[besson3c]

Left wing ideology?

The rabid left was shitting bricks when he went along with the wiretapping immunity, the offshore drilling, his disagreement with gay marriage, his refusal to boycott Fox News, and many have felt that he hasn't gone far enough with other issues too.

I really don't think he is the poster child of the far left movement. An ally? Sure... A supporter? Sure, but he isn't Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nadar either..

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ted Stevens has won reelection. Once his conviction is upheld and he resigns, Gov. Palin will take his seat.

I highly doubt Palin would survive the primaries.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I highly doubt Palin would survive the primaries.

we'll see.

[CreepDogg]

I hope she runs. I'll be popping some popcorn and sitting back to enjoy the show...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

His record says otherwise. All the audio and video from the Primaries and before show him espousing left wing ideology.

I know. The man just won't shut up about impeaching Bush.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't think I mentioned Republicans once, kobi.

I named conservatives. Sometimes there's an intersection or overlap of conservatives with Republicans, but the two are not the same.

Please remember that the next time the subject of African-Americans and the Republican party comes up.

Those on the right love to question the rationality of the overwhelming support that African-Americans give the Democratic party. Often they cite how the Republican party was instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how much of the Democratic party opposed it. Especially in the South. But I've said it before and I'll say it again ..... African-Americans aren't opposed to the Republican party per se. After all, for decades this segment of the electorate was firmly in the camp of the party of Lincoln. They are, however, firmly opposed to political Conservatism. For decades worth of reasons that I won't get into now since it's not the topic of this thread. The fact of the matter is that African-Americans by and large reject the Republican party because it is presently dominated and controlled by conservatives.

OAW

[ironknee]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I hope she runs. I'll be popping some popcorn and sitting back to enjoy the show...

I, for one, am going to miss Tina Fey as Sarah Palin.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because they know what Blairism can do to a country. The UK is completely fsked. Eight years of Prez Barry and the US will be too.

God knows these last 8 years were the crown jewel of american politics...waaaaaaiiit a minute!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

God knows these last 8 years were the crown jewel of american politics...waaaaaaiiit a minute!

Heh. You think that was bad, try Blair (or Blair mkIII) for 8 years.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Please remember that the next time the subject of African-Americans and the Republican party comes up.

Those on the right love to question the rationality of the overwhelming support that African-Americans give the Democratic party. Often they cite how the Republican party was instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how much of the Democratic party opposed it. Especially in the South. But I've said it before and I'll say it again ..... African-Americans aren't opposed to the Republican party per se. After all, for decades this segment of the electorate was firmly in the camp of the party of Lincoln. They are, however, firmly opposed to political Conservatism. For decades worth of reasons that I won't get into now since it's not the topic of this thread. The fact of the matter is that African-Americans by and large reject the Republican party because it is presently dominated and controlled by conservatives.

OAW

Given that the Republican party has not seen a conservative do a whole lot since Congress 1996, and given that conservatism is about expanding freedom and equal rights for all, your statement falls pretty flat. Democrats and liberals where they intersect tend to be more about making some people more equal than others. I understand why that might appeal to you when you speak as a representative of all black people everywhere, but is it right that you be more equal than other constituents?

Someday you're going to have to act like you want a color-blind society.

[vmarks]

We seek here not to 'rebuild' the conservative movement, by the way, but to simply reestablish it and take it back from a bunch of frauds and pretenders who want to 'redefine' it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

is it right that you be more equal than other constituents?

That statement makes me think of the electoral college.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We seek here not to 'rebuild' the conservative movement, by the way, but to simply reestablish it and take it back from a bunch of frauds and pretenders who want to 'redefine' it.

Such a move is going to split the Republicans. The ones in charge now aren't going to just roll over and give up. You'll have Sarah Palin on one side, and the moderates on the other, and neither side is going to give up.

It's going to be at least a decade before the Republicans or whatever party results is strong enough to enjoy a chance at taking back the White House. I'd get comfy with Democratic rule if I were a Conservative...

(And it's the Republicans own damn fault.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We seek here not to 'rebuild' the conservative movement, by the way, but to simply reestablish it and take it back from a bunch of frauds and pretenders who want to 'redefine' it.

Hear hear. I generally lean conservative fiscally (Canadian conservative, that is), but the last 8 years of social conservatism has driven me to the more liberal side of the spectrum.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Given that the Republican party has not seen a conservative do a whole lot since Congress 1996, and given that conservatism is about expanding freedom and equal rights for all, your statement falls pretty flat. Democrats and liberals where they intersect tend to be more about making some people more equal than others. I understand why that might appeal to you when you speak as a representative of all black people everywhere, but is it right that you be more equal than other constituents?

Someday you're going to have to act like you want a color-blind society.

You speak of conservatives since 1996. I'm talking about conservatives since 1865. You say conservatism is about expanding freedom and equal rights for all. And perhaps recently, that may be true. On paper. In theory. In practice? Not so much.

Am I a speaking as a representative of all black people everywhere as you derisively claim? No. I do, however, simply state an incontrovertible fact. Conservative/Republican support in the African-American community is negligible. At best. And it's been that way for decades. So the question is why? Might it have something to do with the fact that conservatives (note I didn't say Republican or Democrat) supported slavery and Jim Crow? That they opposed civil rights and voting rights legislation? That they opposed affirmative action? That they employed the Southern Strategy to play on the racial fears and prejudices of southern whites to win presidential elections? Even in 2008 it was conservatives leading the "Obama's a terrorist/secret muslim/socialist" charge. Perhaps you think no one noticed?

The issue has always been political ideology. Party affiliation is secondary at best. I find it funny how when topics like this come up those on the right are quick to say "But those were Southern Democrats!" and point out party affiliation. But then turn around and try to distance themselves from Republican party affiliation when it suits them.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's a starter conservatives:

Quit with the stupid religious crap.

Thanks.

Sure, once the Democrats stop treating Obama like the Messiah.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure, once the Democrats stop treating Obama like the Messiah.

-t

This makes no sense - it's clearly not in the Democrats' best interest.

While I'm sure there are some who were drawn in by his cult of personality, for the most part the messiah complex has come from Obama's detractors. What better way to create unreasonable expectations of him in office? If anything, Democrats are toning down and rejecting the messiah talk to lower expectations.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure, once the Democrats stop treating Obama like the Messiah.

-t

Once the Republicans stop referring to him as the Messiah, that should take care of your complaint...

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure, once the Democrats stop treating Obama like the Messiah.

That's your characterization.

You own it. It's not our fault you use it. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

[ironknee]

the overwhelming positive world response to obama is breathtaking

does that mean the world, in general, is liberal or are the american conservatives the far right?

[hyteckit]

Do conservatives support equal treatment, equal protection, and equal rights for gays to get married?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I liked Ron Paul too - until I got the impression that he'd love to build a fiery moat around the US.

True. Unfortunately he muddled his libertarianism with isolationism, which is - as we have learnt from history - far from sustainable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure, once the Democrats stop treating Obama like the Messiah.

-t

Non-sequitur much?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Do conservatives support equal treatment, equal protection, and equal rights for gays to get married?

A more interesting question would be- do most African Americans?

Almost nothing is as cut/dry-black/white-right/left- us/them as too many people make things out to be.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

the overwhelming positive world response to obama is breathtaking

does that mean the world, in general, is liberal or are the american conservatives the far right?

I think the latter.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A more interesting question would be- do most African Americans?

Almost nothing is as cut/dry-black/white-right/left- us/them as too many people make things out to be.

Says the one who's always ranting about "lefties." Amazing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Says the one who's always ranting about "lefties." Amazing.

Ahh that's right- the left doesn't exist. That generally happens when someone points out a GLARING example of lefty hypocrisy and/or inconsistency.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the latter.

agreed

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You speak of conservatives since 1996. I'm talking about conservatives since 1865. You say conservatism is about expanding freedom and equal rights for all. And perhaps recently, that may be true. On paper. In theory. In practice? Not so much.

Oh, I can go back to 1865 if you like.

Conservatives in north carolina were the ones who supported black farmers running as candidates in north carolina races.

It was conservatives who were overthrown by the Wilmington Coup. It was conservatives who passed the Civil Rights legislation you refer to.

Am I a speaking as a representative of all black people everywhere as you derisively claim? No. I do, however, simply state an incontrovertible fact.

Logical fallacy ipse dixit. That is, it's true because you say it is.

Conservative/Republican support in the African-American community is negligible. At best. And it's been that way for decades. So the question is why? Might it have something to do with the fact that conservatives (note I didn't say Republican or Democrat) supported slavery and Jim Crow?

False. Conservatives did not support slavery or Jim Crow. It was conservatives who supported blacks running for office, arming themselves, and exercising rights as Americans.

Conservatives opposed union laws, which were written to prevent blacks from getting jobs, protecting white workers. Seriously, check out Davis-Bacon, and you'll see the history that's been kept from you.

That they opposed civil rights and voting rights legislation? That they opposed affirmative action?

Affirmative action is not equal rights - it's a racist policy that makes some more equal than others, and ought to be abhorrent to anyone who believes in a society based on character.

Even in 2008 it was conservatives leading the "Obama's a terrorist/secret muslim/socialist" charge. Perhaps you think no one noticed?

I know that you didn't notice the truth: That nonsense crap charge about being a secret-crypto-muslim was dreamed up not by a conservative, but by a man who is an anti-semite, who has run as a Republican and Democrat both, and was refused by the Illinois state bar for being mentally suspect. I posted on the history of that charge in these forums. Search for it.

Socialist? Obama's wealth redistribution policies are plainly socialist. There's nothing wrong with talking about how that's bad policy and brings misery to everyone.

The issue has always been political ideology. Party affiliation is secondary at best. I find it funny how when topics like this come up those on the right are quick to say "But those were Southern Democrats!" and point out party affiliation. But then turn around and try to distance themselves from Republican party affiliation when it suits them.

OAW

Sure, it's about political ideology, and rather than express any interest in the truth of what conservatism is and is not, you buy into the fraud perpetrated on you by those whose ideology you've bought into. It's a shame.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I know that you didn't notice the truth: That nonsense crap charge about being a secret-crypto-muslim was dreamed up not by a conservative, but by a man who is an anti-semite, who has run as a Republican and Democrat both, and was refused by the Illinois state bar for being mentally suspect. I posted on the history of that charge in these forums. Search for it.

So you hold the conservatives completely blameless then?

And on the socialism comment, I would expect you would know the difference between social regulation and actual socialism...

[vmarks]

I clearly said it's a crap charge. The most press it got was from Hannity. Hannity is a plagiarist who lifts what good material he has from blogs, and fails to do background checks on the people who happen to attack the people he wants to attack.

Of course, Hannity is an entertainer, more than a newsman. Funny, so is Olbermann. Peas in a pod.

When you deprive people of their property in order to give it to others according to their needs, it's Marxist socialism, not some delicately couched 'social regulation.' I'll grant you, McCain's taxation plans were ugly too, but Obama made sure we knew that spreading the wealth around was his policy. There's no dressing that up as anything other than anti-property rights.

Read The Basis of Property is Labor by John Locke.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When you deprive people of their property in order to give it to others according to their needs, it's Marxist socialism, not some delicately couched 'social regulation.' I'll grant you, McCain's taxation plans were ugly too, but Obama made sure we knew that spreading the wealth around was his policy. There's no dressing that up as anything other than anti-property rights.

Yeah, Adam Smith wouldn't agree with you.

Socialism is redistributing wealth so everyone is equal.

Social regulation is distributing wealth in a way that makes the free market operate in a competitive manner.

They are not the same thing, and Obama is pushing social regulation, not socialism. Adam Smith acknowledged that social regulation is necessary to keep the free market competitive. If you're going to accuse Obama of socialism, you have to ask yourself, is Obama attempting to improve our free market, or get rid of it?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What we have to understand is that the Dems and the GOP aren't two parties - they're two halves of the same party, perpetuated to give the average American the perception of democracy.

It's trivially obvious that there is a large overlap in the center. I wouldn't use that broad a brush: two halves of the same thing? I don't think so.

@vmarks
Although you may be right that the rumors originated from an anti-semite, but it resonated with a share of Republican voters. Some people on this forum have been pushing this punch line ad nauseam as you know. And the lack of support in terms of votes among the black population is statistical fact.


Regarding reconstruction of `conservatism' -- I would still advise you to add Goldwater to that word, otherwise you're bound to confuse most people --, yes, the Republican party has to see what road it will choose. Whether it is `Goldwater-style conservatism' (which you prefer) or a different one, that remains to be seen. If anything, Sarah Palin is the symbol of the rift in the grand ol' party: not exactly the choice of fiscal conservatives (who care more about qualifications than, apparently, social conservatives), they would have preferred someone like Lieberman. Personally, I doubt the time of Goldwater conservatism will ever come, but the Republicans have to do something to make the people believe they really act in accordance with what they claim they stand for (you know, buzzwords like `small government', `less taxes').

Before you say that I make the same mistake as kobi: as Big Mac points out, the Republican party is the party that by and large conservatives vote for. Perhaps it would be easier if the US changes its voting mechanism to hybrid majority/proportional system to allow for smaller parties to share the power. But that's really hypothetical and I don't see that happening. So unless the Libertarian party rises to the occasion and becomes a player in national politics, the fate of conservatism and the fate of the Republican party are inseparably intertwined.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So you hold the conservatives completely blameless then?

vmarks uses his own definition of conservatism, which should be called Goldwater conservatism instead. It's a particular mix of Libertarian and conservative ideas, but it has nothing to do with the generally accepted definition of conservatism.

Originally Posted by goMac 

And on the socialism comment, I would expect you would know the difference between social regulation and actual socialism...

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When you deprive people of their property in order to give it to others according to their needs, it's Marxist socialism, not some delicately couched 'social regulation.'

Taxes are by definition a redistribution of wealth. If you change this redistribution so that you lessen the burden of the middle class doesn't mean you have introduced `Marxist socialism' to the US.
Calling the old (now very old) scarecrow of `Socialism' in the form of Marx' rotten corpse is doing injustice to those who have really suffered under a communist and socialist system. And it's really that, a label and a marketing ploy to scare people.

Marxist socialism is dead. (Good riddance!)

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Marxist socialism is dead. (Good riddance!)

No, still around. That's what happens when people don't experience what it is like to live under Beloved Communist system. They grow up in affluent suburbs, they get self-guilt after Christmas dinner and start fantasising about Communism or become Scientologists.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Sou5TQUZA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...kremlin-russia

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...d_2772303.html

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jVZ4Lkm6JQw

[goMac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Taxes are by definition a redistribution of wealth. If you change this redistribution so that you lessen the burden of the middle class doesn't mean you have introduced `Marxist socialism' to the US.
Calling the old (now very old) scarecrow of `Socialism' in the form of Marx' rotten corpse is doing injustice to those who have really suffered under a communist and socialist system. And it's really that, a label and a marketing ploy to scare people.

Marxist socialism is dead. (Good riddance!)

: ding ding ding :

I was going to wait until VMarks replied to bring it up, but any tax or tax break would count as socialism by vmark's definition.

A tax break is also a redistribution of wealth. It's taking money that we have on credit from China, and giving it to people. It's basically taking out a credit card on behalf of everybody. Not only is that a redistribution of wealth, it's irresponsible.

One could argue that if we strip the government down there would be no need to tax, but you can never ever ever have a free market system without social regulation.

Any economist worth his/her salt will tell you that without social regulation markets will seize up. Sure, new businesses can start up to compete with the old, but new businesses get wiped out every market cycle, meaning they have a very short amount of time to become a real competitor on the market.

Walmart is the perfect example. There are lots of smaller shops that would like to compete with Walmart. But the honest truth is the economic downturn is going to drive them all out of business and we'll be back to square one.

What's the best way to get new businesses going? It's not loaning them money from China. Businesses are perfectly capable of getting their own loans, they don't need the government forcing their debt on everyone. The real solution to creating new businesses and a new dynamic free market is to start taking care of people. Raise the minimum wage so they can start saving. Provide health care so not only are they healthy enough to participate in the free market, but their employees will also be taken care of. Make sure our electronic and transportation infrastructures are up to date so that our businesses are actually competitive with overseas businesses.

The right is going to continue painting Obama as anti free market. They're going to say he wants to make everyone successful. That's not it at all. Nothing he's proposed would turn everyone into instant millionaires. What he's proposing is lifting barriers so that if people choose to put forth the effort to work on the free market, their businesses will be able to survive, and perhaps even thrive. And he wants to do it the responsible way, not on credit.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

A tax break is also a redistribution of wealth. It's taking money that we have on credit from China, and giving it to people. It's basically taking out a credit card on behalf of everybody. Not only is that a redistribution of wealth, it's irresponsible.

LOL

That's so naive. And the China thing, very naive.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

:The real solution to creating new businesses and a new dynamic free market is to start taking care of people. Raise the minimum wage so they can start saving.

I'm guessing that you've never actually started a business.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No, still around. That's what happens when people don't experience what it is like to live under Beloved Communist system.

Have you experienced life in a communist country? Have you been to China or so before it has started opening itself in the 70s?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I was going to wait until VMarks replied to bring it up, but any tax or tax break would count as socialism by vmark's definition.

It is plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

[OAW]

I had a very detailed point-by-point rebuttal to this nonsense written, and as luck would have it Safari crashed on me right before I submitted it. So here's a shortened version below .....

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It was conservatives who passed the Civil Rights legislation you refer to.

Uh .... not so much. Here's the breakdown of the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
▪ Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
▪ Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)
▪ Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
▪ Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:
▪ Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
▪ Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
▪ Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
▪ Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

So this was a bi-partisan legislative effort. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans. But, of course, there were more Democrats. Southern conservatives opposed it. Regardless of party affiliation. Again, you are using "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeably when it suits you. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party prior to the passage of this legislation was dominated by the more moderate "Rockefeller Republican" types of the Northeast and Midwest and it was those Republicans who were instrumental in getting this legislation passed. After this, and starting with the nomination of conservative Barry Goldwater for President in 1964, the powerbase of the Republican Party began to shift to the more conservative South and West. Which is exactly where the "red states" are today.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Logical fallacy ipse dixit. That is, it's true because you say it is.

I had six years of Latin so I know what it means. It's not true because I say so. It's true because it's a fact. When you can show me some evidence of the African-American community supporting conservatives in a national election in any meaningful numbers (20%+) then you can talk.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

False. Conservatives did not support slavery or Jim Crow. It was conservatives who supported blacks running for office, arming themselves, and exercising rights as Americans.

You actually believe your own BS don't you? To deny that conservatives enacted Jim Crow and opposed its dismantling tooth and nail despite the overwhelming evidence of the historical record is just downright stupid.

Jim Crow laws were a product of the solidly Democratic South. Conservative white Southern Democrats, exploiting racial fear and attacking the corruption (real or perceived) of Reconstruction Republican governments, took over state governments in the South in the 1870s and dominated them for nearly 100 years, chiefly as a result of disenfranchisement of most blacks through statute and constitutions. In 1956, southern resistance to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education resulted in a resolution called the Southern Manifesto. It was read into the Congressional Record and supported by 96 southern congressmen and senators, all but two of them southern Democrats.

And more on this topic ....

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican method of carrying Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters.

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,but merely popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

So conservative Southern white Democrats started voting Republican after the passage of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. As the result of a concerted and documented strategy to appeal to these voters on the basis of race by the Republican party. And they vote Republican by and large to this very day.

The people who "supported blacks running for office, arming themselves, and exercising rights as Americans." as you say where moderate Northern Republicans. They were not by any means conservatives. When talking about the Republican Party one has to be clear if they are referring to the "Party of Lincoln" or the "Party of Goldwater". There is a big difference.

OAW

[vmarks]

Besides the matter where you completely fail on your history - conservatives voted FOR the civil rights act - the civil rights war was won with the help of conservatives.

The party of Lincoln is the party of Goldwater. The difference between Lincoln and Goldwater is that Goldwater advanced freedom for all more than Lincoln. There's this little matter of suspending Habeus Corpus unconstitutionally, you see...


Goldwater continued advancing conservatism, synonymous with the advancement of freedom for all, even into his late years.

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
Goldwater, Interview with Lloyd Grove, The Washington Post, 28 July 1994.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Besides the matter where you completely fail on your history - conservatives voted FOR the civil rights act - the civil rights war was won with the help of conservatives.

Now, this is really frustrating on my end.

While I'm less familiar with the legislative history than with the actual text of the 1964 CRA (mainly its amended '91 form) and with the body of case law that followed, it's still shocking to read something that counterintuitive (that "conservatives" voted for it; not against it). I have to put "conservatives" in quotes, because I really have no idea what you're referring to. The "conservative" Democrats of the Deep South opposed the bill and other civil rights legislation. They were conservatives. People regarded them as conservatives. They self-identified as conservatives.

But, you come along, and say they aren't really conservatives. That the "true" "conservatives" actually voted for the bill (and presumably for other civil rights legislation). Barry Goldwater was a conservative. He voted against the bill.

You're defining "conservatism" to ignore all past standard-bearers of the ideology.

So, why bother? Why not just call it something different?

[vmarks]

Goldwater voted for civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960.

He opposed the 1964 act due to Title II.
Title II outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

The reason this is problematic is because it dictates the behavior of individuals, and is anti-First Amendment.

All other titles of the act dictate the behavior of the government. This is fine to regulate.

The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of association. That implies a right to not associate. This title is in direct contradiction with the First Amendment of the constitution.

Discrimination, remember, is the act of choice. I discriminated against all women in the world when I married my wife. If I ever consider equal opportunity, my wife insists on continued discrimination.

I discriminated against, and refused all employers an equal opportunity to hire me by only applying to a few.

I see that some discrimination must be ok, so the question of how much seems to depend on how much importance you place on the freedom of association.

To reprise: Goldwater voted for civil rights on multiple occasions, but could not vote for the unconstitutional portions of the 1964 act.

Conservatism is about expanding and protecting freedom for all. Sometimes conservatives disagree about how to do so. 4/5ths of the GOP voted for the 1964 act, and yet you people tell me that it was not passed by conservatives.

Civil rights is absolutely something which conservatives are in favor of, on principle and in practice.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

All other titles of the act dictate the behavior of the government.

Are you just making things up now?

Again, I'm more than a little familiar with the text of the Act. Title II isn't the only part that deals with actions other than those by the government. Title VII in particular is about employers. The Act defines employers to include individuals (and businesses, labor unions, etc). It's a huge part of employment discrimination law.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

4/5ths of the GOP voted for the 1964 act, and yet you people tell me that it was not passed by conservatives.

Are you serious?

Let me repeat for you something you just said in another thread. "Republican is not a synonym for Conservative." You literally just said that less than two weeks ago. So, which is it? Is "Republican" a synonym for "conservative" or not? You can't keep your story straight. It's astonishing.

Furthermore, the parties switched precisely because of the civil rights issue. Southern conservatives (the Democrats who were chiefly responsible for blocking previous bills and for voting against the 64 CRA), left the party and joined the GOP afterwards. You are aware of Nixon's Southern Strategy and the realignment of the parties, aren't you? Apparently not. Talk about failing on history!

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Civil rights is absolutely something which conservatives are in favor of, on principle and in practice.

Didn't you just explain to me how a huge part of civil rights law is unacceptable to conservatives?

[vmarks]

I explained how conservatives can disagree while working to advance freedom.

I explained how it was possible for Goldwater to vote for civil rights acts twice and vote against one once.

Party realignment, which I know about and have not addressed at all in this thread, is unimportant here. If you were keeping up instead of trying to shift goalposts, you'd recognize that the discussion is not about party alignment, or realignment, but about conservatism and its core goal of advancing and expanding freedom.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Besides the matter where you completely fail on your history - conservatives voted FOR the civil rights act - the civil rights war was won with the help of conservatives.

The difference between you and I is that I actually backed up what I had to say with references. You, OTOH, did not. You merely make unsubstantiated pronouncements. Nor did you directly challenge any specific point that I made. What you did was go off on a tangent about how Goldwater supported other Civil Rights legislation that I was, in fact, aware of but I never mentioned because it was beside the point. The fact of the matter is that Goldwater opposed the much more comprehensive and major defining civil rights legislation that legally (on paper at least) made minorities full citizens of the United States. The part of the legislation he was "uncomfortable" with was the part said that people could not discriminate on the basis of race in public accommodations. So you can try to dress it up all in a of veneer of "respectability" by making ideological arguments on the basis of a constitutional right to freedom of association. But when you get done talking, Goldwater .... and other conservatives ...... opposed the heart of the legislation which finally rid this country of Jim Crow. He opposed that part of the legislation which rendered illegal the "Whites Only" signs over restaurants, hotels, restrooms, etc. And you defend it. So I'll just let that speak for itself.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You use the term "Republican" and "Conservative" interchangeably when it suits you. It is obvious to all but the most obtuse of individuals. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people can once again prove the axiom that "Common sense isn't always that common." when topics of race and ideology are involved.

On that note, I'm content to let you twist, turn, and fall all over yourself trying to convince anybody with more than 2 cents worth of intelligence that it wasn't conservatives who opposed civil rights legislation ... they were the ones who passed it. I do find it rather amusing. So please, do continue ....

OAW

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You merely make unsubstantiated pronouncements.

"FREEDOM!"

Originally Posted by OAW 

Nor did you directly challenge any specific point that I made.

Neither did he mine.

"FREEDOM!"

Originally Posted by OAW 

The fact of the matter is that Goldwater opposed the much more comprehensive and major defining civil rights legislation that legally (on paper at least) made minorities full citizens of the United States. The part of the legislation he was "uncomfortable" with was the part said that people could not discriminate on the basis of race in public accommodations. So you can try to dress it up all in a of veneer of "respectability" by making ideological arguments on the basis of a constitutional right to freedom of association. But when you get done talking, Goldwater .... and other conservatives ...... opposed the heart of the legislation which finally rid this country of Jim Crow. He opposed that part of the legislation which rendered illegal the "Whites Only" signs over restaurants, hotels, restrooms, etc. And you defend it. So I'll just let that speak for itself.

Why are you against "FREEDOM?"

Originally Posted by OAW 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You use the term "Republican" and "Conservative" interchangeably when it suits you.

I've noticed that myself.

It's just astonishing. Blatantly disingenuous? I really don't know what to think. What gives? vmarks, do you have a satisfying answer for this? Why would you say completely contradictory things in two threads (and apparently elsewhere as well), and not expect to be called out on it?

Originally Posted by OAW 

On that note, I'm content to let you twist, turn, and fall all over yourself trying to convince anybody with more than 2 cents worth of intelligence that it wasn't conservatives who opposed civil rights legislation ... they were the ones who passed it. I do find it rather amusing. So please, do continue ....

OAW, vmarks means "civil rights" just like he means "conservative" and "support."

"Conservatives" "support" "civil rights" even though they reject civil rights legislation. Even when they reject the very authority of the government to regulate individuals under the Commerce Clause, and they don't support any explicit Constitutional amendment to clearly enable the government to do so. They're civil rights supporters, you see. Mind boggling, much?

He really should just start calling these things something different, since he defines the terms in some instances to mean the exact opposite of their commonly understood meanings. It's Colbertian "truthiness" at its best (or worst).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

It's just astonishing. Blatantly disingenuous? I really don't know what to think. What gives? vmarks, do you have a satisfying answer for this? Why would you say completely contradictory things in two threads (and apparently elsewhere as well), and not expect to be called out on it?

Two threads? How about this thread? His second post in this thread is where he said ... and I quote:

Originally Posted by vmarks

I don't think I mentioned Republicans once, kobi.

I named conservatives. Sometimes there's an intersection or overlap of conservatives with Republicans, but the two are not the same.

All I did was to remind him to remember those words the next time the subject of African-Americans and the Republican party came up. And I went on to make the point that it was political conservatism that turned off the vast majority of African-Americans (and for good reason). Not the Republican party per se. The discussion ensued. And now here we are with vmarks doing the very thing he admonished kobi for! Classic!

But I think I now see the "logic" of it all. When commonly known and self-identifying conservatives do something wrong ... like support slavery, Jim Crow, or this debacle called the Bush Administration .... they aren't really "conservative". But if a Republican does something right, like support civil rights legislation ... then they are a "conservative" ... even if they were really a moderate. Yeah. I get it.

OAW