter what your "perceptions" are, we can "perceive" any rights we feel like... I could say it's my fundamental right to put a bullet in the head of pinheads, in order to save my country... it doesn't make my perception correct, does it? What matters, is what the Supreme Court decides and what the Constitution actually says is a fundamental right. You have no Constitutional basis to claim DADT or DOMA violate Constitutional rights, other than your baseless perception.
With Abortion, women use their constitutional right to privacy to take the life of another human being. It is the right who stands for the rights of those human beings, and the left who deny those rights even exist. Again, it is a difference in perception, and unfortunately, in the case of abortion, the SCOTUS happened to rule in your favor. But an argument over constitutional rights persists, because the Constitution says what it says.
Furthermore, the Constitution had to be amended to allow some people the rights they have today. It certainly wasn't set up to guarantee equal rights to all.
Technically, you are wrong again. I'm sure you are familiar with Frederick Douglass? Well, when Fred was out there advocating for abolition of slavery, he believed like you, that the Constitution was a white man's document, designed to keep the black man oppressed. That is, until he actually READ it! Once Douglass had read the Constitution, he realized that it was actually an anti-slavery document. The brilliance of our Founding Fathers, was to pen a Constitution which stated unequivocally, that all men are equal and all men are endowed with freedom and liberty by their creator, and we are governed by the laws of nature and nature's god.
Indeed, we have found it necessary, several times, to amend the constitution, in order to clarify specific individual rights, or reinforce rights already there. It's not because the Constitution didn't have those rights, it was because we didn't interpret those rights or have the perception they existed.
Bfgrn
New member
How many southern Republicans voted for the bill in either house? Grab your calculator and take your time, I don't want you to make a mistake deciphering.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me ask you something.... what difference does it make? Do you consider the R or D party to be the same as it was then? Do you believe those who supported segregation were automatically racists? Do you think republicans are still bitter over passage of the Civil Rights Act, which they were instrumental in passing? Please answer these questions, because I think it will reveal what the problem is here, you have no sense of perception, you simply hold the ignorant view that man never changes, that we cling to our views whether they are right or wrong, for decades on end, even if we have to do so discretely.
In the early 60s, there were two prevailing views regarding civil rights, one view was, that black people were better served in a system of their own, where they wouldn't be expected to compete with white students, or maintain their same level of education. Segregationists believed it did an injustice to the minority to force them into schools where they would likely suffer self-esteem problems and struggle to maintain the standards. It wasn't because they hated black people and thought they were less than human, that was 100 years before, and BOTH democrats and republicans basically had the same perception of black people. But for someone who has no sense of perception, and doesn't understand that people change and cultural views change with the times, I can see how you might think 1960s segregationists are akin to 1860s pro-slavery proponents. The problem is your lack of perception.
You do it all the time, Dixie, if it isn't your intentions, then stop doing it! It really is that simple. I don't have to shoot you, you shoot yourself in the foot most days
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
11 voted against it, verses 107 Southern Democrats. That's a ratio of almost 10:1 Democrat/ Republican who voted against civil rights.
Bfgrn
New member
No, the southerners who voted against the Civil Rights Bill whether D or R were conservatives, representing their conservative constituents. Liberals from the north like Liberal Republican Jacob Javits, and progressive conservatives like the great Everett Dirksen were men on conscience who worked to preserve the progressive heritage of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and others who have worked from the GOP side of the aisle to promote social justice and economic fairness.
They are now extinct in today's authoritarian GOP.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
let's be honest....Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue then, just as they always are.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You mean like the progressive idea Lincoln had about shipping the slaves off to Africa, because he didn't believe 'the negro' could ever occupy a place in society with whites?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Theodore Roosevelt reflected the racial attitudes of his time, and his domestic record on race and civil rights was a mixed bag. He did little to preserve black suffrage in the South as those states increasingly disenfranchised blacks. He believed that African Americans as a race were inferior to whites....
In 1906, a small group of black soldiers was accused of going on a shooting spree in Brownsville, Texas, killing one white man and wounding another. Despite conflicting accounts and the lack of physical evidence, the Army assumed the guilt of the black soldiers. When not one of them admitted responsibility, an irritated Roosevelt ordered the dishonorable discharge of three companies of black soldiers (160 men) without a trial. Roosevelt and the white establishment had assumed the soldiers were guilty without affording them the opportunity for a trial to confront their accusers or prove their innocence.
http://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/essays/biography/4
...That progressive heritage?
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Theodore Roosevelt reflected the racial attitudes of his time, and his domestic record on race and civil rights was a mixed bag. He did little to preserve black suffrage in the South as those states increasingly disenfranchised blacks. He believed that African Americans as a race were inferior to whites....
In 1906, a small group of black soldiers was accused of going on a shooting spree in Brownsville, Texas, killing one white man and wounding another. Despite conflicting accounts and the lack of physical evidence, the Army assumed the guilt of the black soldiers. When not one of them admitted responsibility, an irritated Roosevelt ordered the dishonorable discharge of three companies of black soldiers (160 men) without a trial. Roosevelt and the white establishment had assumed the soldiers were guilty without affording them the opportunity for a trial to confront their accusers or prove their innocence.
http://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/essays/biography/4
...That progressive heritage?
Roosevelt & Wilson hated blacks.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wilson certainly did. He was probably our most racist president... (Obama might beat him out?)
Roosevelt had a kind of unique perspective, he didn't believe the black race was equal to the white race, he felt they were inferior as a race... that is classical racism, by the standards we understand today, but the perspectives of the times were different. There was much debate on evolution, many people held the 'intellectual' thought of the time, that black people were less advanced, and their basis was considered 'scientific' in the day. However... and this is pretty big... Roosevelt felt that individual blacks could be more intelligent and superior to individual whites, and should be given the chance to prove their worth. He was somewhat criticized for inviting a black man, Booker T. Washington, to the White House for dinner. It just wasn't done! So, in fairness, Roosevelt wasn't as 'hateful' toward blacks as many others.
Bfgrn
New member
So we should have segregation in America? Because the conservative position, particularly in the south was 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever'
We only have to look at gay rights today to see the difference between liberals and conservatives that still exists
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
obviously we should not have segregation in America....as I pointed out, Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue then.......and since you brought it up, they are currently on the wrong side of the issue of redefining the social institution of marriage.......