Nazis and KKK get laughed at...

He likes using his own definitions for words, conservative in particular. Not the definitions used in the dictionary. That way he can shape his argument around delusion and still believe it to be true.

I suggest that if he feels he isn't a conservative as defined in the dictionary, then he is something else. Schizo-affected would be more accurate, not to put too fine a point on it.
 
Political ideologies change over time and therefore are defined by their contemporary adherents, not a dictionary. See conservative.org for the only definition that has any meaning in a political discussion. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke up your ass.
 
So here is a part I don't get, LBJ signed the CRA of 1964 and the VRA with the racist agenda of getting blacks to vote Democrat? BUT, democrats don't want blacks around and that is why they are pro-choice, so blacks will off their kids, future democratic voters? Is that all straight and logical now?
 
Not quite. Democrats want blacks around, but poor and dependent so they will vote Democrat. Policies of sex, sex, sex, sex without any obligation is an easy sell, and abortion is part of that.
 
Dodging, ducking and deflections...Oh, my!

Again, I'm referring to today's definition of conservatism, not yours of the democrat party of the 60's, or the Taliban.

Next, you'll be telling me that neither the Tea Party's racist elements nor Extremistan (Tea Party) representatives are TRUE Conservatives.

BUT.........Let me fix that up for you:

I'm referring to today's definition of [SUB]conservatism[/SUB], Democrats/Liberals not yours of the democrat party of the 60's, or the [SUB]Taliban[/SUB] KKK.

So, of course, it is completely obvious that those Dems you are talking about back then are not TRUE Democrats. That's why I told you were going in circles. Stay on that carousel if you want to; not me.

But now that you have shifted from party labels to ideological labels you still have some 'splaining to do, Scotman/Yankee!

Making convenient and fallacious 'True Scotsman'-type claims demonstrates your inability to explain the huge ideological overlap between A) Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, the Conservative demi-god, and B) the Conservative Dems in the South that voted for them:
  • opposition to Civil Rights Law,
  • States Rights (including segregation of public education),
  • gun rights,
  • religiosity,
  • big on supporting military and support for war in Viet Nam and a generally neo-imperialist foreign policy,
  • John Birch Society-supporting (not sure about Reagan on that one),
  • disagreement with the 1954 Brown vs. Bd of Ed decision (http://spectator.org/archives/2003/06/04/what-would-goldwater-do)
and perhaps more.

At least Goldwater lived long enough to come to his senses and denounce the "modern" Conservatives of the kind you seem to admire while kicking other Conservatives under the bus.

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

  • Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
It's not all Conservatives, many of whom are sensible and thoughtful. But for decades, there's been a shift further and further to the Right and now a large portion of the Republican Party's base is "extreme" by past standards.

Even the guy who extolled the virtues of "extremism in defense of liberty" finally had to confront the new reality:
quote:

A few years before his death he [Goldwater] went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."[8]

In 1996, Goldwater told Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, whose own positions lacked real support from conservatives: "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?"

www.conservapedia.com/Barry_Goldwater

So, I guess now you'll argue that Goldwater would not be a "true" modern Conservative.


We note once again, True Scotsman/DamnYankee, your inability to mount a response to the logic and facts I presented re: abortion or LBJ's comments. Seems like you'd be tired from all the ducking and dodging and exertions from your prevaricating claims that I did not address something you said. It would be simpler to address my comments........IF you could.
:cool:
 
LOL I've forced you to resort to the "if tea party, then racist" non-logic. You now sound like BAC. Major fail.

Also fail is the bold and italics that follow.
 
LOL I've forced you to resort to the "if tea party, then racist" non-logic. You now sound like BAC. Major fail.

Also fail is the bold and italics that follow.

You couldn't force a screwdriver thru a paper bag with your reading comprehension and illogic!

I didn't say that and didn't mean it. I said the "racist elements" of the Tea Party.

But clearly that's the best you could come up with.
:cool:
 
Actually, you did.

True Scotsman = DamnYankee,

Since you obviously need a remedial lesson in comprehension and logic, here it is:

If there are "Tea Party's racist elements' then ipso facto there are "Tea Party's non-racist elements" since an element is only part of the whole.

There are racist elements in both political parties, as well as in other organizations and groups of people.
Got it now?
Jeeeeeez!!!!

Meanwhile, I know - and others reading this know, of course - that this is just the latest in a series of deflections by you since - remember? - you were challenged to provide data that Dems are racist or that respondents to on-line polls have "a deep-seated hatred of Republicans."

That has not gone well for you, so you resort to these deflections.
:cool:
 
History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...on=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty
 
Absolutely!

No question about it. Scum of the earth.

Now....PLEASE CHECK YOUR WATCH & MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR CALENDAR!!!!

Did you think my request for evidence (assuming that you are responding to that) had to do with the Dems in the 1800's?

We can sing out of the same hymnal on that one, but altho history is important (and despite your claim that "nothing has changed"), the 1800's are quite a bit removed from today's political realities. However, I will remind you that it was RADICAL Republicans and CONSERVATIVE Democrats who were at odds back then.

The summary I provided re: the overlap between CONSERVATIVE Repub candidates and CONSERVATIVE Dem voters shows that Party loyalties have shifted based on ideological tenets (States rights, gun rights, Civil Rights Act opposition, etc). As usual, you have no response to that truthful recounting because it contradicts your rather simple-minded view that "nothing has changed."

I don't expect you to make thoughtful responses to thoughtful comments because I have concluded that you cannot. You cannot because you have not thought that far...........being fixated on a deep-seated hatred of all things Democrat. Paralyzes the thought process, don't you know.

But let me ask you directly:
Other than racism is there any reason that YOU can think of that an believer in smaller govt and individual liberty would favor govt action to impose a legal barrier to inter-racial marriage?

Meanwhile...........I will assume that you understood the remedial lesson and have dropped your nonsensical claim about what I said, but if you need a refresher in logic and comprehension please let me know.
:cool:
 
Daggone!!!
Why was DamnYankee banned?


He was finally going to actually engage in some substantive discussion rather than ducking and dodging.
Oh well........
:cool:
 
KKK and Westboro should get together and play scrabble...I have a feeling they would become good friends
 
Welcome Back, Damn Yankke!

Perhaps now you'd like to actually respond to what I said:
Absolutely!No question about it. Scum of the earth.Now....PLEASE CHECK YOUR WATCH & MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR CALENDAR!!!!Did you think my request for evidence (assuming that you are responding to that) had to do with the Dems in the 1800's?We can sing out of the same hymnal on that one, but altho history is important (and despite your claim that "nothing has changed"), the 1800's are quite a bit removed from today's political realities. However, I will remind you that it was RADICAL Republicans and CONSERVATIVE Democrats who were at odds back then.The summary I provided re: the overlap between CONSERVATIVE Repub candidates and CONSERVATIVE Dem voters shows that Party loyalties have shifted based on ideological tenets (States rights, gun rights, Civil Rights Act opposition, etc). As usual, you have no response to that truthful recounting because it contradicts your rather simple-minded view that "nothing has changed."I don't expect you to make thoughtful responses to thoughtful comments because I have concluded that you cannot. You cannot because you have not thought that far...........being fixated on a deep-seated hatred of all things Democrat. Paralyzes the thought process, don't you know.But let me ask you directly:Other than racism is there any reason that YOU can think of that an believer in smaller govt and individual liberty would favor govt action to impose a legal barrier to inter-racial marriage?Meanwhile...........I will assume that you understood the remedial lesson and have dropped your nonsensical claim about what I said, but if you need a refresher in logic and comprehension please let me know. :cool:
 
Really?
Which part of what you said responds to:

"However, I will remind you that it was RADICAL Republicans and CONSERVATIVE Democrats who were at odds back then (1800's).The summary I provided re: the overlap between CONSERVATIVE Repub candidates and CONSERVATIVE Dem voters shows that Party loyalties have shifted based on ideological tenets (States rights, gun rights, Civil Rights Act opposition, etc)."

This is the summary that I referred to and which you have labored long and hard to ignore:


"But now that you have shifted from party labels to ideological labels you still have some 'splaining to do, Scotman/Yankee!

Making convenient and fallacious 'True Scotsman'-type claims demonstrates your inability to explain the huge ideological overlap between A) Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, the Conservative demi-god, and B) the Conservative Dems in the South that voted for them:

  • opposition to Civil Rights Law,
  • States Rights (including segregation of public education),
  • gun rights,
  • religiosity,
  • big on supporting military and support for war in Viet Nam and a generally neo-imperialist foreign policy,
  • John Birch Society-supporting (not sure about Reagan on that one),
  • disagreement with the 1954 Brown vs. Bd of Ed decision (http://spectator.org/archives/2003/0...d-goldwater-do)
and perhaps more.

At least Goldwater lived long enough to come to his senses and denounce the "modern" Conservatives of the kind you seem to admire while kicking other Conservatives under the bus.
"

So, it is clear that you have NOT already responded to this and I doubt that you are able to.
:cool:
 
Back
Top