Nothing has changed? On what planet do you spend most of YOUR time?
He lives with his buds....in the bubble.
Nazis and KKK get laughed at...
- Thread starter Haiku
- Start date
He lives with his buds....in the bubble.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
US, Earth. Democrats are just as racist as they always were. They've just changed tactics. The KKK would be proud of how successful y'all have been at destroying black families. Margarete Sangler would be proud at how well you have done killing their babies.Nothing has changed? On what planet do you spend most of YOUR time?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Just look at their policies, and the results of their policies. The KKK would be proud of how successful y'all have been at destroying black families. Margarete Sangler would be proud at how well you have done killing their babies.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Barracuda
Verified User
DamnYankee,
Let me see if I understand:
I asked you to provide data showing that Dems are racists.
YOU provide data on abortions as evidence of racism by Dems.
YOU are a Conservative who believes (Right?) that individuals should have the opportunity/freedom to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for them. And to be held accountable for them if need be.
But you blame a political group which advocates for people to have the right to make their own personal decisions for the decisions made by individuals about their own pregnancies and then call them racist for allowing people to make those individual decisions.
Is that how it works in your world?
Let me see if I understand:
I asked you to provide data showing that Dems are racists.
YOU provide data on abortions as evidence of racism by Dems.
YOU are a Conservative who believes (Right?) that individuals should have the opportunity/freedom to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for them. And to be held accountable for them if need be.
But you blame a political group which advocates for people to have the right to make their own personal decisions for the decisions made by individuals about their own pregnancies and then call them racist for allowing people to make those individual decisions.
Is that how it works in your world?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You must be brain dead. The evidence is very clear that the Democrat Party policies have destroyed blacks. It's all right there in the statistics since they changed tactics in the 60's. That is real racism, not the fake shit that you claimed.
Barracuda
Verified User
Don't get excited...
And don't try to change the subject, either. We were speaking of abortion or the pro-choice position that IS a principle difference between Repubs and Dems in general - altho not 100%.
I posed a simple logical progression for you:
If I made a factual or logical error or misstated your principles, please point it out to me.
And don't try to change the subject, either. We were speaking of abortion or the pro-choice position that IS a principle difference between Repubs and Dems in general - altho not 100%.
I posed a simple logical progression for you:
If I made a factual or logical error or misstated your principles, please point it out to me.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It is a fact that Planned Parenthood was started by a racist who believed that eugenics would save her white society. It is a fact that PP clinics tend to located in and nearby areas where blacks live in proportionately high numbers. It is a fact that abortions occur disproportionately within the black population. Connect the dots.
It is a fact that when people are give what they see as a special privilege or gift, they will tend to accept that privilege or gift. It is a fact that they will trend to be dependent on same. It is a fact that they will tend to support the gift giver without seriously questioning his motives. The Democrat Party realized these facts back in the 1960's and developed a strategy to exploit them with regards to its forever policy of subjugating the black population. It was a clever change in tactics and much more successful then the other techniques that they had used in the past: slavery, segregation and terrorism. Today blacks disproportionately grow up in single family homes and with less family income, they tend to be less educated and less employed, they tend to be more involved with crimes, they are more likely to be in prison, and they tend to murder each other more often. And they tend to support the Democrat Party. Again, connect the dots.
It is a fact that when people are give what they see as a special privilege or gift, they will tend to accept that privilege or gift. It is a fact that they will trend to be dependent on same. It is a fact that they will tend to support the gift giver without seriously questioning his motives. The Democrat Party realized these facts back in the 1960's and developed a strategy to exploit them with regards to its forever policy of subjugating the black population. It was a clever change in tactics and much more successful then the other techniques that they had used in the past: slavery, segregation and terrorism. Today blacks disproportionately grow up in single family homes and with less family income, they tend to be less educated and less employed, they tend to be more involved with crimes, they are more likely to be in prison, and they tend to murder each other more often. And they tend to support the Democrat Party. Again, connect the dots.
Barracuda
Verified User
OK, DamnYankee. I completely understand your viewpoint.
Thanks for sharing.
You start with what COULD be considered facts (impact of gifts) but you quickly enter into completely unsupported supposition and speculation re: motives.
IN CONTRAST:
I gave eyewitness testimony (Atwater, Philips, etc.) to support my assertions regarding the racist component of the Republican Southern Strategy. You dismissed that eyewitness testimony "against interest" with sarcasm and then you provided an out of date analysis by people who were not involved in the development or implementation of the RSS.
You are clearly absorbed by a "deep-seated hatred" of Dems, which may partially explain your "projection" (in the psychological sense) of your feelings onto others who have criticisms of Repubs.
Here you offer your own pet theory about a "clever" strategy allegedly, you say, developed by the Dems, but provide NOT A SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR THEIR MOTIVES. (Let me ask you if there is ANY political scientist or even a fRight Wing pundit who agrees with you OR is perhaps your source for this wild and paranoid speculation.) You rely on results and then work backwards as the SOLE evidence for your rank speculation. This is a twisted version of the logical fallacy of post-hoc ergo propter hoc (A preceded B, therefore A caused B). That doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, it just demonstrates AGAIN your inability to provide evidence for your assertions. Personally, I don't think Dems (or Repubs) are smart enough for that. You appear to believe they are geniuses.
But before we go too far into this discussion, I wish to put our convo in a context that it is important, at least, to me:
Party vs voters
You appear to be focused on what you say you believe happened in the smoky back rooms of Dem party leaders (or perhaps it was some other sinister conspiratorical group). For that you have supplied no evidence. If you have some, please present it.
I am focused on the voters who support the parties. THAT behavior is observable. To my knowledge there is NO data to show that southern whites, as one example, who once voted Dem, but who now vote Republican OVERWHELMINGLY have had - in vast numbers - a change of heart in regard to their racial attitudes. There is some evidence to the contrary.
Party vs ideology
The two things that Dems and Repubs who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had in common is:
1) their Conservatism and, to a large extent,
2) being elected by Southern white voters.
The Southern Strategy was a Conservative Strategy (the motives and methods of which have been made known to us by the authors of it) and we now have Conservative Southern white voters voting Repub instead of Dem.
Some facts that perhaps we can agree on:
Whereas, at one point, both parties had a range of ideology represented, these days a moderate Repub is a rarity and Conservative Dems are quite few. THAT's what has changed and is why I asked you what planet you spent your time on when you said nothing had changed.
In my opinion, your "analysis" goes wrong by neglecting to acknowledge the fact that the Dems we both abhor for their advocacy of Jim Crow, white so-called supremacy, segregation, etc WERE CONSERVATIVES. The Republicans we both apparently admire the most were RADICALS, whose goal was to fundamentally change the economic and political arrangements of the ante-bellum South and the entire country.
So, in hopes of seeking clarity: Is it Conservatives or Republicans, per se, that you support? And is it Dems you have a problem with or is it liberals/moderates?
Thanks for sharing.
You start with what COULD be considered facts (impact of gifts) but you quickly enter into completely unsupported supposition and speculation re: motives.
IN CONTRAST:
I gave eyewitness testimony (Atwater, Philips, etc.) to support my assertions regarding the racist component of the Republican Southern Strategy. You dismissed that eyewitness testimony "against interest" with sarcasm and then you provided an out of date analysis by people who were not involved in the development or implementation of the RSS.
You are clearly absorbed by a "deep-seated hatred" of Dems, which may partially explain your "projection" (in the psychological sense) of your feelings onto others who have criticisms of Repubs.
Here you offer your own pet theory about a "clever" strategy allegedly, you say, developed by the Dems, but provide NOT A SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR THEIR MOTIVES. (Let me ask you if there is ANY political scientist or even a fRight Wing pundit who agrees with you OR is perhaps your source for this wild and paranoid speculation.) You rely on results and then work backwards as the SOLE evidence for your rank speculation. This is a twisted version of the logical fallacy of post-hoc ergo propter hoc (A preceded B, therefore A caused B). That doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, it just demonstrates AGAIN your inability to provide evidence for your assertions. Personally, I don't think Dems (or Repubs) are smart enough for that. You appear to believe they are geniuses.
But before we go too far into this discussion, I wish to put our convo in a context that it is important, at least, to me:
Party vs voters
You appear to be focused on what you say you believe happened in the smoky back rooms of Dem party leaders (or perhaps it was some other sinister conspiratorical group). For that you have supplied no evidence. If you have some, please present it.
I am focused on the voters who support the parties. THAT behavior is observable. To my knowledge there is NO data to show that southern whites, as one example, who once voted Dem, but who now vote Republican OVERWHELMINGLY have had - in vast numbers - a change of heart in regard to their racial attitudes. There is some evidence to the contrary.
Party vs ideology
The two things that Dems and Repubs who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had in common is:
1) their Conservatism and, to a large extent,
2) being elected by Southern white voters.
The Southern Strategy was a Conservative Strategy (the motives and methods of which have been made known to us by the authors of it) and we now have Conservative Southern white voters voting Repub instead of Dem.
Some facts that perhaps we can agree on:
Whereas, at one point, both parties had a range of ideology represented, these days a moderate Repub is a rarity and Conservative Dems are quite few. THAT's what has changed and is why I asked you what planet you spent your time on when you said nothing had changed.
In my opinion, your "analysis" goes wrong by neglecting to acknowledge the fact that the Dems we both abhor for their advocacy of Jim Crow, white so-called supremacy, segregation, etc WERE CONSERVATIVES. The Republicans we both apparently admire the most were RADICALS, whose goal was to fundamentally change the economic and political arrangements of the ante-bellum South and the entire country.
So, in hopes of seeking clarity: Is it Conservatives or Republicans, per se, that you support? And is it Dems you have a problem with or is it liberals/moderates?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Sorry I've already given you an account from a co-author of the Southern Strategy stating that it wasn't racists as you Democrats have made it out to be. Then of course there is LBJ's well-known words about his hand-out strategy that confirms the facts that I have already presented. No doubt you will simply continue to deny the obvious.
Barracuda
Verified User
A self-congratulatory and defensive description does not carry as much weight as 3, count them 3, "admissions against interest" - one of them basically a deathbed confession, which carries even additional weight.
And, again, I am not a Dem.
Mind actually quoting LBJ? I know one comment you might be referring to (someone here uses it his signature), but I'd like to be clear on what you're referring to.
Any comment on:
And, again, I am not a Dem.
Mind actually quoting LBJ? I know one comment you might be referring to (someone here uses it his signature), but I'd like to be clear on what you're referring to.
Any comment on:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Your continued misunderstanding of the "conservative" label is humorous. I am of course referring to the modern definition, and I refer you to conservative.org for that. No conservative would agree with Democrat Party principles at any time in their sordid history.
Some of your hero LBJ's quotes:
These are all over the net so I find no need to reference them.
Buchanan's recollection of his own policy advice is more trustworthy since it is backed up by Nixon's actual documented policies. We've already been over this. No doubt you'll continue to ignore it.
Some of your hero LBJ's quotes:
These are all over the net so I find no need to reference them.
Buchanan's recollection of his own policy advice is more trustworthy since it is backed up by Nixon's actual documented policies. We've already been over this. No doubt you'll continue to ignore it.
Barracuda
Verified User
So, you must be saying that there were NO Conservative Democrats, is that it?
I guess good ole "States Rights" Strom only became a Conservative when he became a Republican. Is that it?
If "Yes" to both questions, you are engaging in fallacious argumentation again:
Yes, those LBJ quotes are all over the net and I thought you were referencing them. As compared to, for example, Lee Atwater who we HAVE ON TAPE, those LBJ quotes are uncorroborated. There's only one person (who was NOT present) who tells us that's what LBJ said. Kessler does seem like a fairly reliable reporter (though he admitted to trying to sanitize his Wiki page!), but we don't know his source, who might be - like you - infested with a deep-seated hatred of Dems.
The second LBJ quote clearly references Blacks' voting rights, so it does not SUPPORT your scenario. I don't know the context of the other one about 200 years, but perhaps you do.
But neither of those quotes using distasteful language, to say the least, goes to motive as YOU describe it in your speculative theory about a la Romney, "gifts."
As to Buchanan's advice, you are pretending not to know that the Repub Southern Strategy did not end with Nixon. And we have eyewitnesses.
So, unfortunately for you, you have only your suppositions and your hatred of all things Democrat - no evidence.
I guess good ole "States Rights" Strom only became a Conservative when he became a Republican. Is that it?
If "Yes" to both questions, you are engaging in fallacious argumentation again:
No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman."
.This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman."
Yes, those LBJ quotes are all over the net and I thought you were referencing them. As compared to, for example, Lee Atwater who we HAVE ON TAPE, those LBJ quotes are uncorroborated. There's only one person (who was NOT present) who tells us that's what LBJ said. Kessler does seem like a fairly reliable reporter (though he admitted to trying to sanitize his Wiki page!), but we don't know his source, who might be - like you - infested with a deep-seated hatred of Dems.
The second LBJ quote clearly references Blacks' voting rights, so it does not SUPPORT your scenario. I don't know the context of the other one about 200 years, but perhaps you do.
But neither of those quotes using distasteful language, to say the least, goes to motive as YOU describe it in your speculative theory about a la Romney, "gifts."
As to Buchanan's advice, you are pretending not to know that the Repub Southern Strategy did not end with Nixon. And we have eyewitnesses.
So, unfortunately for you, you have only your suppositions and your hatred of all things Democrat - no evidence.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, the Democrat Party has never been interested in true conservative principles as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution; all men are created equal, rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Again, Buchanan's recollection of his own policy advice is more trustworthy since it is backed up by Nixon's actual documented policies. You failed to address that and instead pretend that LBJ never said what he said even though it was reflected in his actual documented policies.
Again, Buchanan's recollection of his own policy advice is more trustworthy since it is backed up by Nixon's actual documented policies. You failed to address that and instead pretend that LBJ never said what he said even though it was reflected in his actual documented policies.
Barracuda
Verified User
DamnYankee = the True Scotsman
So, you insist on employing the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman." If a Dem supports Conservative issues, then either he or she is not a "true" Dem or they are not a "true" Conservative. Have fun going in that circle. You are dizzy, but I'm not.
For at least the second time you falsely claim that I have not addressed something that you said. (....which in itself is hilarious given your record of non-responsiveness!) That approach is VERY telling because it shows that you have no logical or factual counter to what I did actually say.
I DID address LBJ's alleged comments - as of course, you know. Everyone reading this can see that. I said that 1) they did not address motive and 2) I simply pointed out that one comment CLEARLY addressed political (voting) rights of Black citizens. But since you obviously cannot argue that point, you pretend I did not address the comment.
That context completely removes it from the intent that you allege that LBJ and Dems had - UNLESS you are suggesting that giving (as reflected in the "true conservative principles as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution") citizens long-denied voting rights (primarily by southern Democrat Conservatives) is somehow a dastardly plot to buy their allegiance. You cite LBJ's other comment to support your otherwise unsubstantiated theory but when I seek the context you have no info.
And, again, the Southern Strategy outlived Buchanan and Nixon's time as key players in the Repub party.
Finally, it is inescapable that you are dodging now the import of the LBJ quotes which you brought up in order to dodge the "true Conservative principles" I pointed out were involved in the pro-choice stand of many Dems and some Repubs.
Here it is again, so you can either pretend you didn't see it OR show again you have no substantive response to the logic:
So, you insist on employing the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman." If a Dem supports Conservative issues, then either he or she is not a "true" Dem or they are not a "true" Conservative. Have fun going in that circle. You are dizzy, but I'm not.
For at least the second time you falsely claim that I have not addressed something that you said. (....which in itself is hilarious given your record of non-responsiveness!) That approach is VERY telling because it shows that you have no logical or factual counter to what I did actually say.
I DID address LBJ's alleged comments - as of course, you know. Everyone reading this can see that. I said that 1) they did not address motive and 2) I simply pointed out that one comment CLEARLY addressed political (voting) rights of Black citizens. But since you obviously cannot argue that point, you pretend I did not address the comment.
That context completely removes it from the intent that you allege that LBJ and Dems had - UNLESS you are suggesting that giving (as reflected in the "true conservative principles as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution") citizens long-denied voting rights (primarily by southern Democrat Conservatives) is somehow a dastardly plot to buy their allegiance. You cite LBJ's other comment to support your otherwise unsubstantiated theory but when I seek the context you have no info.
And, again, the Southern Strategy outlived Buchanan and Nixon's time as key players in the Repub party.
Finally, it is inescapable that you are dodging now the import of the LBJ quotes which you brought up in order to dodge the "true Conservative principles" I pointed out were involved in the pro-choice stand of many Dems and some Repubs.
Here it is again, so you can either pretend you didn't see it OR show again you have no substantive response to the logic:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, I'm referring to today's definition of conservatism, not yours of the democrat party of the 60's, or the Taliban.