Great site for 9/11 Kool-Aid drinkers

[Surfrider]

I am not sure how either of you can make broad generalizations about "liberals" and "conservatives" in regards to specific events in history.? The meaning of these two terms has changed tremendously.? What is considered a modern liberal is completely different from what is considered a classical liberal.? Similarly, the term conservative has changed as well.?

To say that Republicans were liberal in those days is misleading.? You are taking today's meaning of the word liberal and applying to it to a different era to imply that today's liberals would have been for the civil rights movement, where as today's conservatives would have been against it.? I don't think that you can possible compare any of the political parties of today to events that occurred in a different era.? I often see this mistake made when people try to place certain founding fathers as democrats, republicans, liberals or conservatives.? ?

Rovbert Byrd was in the KKK.? It was southern democrats who opposed civil rights.

This is a really fatuous parcing of partisanship.? Robert Byrd was, and is, a conservative Democrat.? Every Dixiecrat was unquestionably conservative.? Thats why many left the party.?

I think this is mistaken as well.? Robert Byrd is liberal, in the modern sense, on almost every issue that comes before him.? The only way that he is characterized as a conservative is on race issues.? Does that make him a conservative because he is racist?? What makes him a conservative?? Race issues certainly cannot be the factor that determines if one is a liberal or conservative.? He is simply a racist democrat.? You can't take every racist and characterize them as conservatives, that is just not accurate.

It was Republicans who freed the slaves and led the civil rights movement.? Only in the past 25 years have the Democrats taken a change on the race issue.

Again...Republicans were the liberals during the days of slavery, it was quite a different party - thats been addressed.? As for leading the civil rights movement, back it up.? Ive already referred to Democrats that led on the issue:

As I explained above, I don't think you can make the modern liberal/conservative comparison to these times.?

I do use liberal and Democrat as interchangable because in contemporary America they are.

1.) Thats untrue.?

2.) The Democrats you referred to were staunch conservatives.

Notice that he did say "contemporary america."? As to point two, It is much more accurate to describe them as southern democrats than to describe them as conservatives.

[

[Booker Floyd]

Booker, although this initial reply will be brief, please don't take it as me ignoring or avoiding your reply.  I simply have to get to work and will edit this post later.

Some simple stats on how each patry voted for the civil rights act of 1964:

The Original House Version:

[House]
Democratic Party: 153-96   (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)
[Senate]
Democratic Party: 46-22   (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

Booker, you seem to want to ignore the cold hard facts here.

 

Those stats support my points exactly.

Fact: Democrats proposed and fought for the legislation.  Therefore they were the leaders on it.  Are you going to dispute that?

Fact: A majority of Democrats supported the legislation.

With these facts in mind, youre original argument of "Democrats fought civil rights legislation" is dishonest.  Its even more dishonest when you equate Democrats with liberals in the same sentence.

Further, if a democrat was against civil rights, you call them conservative which you equate with racist.  So if a democrat doesn't toe the line, he's just a conservative.

Ill address this in my reply to BerkeleyRiot.

I think this is mistaken as well.  Robert Byrd is liberal, in the modern sense, on almost every issue that comes before him.  The only way that he is characterized as a conservative is on race issues.  Does that make him a conservative because he is racist?  What makes him a conservative?  Race issues certainly cannot be the factor that determines if one is a liberal or conservative.  He is simply a racist democrat.  You can't take every racist and characterize them as conservatives, that is just not accurate.

Untrue.  Byrd voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment with most Republicans, alligned himself with Republicans on other issues involving gays and has supported both of George W. Bushs Supreme Court nominees (one of only four Democrats to vote for Samuel Alito).  No liberal would support Samuel Alitos nomination.  Hes supported Bushs most conservative federal judges.  He supports making English Americas "official language" and votes with Republicans on most immigration issues.  He supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Although I think its presumptuous to label him a racist in the present tense.  Theres no question he was a racist, but Im doubtful you can know he is now.  His voting record, receiving near-perfect to perfect scores from the NAACP, doesnt suggest it. 

Im not necessarily saying that racism is a conservative trait, but liberalism both denotes and connotes the favoring of political and social reform while conservatism is based on tradition and aversion to such reforms.  With those definitions in mind, its not difficult to apply them to political figures from the past.  Of course theres many differences in the overall stigmas of both terms, but on the slavery issue, the position favoring unprecedented equality and tolerance is surely the progressive, or liberal, one.  In the debate over the 1960s legislation, the conservative position was the support of states rights.  That was the position championed by the Dixiecrats, as well as some conservative Republicans, such as Goldwater (and was later featured in Reagans rhetoric).  That Goldwater was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate has to be factored in the partys overall view on civil rights at the time.  Even if most Republicans supported it (again, with Mansfield and Johnson leading the way), their nomination of Goldwater suggested it wasnt of great importance to them.  And Im not saying that Goldwater was a racist either, but his position was unquestionably the conservative one and it facilitated racial discrimination.  Its not just about racism, its about supporting or opposing the legislation.

Also, I never said that Byrd or those Democrats were conservatives solely because of their stance on civil rights.  Any student of history/politics would agree that the Dixiecrats were no liberals.  Democrat Richard Russell, who opposed the legislation, founded the Conservative Coalition.  Howard Smith, another Democrtic opponent of civil rights, led the Conservative Coalition.  These were not liberal Democrats, these were conservative Democrats and thats why I refer to them as such.  Democrat and liberal were not interchangable then, as Gunslinger contends, and theyre not today.   

Notice that he did say "contemporary america."  As to point two, It is much more accurate to describe them as southern democrats than to describe them as conservatives.

1.) Im aware of what he said, and I think hes wrong.

2.) Not necessarily.  They were both southern and conservative, but Gunslinger insisted on relating his points to liberals. 

Would you agree that his original point:

When someone calls someone a liberal, they're not attacking their belief in anti-discriminatory practices (remember it was the Democrats in America who opposed civil rights legislation)

...was incorrect and dishonest?  In making his point, he assumes Democrats and liberals were synonymous and implies that they shouldnt be credited with supporting anti-discriminatory practices, only for opposing them. 

[Guns N RockMusic]

Fact: Democrats proposed and fought for the legislation.? Therefore they were the leaders on it.? Are you going to dispute that?

Yes, I will....

Booker, I think you're misreading the votes there. The Republicans were more supportive than the Democrats, by 20% in some areas.? That's a significant margin, one you seem to ignore.? Was it not Eisenhower who used the National Guard to force the democratc governor of Alabama to open doors to blacks?? ? It was Byrd who fillibustered the CRA of 64.? It was the Republicans who were able to join will Democrats in order to override the fillibuster.? I could go back further to proove my point and note that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment.? But let's keep it to current times.? Obviously, the Democratic party stands for certain principles that have stood the test of time or they would have gone the way of the dodo like other American parties.? Currently, they value social programs the define them as socialist which is a leftist or liberal ideology.?
? My original statement was the Democrats opposed the civil rights act.? That is accurate, because if you were to take all those who opposed the CRA, and randomly chose one, they'd probbaly be a democrat.? I can say that Democrats support the Patriot Act and Republicans opposed it because there were members of each party who voted either way.? BUt that would be misleading.? Obviously Democrats supported the CRA because they were the majority of congress from the 1920s untill 1994.? But the majority of those who opposed the CRA were democrats.? But, since the Democrats fillibustered the CRA for 74 days, I think it's fair to say that Democrats opposed the bill.
? Of course you neglect to mention that prior to Kennedy's CRA, the Republican minority in congress had submitted multiple Civil Rights bills that were blocked by Democrats. The Republicans had CR bills in 57 and 60 that were defeated by democrats.
 In fact, up until 1935 every single black congressman was Republican.? Hell, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, both Republicans, were co-founders of the NAACP.? I could keep providing more facts, but you'd ignore them or spin them elsewhere.? The Democrats were not the leaders behind the CR movement, it was teh Republicans.? Only after Kennedy died, did Johson garner support for the CRA, before he led us into the quagmire that was Vietnam (Golf of Tonkin anyone?) that resulted in the death of 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands more inhured.? That's your democratic party.

When someone calls someone a liberal, they're not attacking their belief in anti-discriminatory practices (remember it was the Democrats in America who opposed civil rights legislation)

...was incorrect and dishonest?? In making his point, he assumes Democrats and liberals were synonymous and implies that they shouldnt be credited with supporting anti-discriminatory practices, only for opposing them.?

I'm not claiming that they should not be credited for aiding in the civil rights movement.? I'm stating that they should equally be credited for opposing it and Republicans should be given equal or more credit for the movement since they proposed legislation long before Kennedy did.


? ?

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Four pages and still no Kool-Aid Man busting through a wall picture? 

[the dirt]

[SLCPUNK]

And the Dirt delivers............fuckin' A.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Haha I remember that episode of Family Guy! 

SLC, you can never have an abundance of Kool-Aid Man through wall pictures! 

[Booker Floyd]

Fact: Democrats proposed and fought for the legislation.  Therefore they were the leaders on it.  Are you going to dispute that?

Yes, I will....

I would say that youre misinformed, but youve been informed enough in this thread to know better, so now youre just plain dishonest and too stubborn to admit that you are wrong.

Booker, I think you're misreading the votes there. The Republicans were more supportive than the Democrats, by 20% in some areas. That's a significant margin, one you seem to ignore.

 

Is this really all you have?  The percentages youre obsessing over are meaningless.  100% of the southern Republicans in the Senate opposed it.  There was one southern Republican in the Senate.  98% of northern Democrats supported it, 14% more than northern Republicans...who cares?  Percentages are meaningless and to use them as a basis for your argument in this discussion is laughable and wholly lame.  Democrats had many more seats and the conservative Dixiecrat minority that was largely broken after the legisilation skewed those percentages. 

And really you didnt dispute my point.  You fail to address Johnson and Mansfields leadership on the legislation, of which theres no question (or the Republicans nomination of Goldwater in 1964).  Instead, you brought up this silly percentage non-point. 

Was it not Eisenhower who used the National Guard to force the democratc governor of Alabama to open doors to blacks?    It was Byrd who fillibustered the CRA of 64.

First, this is a weak comparison.  The more logical comparison would be to compare Eisenhowers leadership on the issue to Johnsons since they were each partys respective leaders at the time.  Johnsons legislation was unquestionably the most exapansive civil rights legislation of the century.

Second, it was Arkansas that Eisenhower sent the troops to.  Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent troops into Alabama in 1963.

I wont denigrate the civil rights contributions of Republicans, particularly Eisenhower.  The main issue is your disingenuous refusal to recognize Democrats undeniable leadership on civil rights in order to focus on the minoritys opposition, as well your even more disingenuous effort to lump liberals into that opposition.

It was the Republicans who were able to join will Democrats in order to override the fillibuster.

I acknowledge that a majority of Republicans supported it, thats not the issue.  The bill was strongly bipartisan. 
 

My original statement was the Democrats opposed the civil rights act.  That is accurate, because if you were to take all those who opposed the CRA, and randomly chose one, they'd probbaly be a democrat.

If you were to take those opposed to the CRA and randomly choose one...youd be indulging in a numbingly stupid exercise that means nothing.

Its also inaccurate.  When you say "the Democrats," youre implying a majority, if not all.  Youre also conveniently negating the fact that they in fact proposed the legislation and led negotiations on its passage.     

I can say that Democrats support the Patriot Act and Republicans opposed it because there were members of each party who voted either way. BUt that would be misleading.

 

Thats exactly what you did - youre admitting that youre original point is misleading.  Therefore you should give up this game of weaseling around facts and just be honest about the subject.

By the way, only 3 of 211 voting House Republicans and 0 Senate Republicans voted against the Patriot Act.

But the majority of those who opposed the CRA were democrats. But, since the Democrats fillibustered the CRA for 74 days, I think it's fair to say that Democrats opposed the bill.

Now that youve changed the phrasing and provided better context, it would be fair to say.  Better context, of course, means acknowledgement of Democratic leadership and majority support. 

Of course you neglect to mention that prior to Kennedy's CRA, the Republican minority in congress had submitted multiple Civil Rights bills that were blocked by Democrats. The Republicans had CR bills in 57 and 60 that were defeated by democrats.

No, they both passed (albeit amended due to Dixiecrat obstruction). 

Only after Kennedy died, did Johson garner support for the CRA, before he led us into the quagmire that was Vietnam (Golf of Tonkin anyone?) that resulted in the death of 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands more inhured.  That's your democratic party.

Yes, Johnson garnered support for the Civil Rights Act as he led on the legislation - youre finally catching on.  Part of Johnsons political effectiveness was recognizing that successfully passing major legislation, such as the 1964 Act, meant passing smaller, less effective legislation like the 1957 Act (of which he helped secure passage).  And Ill state again - I have absolutely no interest in denigrating the Republicans vital role in supporting civil rights.  No one party has a monopoly on civil rights, but your assessment on this legislation is dishonest and misleading because its legislation that Democrats did indeed lead on.

The Vietnam stuff is way off-topic.  But speaking of strong bipartisanship, every Republican that voted on the GOT Resolution supported it.  The only senate opposition was Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse, Democrats.  That would make the opposition precentage 100% Democratic!  Thats 100% higher than Republican opposition (specious percentage arguments are pretty easy).

[Surfrider]

Untrue.? Byrd voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment with most Republicans, alligned himself with Republicans on other issues involving gays and has supported both of George W. Bushs Supreme Court nominees (one of only four Democrats to vote for Samuel Alito).? No liberal would support Samuel Alitos nomination.

Hes supported Bushs most conservative federal judges.? He supports making English Americas "official language" and votes with Republicans on most immigration issues.? He supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.?

I agree on the gay marriage and official language issues.? Although these two issues hardly make him a conservative.? I would hardly characterize supporting partial birth abortion as conservative.? Many on the left agree with a partial birth abortion ban.? Furthermore, as you define liberal below, a ban on partial birth abortion would be considered a liberal position.? I would also not necessarily characterize his support for Bush's Supreme Court nominations as dictating his ideology.? People support nominees for various reasons.? Many conservatives voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that doesn't make them liberals.? I would have voted for her as well even though I disagree with her on almost every legal issue.

Although I think its presumptuous to label him a racist in the present tense.? Theres no question he was a racist, but Im doubtful you can know he is now.? His voting record, receiving near-perfect to perfect scores from the NAACP, doesnt suggest it.?

I agree.? I was referring to him based on his past actions as you guys were in your posts.? I agree that he has evolved.? I will note that the NAACP is about as liberal of an organization as it comes, which bolsters the position that Byrd is more of a liberal than a conservative.

Im not necessarily saying that racism is a conservative trait, but liberalism both denotes and connotes the favoring of political and social reform while conservatism is based on tradition and aversion to such reforms.? With those definitions in mind, its not difficult to apply them to political figures from the past.?

I agree with you 100% on this point.? My only point is that you can't take people that are modern day conservatives and say that they would have been conservatives in the past in regards to civil rights or other issues, just as you may not be able to say that liberals, in the modern sense, would have been liberals at the time of the revolution.  Let me also say, while these it is not necessarily too difficult to apply these terms to political figures in the past, many issues aren't as easily characterized as race is.

Of course theres many differences in the overall stigmas of both terms, but on the slavery issue, the position favoring unprecedented equality and tolerance is surely the progressive, or liberal, one.

I agree.? At that time the Republicans, along with the Northern Democrats, were the progressives.

In the debate over the 1960s legislation, the conservative position was the support of states rights.? That was the position championed by the Dixiecrats, as well as some conservative Republicans, such as Goldwater (and was later featured in Reagans rhetoric).? That Goldwater was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate has to be factored in the partys overall view on civil rights at the time.?

Although you always have to look at these things closer.? I would guess that the real question is whether Goldwater and many conservatives support state rights because it is what they actually believed in, or did they support it because it suited their agenda.? For example, I am relatively progressive when it comes to gay marriage.? However, I believe it is a states rights issue and not a national issue.? At that time I think conservatives are better grouped as state's rights advocates than anti-civil rights.? Although many southern democrats jumped on this position because it suited their agenda.?

Even if most Republicans supported it (again, with Mansfield and Johnson leading the way), their nomination of Goldwater suggested it wasnt of great importance to them.? And Im not saying that Goldwater was a racist either, but his position was unquestionably the conservative one and it facilitated racial discrimination.? Its not just about racism, its about supporting or opposing the legislation.

I actually agree with you on this point.? I don't think many of the people that were conservatives were racist; I think many of them were simply state rights advocates, which legally is a pretty sound position.? Being a states rights advocate and a liberal, as you defined it, are not mutually exclusive.? It is unfortunate that that position allowed for slower change.? However, just as the President now must follow the Fourth Amendment despite the difficulty that comes with it, the politicians at that time had to follow the law and the Constitution.?

Also, I never said that Byrd or those Democrats were conservatives solely because of their stance on civil rights.? Any student of history/politics would agree that the Dixiecrats were no liberals.?

As you define liberal above, I would agree with you 100%.? You, however, are smart enough to understand the definition of liberal as you defined it and its application today; where others might miss that point.? Based on your definition, you could characterize W as a liberal with his policy in the middle east of actively pursuing change.?

 

Democrat Richard Russell, who opposed the legislation, founded the Conservative Coalition.? Howard Smith, another Democrtic opponent of civil rights, led the Conservative Coalition.? These were not liberal Democrats, these were conservative Democrats and thats why I refer to them as such.? Democrat and liberal were not interchangable then, as Gunslinger contends, and theyre not today.? ?

Again, i think it comes down to how you define a liberal.?

Notice that he did say "contemporary america."? As to point two, It is much more accurate to describe them as southern democrats than to describe them as conservatives.

1.) Im aware of what he said, and I think hes wrong.

2.) Not necessarily.? They were both southern and conservative, but Gunslinger insisted on relating his points to liberals.?

As you defined the terms, I would agree at least as to race issues.

Would you agree that his original point:

When someone calls someone a liberal, they're not attacking their belief in anti-discriminatory practices (remember it was the Democrats in America who opposed civil rights legislation)

...was incorrect and dishonest?? In making his point, he assumes Democrats and liberals were synonymous and implies that they shouldnt be credited with supporting anti-discriminatory practices, only for opposing them.?

I think he made the mistake that many make in that he is applying a term whose meaning has changed over time.

[SLCPUNK]

i did compare the STATS (which was not your original argument).

I'll give you some STATS: You are full of CRAP and LIE through your teeth, just like all the other right wing kool aid drinkers.

[Mama Kin]

I've read several articles which disprove the PM article......I can't give you links right now....but lemme get a hold of this dude, I can keep you reading for years on Sept 11 stuff.

[Guns N RockMusic]

i did compare the STATS (which was not your original argument).

I'll give you some STATS: You are full of CRAP and LIE through your teeth, just like all the other right wing kool aid drinkers.

what a well thought out and intelligent response.  The funny thing is that picture you posted is probably of some left-wing nutjob protesting McDonalds.

[SLCPUNK]

what a well thought out and intelligent response.  The funny thing is that picture you posted is probably of some left-wing nutjob protesting McDonalds.

What do you want me to do? Give an "intelligent" response to a poster who not only denied making a statement, but had the audacity to call me a liar for it? It took me two clicks to put his remarks right back in front of him (proving him a liar by his own words), and he can't even be man enough to offer a half hearted apology for calling me a fabricator? Then I've got you putting words in my mouth (fibbing also) right along side him. Never mind that he is a story teller, never mind all that??.lets focus on SLCPUNK posting a picture of a clown. 

You underdeveloped dolts are two thirds of the three stooges, and now that I think about it, posting a picture of a clown, is a fucking insult to clowns everywhere!

[sandman]

what a well thought out and intelligent response.? The funny thing is that picture you posted is probably of some left-wing nutjob protesting McDonalds.

What do you want me to do? Give an "intelligent" response to a poster who not only denied making a statement, but had the audacity to call me a liar for it? It took me two clicks to put his remarks right back in front of him (proving him a liar by his own words), and he can't even be man enough to offer a half hearted apology for calling me a fabricator? Then I've got you putting words in my mouth (fibbing also) right along side him. Never mind that he is a story teller, never mind all that??.lets focus on SLCPUNK posting a picture of a clown.?

You underdeveloped dolts are two thirds of the three stooges, and now that I think about it, posting a picture of a clown, is a fucking insult to clowns everywhere!

why not cut and paste my entire post and show the context in which it was said???

i was NOT DOWNPLAYING INNOCENT CIVILIAN DEATHS.

that was your point. in fact your first statement was that all bush supporters refer to innocent civilian deaths as "collateral damage". but you were wrong.

can you say "strawman". you say it enough in these threads. what a hypocrite. 

then you changed your argument to say that i compared deaths over there to deaths in the U.S. yes, i did do that on a statistical basis to compare the media's coverage of the war. NOT TO DOWNPLAY civilian deaths.

and your accusation of me downplaying innocent civilian deaths is what i was disputing.

[sandman]

now, i'll say it again. innocent civilian deaths are horrible. they are a major tragedy. very sad.

and i am a bush supporter. and there are plenty of bush supporters who feel the same way i do.

and i know that's tough for some lefty's to believe and accept. it destroys their stereo type of bush supporters. and makes it more difficult to hate us.   

but it's true.

glad i cleared that up. 

now back on topic....i'm really interested in seeing those links that disprove the PM article.

[Mal Brossard]

now back on topic....i'm really interested in seeing those links that disprove the PM article.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

The third article was compiled out of the first two, so it will be a tad repetitive if you read the first two first.

[Surfrider]

You underdeveloped dolts are two thirds of the three stooges, and now that I think about it, posting a picture of a clown, is a fucking insult to clowns everywhere!

Somehow you are always involved when these threads deteriorate into namecalling.

It looks as though the moderators are giving a little lattitude on these political threads, and some of these discussions are relatively interesting.? Please don't destroy these threads and ruin them for all of us - not just SLC, but everyone.? SLC, if you don't like their responses quit discussing stuff with them instead of calling them names.? That is what I do to many posts and posters on this board that aren't worth my time.

[SLCPUNK]

i was NOT DOWNPLAYING INNOCENT CIVILIAN DEATHS.

Of course you were.......liar.

[sandman]

i was NOT DOWNPLAYING INNOCENT CIVILIAN DEATHS.

Of course you were.......liar.

i know you are but what am i.

[SLCPUNK]

You underdeveloped dolts are two thirds of the three stooges, and now that I think about it, posting a picture of a clown, is a fucking insult to clowns everywhere!

Somehow you are always involved when these threads deteriorate into namecalling.

It looks as though the moderators are giving a little lattitude on these political threads, and some of these discussions are relatively interesting.  Please don't destroy these threads and ruin them for all of us - not just SLC, but everyone.  SLC, if you don't like their responses quit discussing stuff with them instead of calling them names.  That is what I do to many posts and posters on this board that aren't worth my time.

You are a hypocrite if there ever was one.

Look at the title of the thread for Chrisake.

The entire thing started out as an insult ("Kool Aid drinkers".) Don't get all upset if I catch one of your buddies lying and another name caller building strawmen and call them clowns. Nobody here likes them or wants to hear their crap anymore. This thing started off ugly by the poster who lied from the start, so tough shit. You don't like it both ways do you? I actually took this thread as a joke and started off lightly with it, trying to lighten it up. But you pushed for ugly, and you got ugly.

If the CLOWN SHOES fit..........






Faux news network.........