To answer the original question...because the ideas behind the Selma this year do not align with those of the historic event. Today, politicians have coopted the movement and lied about the other side. Then, the movement was about people of conscience and principles....mainly a faith based movement focused on actual and real disenfranchisement of Blacks from voting...NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW AN ID.

And like the Civil Rights Act, the GOP supported the Voting Rights Act at a higher percentage than Democrats. The GOP today supports the actions of those members in passing that historic legislation for the time. Today, such actions leading to the disenfranchisement of Blacks then are exceedingly rare today. In fact, Blacks are now in positions of power in many of the places where they once found it difficult to vote.

Today's "civil rights" movement is all over the place and mainly just parrots the whims of the Democrat Party. It is involved in green jobs, climate change, unions, gay marriage, etc...things which most Black people don't care about or actually do not support. So, no, Republicans did not think it wise to show up en mass to an event that would be focused on liberal issues and probably be untruthful about the actual past of history and nor were they welcomed (or given a speaking opportunity) by the event's sponsors, whom are representatives of the Democrat Party.

(03-10-2015 05:05 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 01:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 06:26 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  And the author's colleague disagrees with him:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/daniel...scent-why/
Is he using "redneck logic" talking points too?

If you call Hitler a leftist, you are proving that you don't understand history.
And yes I classify it as belonging to the Redneck logic category because the "Hitler is a leftist" talking point is based on the "well he called the Nazi party socialist...so that must mean he was a socialist and thus a leftist" philosophy.

Depends on how you define left and right, keeping in mind that the terms are defined differently in Europe from America.

If you define right as small government and left as big government, as many do here, then Hitler is clearly left. As is George W. Bush.

Europe really has three categories. Conservative is what we would call neocon--big government with traditional religious and nationalist implications. Liberal in Europe is what we would call libertarian--small government, civil liberties, and both personal and economic freedom. What we call left is what Europe calls socialist or labor. Fascism combines socialist economics with nationalism. It is the nationalist aspects that cause some to call it right-wing, ignoring the left-wing economic policies.

I think rather than argue over right or left, the better answer is to acknowledge that, as someone posted earlier, the far right and far left tend to merge in the form of overbid and over powerful government.

That's where things become really really tricky. Did Hitler implement those policies because of his political ideology? Or did he do that knowing that he would soon be at war and needed the maximum production out of his economy. You keep talking about his "left wing policies" while ignoring that he privatized parts of the economy and had his strongest support from middle class and industrialists.

I will admit with Hitler is not as clear cut as Mao/Stalin. But that is because they are two completely ideologies. One is economic, the other is government. What does it in for me personally, is that there are core parts of Hitler philosophies that deeply contradicts left wing ideology. But nothing that deeply contradicts right wing ideology. Sure you can say there are some things he did that do conflict, but nothing to me personally that I see stands out as going directly against the core values of right wing ideology.

Hitler based himself off guys like Mussolini who are much more clear cut right wing and he allied with right wing factors. You can go back to the (somewhat degree) of left wing crossover that he has, but it is nowhere near enough to offset his right-wing tendencies. But the most important part is asking whether the left-wing tactics that he did implement were the product of his ideology, or the buildup to the war/war itself. Then I look at the modern day aspect and his approach to nationalism, authoritarianism, & militarism. Things today that right wingers come closer* to rather than liberals.

I've seen people say Stalin was a closeted fascists. At the same time I've seen people say say Hitler was a closeted socialist. There are some on this forum who are absolutely convinced that liberals belonged to every single form of evil gov't that ever existed. I crack up when I see Uconn-smu talking BS in other threads how liberals are the party of authoritarian rule/anti rights whereas cons are the party of freedom/personal rights. That attitude is total BS, you can't simply say one side has all the bad eggs and the other side has all the good eggs.

Most historians put the socialists, communists, & anarchist on the left. The fascists & monarchists on the right. I'm just sick & tired of seeing idiots say all five of those are left wing by the same people who routinely support extremist conservative talking points that only a small percentage that the general public believes and none of the experts. It reminds me that the same people pushing this ridiculous notion don't have a lot of credibility anyways.


*notice my word usage here before you flip the f*** out

You must admit that Stalin and Hitler would take over Countries and Take away all possessions from Those folks and distribute Them among Their Own Governments. Redistribution at it's finest Big Socialist Government Moment. Take from Others and give to the Ones They want to benefit. Sounds Left Wing to Me.

The concept of invading other countries for their resources does not have socialist roots.

(03-10-2015 09:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 05:05 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 01:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 07:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  If you call Hitler a leftist, you are proving that you don't understand history.
And yes I classify it as belonging to the Redneck logic category because the "Hitler is a leftist" talking point is based on the "well he called the Nazi party socialist...so that must mean he was a socialist and thus a leftist" philosophy.

Depends on how you define left and right, keeping in mind that the terms are defined differently in Europe from America.

If you define right as small government and left as big government, as many do here, then Hitler is clearly left. As is George W. Bush.

Europe really has three categories. Conservative is what we would call neocon--big government with traditional religious and nationalist implications. Liberal in Europe is what we would call libertarian--small government, civil liberties, and both personal and economic freedom. What we call left is what Europe calls socialist or labor. Fascism combines socialist economics with nationalism. It is the nationalist aspects that cause some to call it right-wing, ignoring the left-wing economic policies.

I think rather than argue over right or left, the better answer is to acknowledge that, as someone posted earlier, the far right and far left tend to merge in the form of overbid and over powerful government.

That's where things become really really tricky. Did Hitler implement those policies because of his political ideology? Or did he do that knowing that he would soon be at war and needed the maximum production out of his economy. You keep talking about his "left wing policies" while ignoring that he privatized parts of the economy and had his strongest support from middle class and industrialists.

I will admit with Hitler is not as clear cut as Mao/Stalin. But that is because they are two completely ideologies. One is economic, the other is government. What does it in for me personally, is that there are core parts of Hitler philosophies that deeply contradicts left wing ideology. But nothing that deeply contradicts right wing ideology. Sure you can say there are some things he did that do conflict, but nothing to me personally that I see stands out as going directly against the core values of right wing ideology.

Hitler based himself off guys like Mussolini who are much more clear cut right wing and he allied with right wing factors. You can go back to the (somewhat degree) of left wing crossover that he has, but it is nowhere near enough to offset his right-wing tendencies. But the most important part is asking whether the left-wing tactics that he did implement were the product of his ideology, or the buildup to the war/war itself. Then I look at the modern day aspect and his approach to nationalism, authoritarianism, & militarism. Things today that right wingers come closer* to rather than liberals.

I've seen people say Stalin was a closeted fascists. At the same time I've seen people say say Hitler was a closeted socialist. There are some on this forum who are absolutely convinced that liberals belonged to every single form of evil gov't that ever existed. I crack up when I see Uconn-smu talking BS in other threads how liberals are the party of authoritarian rule/anti rights whereas cons are the party of freedom/personal rights. That attitude is total BS, you can't simply say one side has all the bad eggs and the other side has all the good eggs.

Most historians put the socialists, communists, & anarchist on the left. The fascists & monarchists on the right. I'm just sick & tired of seeing idiots say all five of those are left wing by the same people who routinely support extremist conservative talking points that only a small percentage that the general public believes and none of the experts. It reminds me that the same people pushing this ridiculous notion don't have a lot of credibility anyways.


*notice my word usage here before you flip the f*** out

You must admit that Stalin and Hitler would take over Countries and Take away all possessions from Those folks and distribute Them among Their Own Governments. Redistribution at it's finest Big Socialist Government Moment. Take from Others and give to the Ones They want to benefit. Sounds Left Wing to Me.

The concept of invading other countries for their resources does not have socialist roots.

Invading other countries for their resources was a means to an end - not the basis of any political ideology.

(03-10-2015 09:28 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 09:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  The concept of invading other countries for their resources does not have socialist roots.

Invading other countries for their resources was a means to an end - not the basis of any political ideology.

+1. good point.

I'm sorry, but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play. The two cannot be separated. Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership. Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing." In fact, socialist/communist regimes must be implemented through militarism and nationalism, because people inherently and reasonably dislike having their assets stolen and redistributed.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

And under the definitions above the U.S. is clearly becoming more fascist and most of western Europe is very fascist. The bank bailout, the auto bail out, and Obamacare are all quite fascist in nature. Fascism is basically crony capitalism carried to the extreme.

Again, the left and right wings are defined differently in Europe from here. The right in Europe is probably closest to neocon in the US terminology.

but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.

The comment completely overlooks my main point which is extremely valid and the fact that you ignore it proves that you are allowing your personal agenda to overrule reasoning/logic.

I have countered that talking point numerous times. In fact you didn't even address that counterpoint which for me personally reaffirms just how damaging it is to your case. At this point you are in "if I say this over and over again eventually it will become true" talking point.

Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership.

At the end of the day socialist is just a word. It's like the KKK saying they are a civil rights organization, but because they call themselves that doesn't make it the case. The real issue at play here is that you are taking a 2015 viewpoint on the usage of the term when in reality you should be looking at it from a 1920s/1930s lens.

You say Fascism was a particular form of socialism but it's a baseless argument. The foundation of socialist ideology revolves around the notion that history is a struggle between classes, and the power of industry should be put in the hands of the workers. These are two concepts that Nazism stands firmly against, and part of the reason why from the beginnings of the Nazi takeover they targeted every leftist organization in Germany.

It's like comparing Saudi Arabia & Great Britain because the two both have monarchies and saying that makes up for the vast fundamental differences and deep contradictions of political ideology that exist between the two.

Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing."

Now you are just openly admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about. Marxism, Socialism, & Communism are economic/social philosophies. Fascism is economic/social/government. Marx/Engels wrote about the workers, they didn't focus on advocating for a authoritative dictatorship, and the concept of such is by no means a central role to that political ideology.

What we say with the communists govt of the USSR isn't necessarily the product of its ideology saying that is what should be done, but power hungry leaders/tragedy of the commons taking effect.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

(03-10-2015 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.

The comment completely overlooks my main point which is extremely valid and the fact that you ignore it proves that you are allowing your personal agenda to overrule reasoning/logic.

I have countered that talking point numerous times. In fact you didn't even address that counterpoint which for me personally reaffirms just how damaging it is to your case. At this point you are in "if I say this over and over again eventually it will become true" talking point.

Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership.

At the end of the day socialist is just a word. It's like the KKK saying they are a civil rights organization, but because they call themselves that doesn't make it the case. The real issue at play here is that you are taking a 2015 viewpoint on the usage of the term when in reality you should be looking at it from a 1920s/1930s lens.

You say Fascism was a particular form of socialism but it's a baseless argument. The foundation of socialist ideology revolves around the notion that history is a struggle between classes, and the power of industry should be put in the hands of the workers. These are two concepts that Nazism stands firmly against, and part of the reason why from the beginnings of the Nazi takeover they targeted every leftist organization in Germany.

It's like comparing Saudi Arabia & Great Britain because the two both have monarchies and saying that makes up for the vast fundamental differences and deep contradictions of political ideology that exist between the two.

Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing."

Now you are just openly admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about. Marxism, Socialism, & Communism are economic/social philosophies. Fascism is economic/social/government. Marx/Engels wrote about the workers, they didn't focus on advocating for a authoritative dictatorship, and the concept of such is by no means a central role to that political ideology.

What we say with the communists govt of the USSR isn't necessarily the product of its ideology saying that is what should be done, but power hungry leaders/tragedy of the commons taking effect.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

Well at least you hold my opinions in much higher regard than I hold yours.

(03-10-2015 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.

The comment completely overlooks my main point which is extremely valid and the fact that you ignore it proves that you are allowing your personal agenda to overrule reasoning/logic.

I have countered that talking point numerous times. In fact you didn't even address that counterpoint which for me personally reaffirms just how damaging it is to your case. At this point you are in "if I say this over and over again eventually it will become true" talking point.

Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership.

At the end of the day socialist is just a word. It's like the KKK saying they are a civil rights organization, but because they call themselves that doesn't make it the case. The real issue at play here is that you are taking a 2015 viewpoint on the usage of the term when in reality you should be looking at it from a 1920s/1930s lens.

You say Fascism was a particular form of socialism but it's a baseless argument. The foundation of socialist ideology revolves around the notion that history is a struggle between classes, and the power of industry should be put in the hands of the workers. These are two concepts that Nazism stands firmly against, and part of the reason why from the beginnings of the Nazi takeover they targeted every leftist organization in Germany.

It's like comparing Saudi Arabia & Great Britain because the two both have monarchies and saying that makes up for the vast fundamental differences and deep contradictions of political ideology that exist between the two.

Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing."

Now you are just openly admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about. Marxism, Socialism, & Communism are economic/social philosophies. Fascism is economic/social/government. Marx/Engels wrote about the workers, they didn't focus on advocating for a authoritative dictatorship, and the concept of such is by no means a central role to that political ideology.

What we say with the communists govt of the USSR isn't necessarily the product of its ideology saying that is what should be done, but power hungry leaders/tragedy of the commons taking effect.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

There's another AUP violation

(03-10-2015 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.

The comment completely overlooks my main point which is extremely valid and the fact that you ignore it proves that you are allowing your personal agenda to overrule reasoning/logic.

I have countered that talking point numerous times. In fact you didn't even address that counterpoint which for me personally reaffirms just how damaging it is to your case. At this point you are in "if I say this over and over again eventually it will become true" talking point.

Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership.

At the end of the day socialist is just a word. It's like the KKK saying they are a civil rights organization, but because they call themselves that doesn't make it the case. The real issue at play here is that you are taking a 2015 viewpoint on the usage of the term when in reality you should be looking at it from a 1920s/1930s lens.

You say Fascism was a particular form of socialism but it's a baseless argument. The foundation of socialist ideology revolves around the notion that history is a struggle between classes, and the power of industry should be put in the hands of the workers. These are two concepts that Nazism stands firmly against, and part of the reason why from the beginnings of the Nazi takeover they targeted every leftist organization in Germany.

It's like comparing Saudi Arabia & Great Britain because the two both have monarchies and saying that makes up for the vast fundamental differences and deep contradictions of political ideology that exist between the two.

Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing."

Now you are just openly admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about. Marxism, Socialism, & Communism are economic/social philosophies. Fascism is economic/social/government. Marx/Engels wrote about the workers, they didn't focus on advocating for a authoritative dictatorship, and the concept of such is by no means a central role to that political ideology.

What we say with the communists govt of the USSR isn't necessarily the product of its ideology saying that is what should be done, but power hungry leaders/tragedy of the commons taking effect.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

Wow. I can't believe that's how you chose to respond to somebody that's actually worked in this field instead of a lecture hall. SMH.

It's hard to get credit for being somewhere when the liberal media crops you out of the photos... lmao.

(03-10-2015 08:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  To answer the original question...because the ideas behind the Selma this year do not align with those of the historic event. Today, politicians have coopted the movement and lied about the other side. Then, the movement was about people of conscience and principles....mainly a faith based movement focused on actual and real disenfranchisement of Blacks from voting...NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW AN ID.

And like the Civil Rights Act, the GOP supported the Voting Rights Act at a higher percentage than Democrats. The GOP today supports the actions of those members in passing that historic legislation for the time. Today, such actions leading to the disenfranchisement of Blacks then are exceedingly rare today. In fact, Blacks are now in positions of power in many of the places where they once found it difficult to vote.

Today's "civil rights" movement is all over the place and mainly just parrots the whims of the Democrat Party. It is involved in green jobs, climate change, unions, gay marriage, etc...things which most Black people don't care about or actually do not support. So, no, Republicans did not think it wise to show up en mass to an event that would be focused on liberal issues and probably be untruthful about the actual past of history and nor were they welcomed (or given a speaking opportunity) by the event's sponsors, whom are representatives of the Democrat Party.

50 years ago, the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity. Today it's about equal results.

Those are far different goals.

(03-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  but focuses only on the nationalistic and militaristic elements so you can call fascism "right wing" while excluding the socialistic economic elements misses the point by about as wide a margin as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.

The comment completely overlooks my main point which is extremely valid and the fact that you ignore it proves that you are allowing your personal agenda to overrule reasoning/logic.

I have countered that talking point numerous times. In fact you didn't even address that counterpoint which for me personally reaffirms just how damaging it is to your case. At this point you are in "if I say this over and over again eventually it will become true" talking point.

Remember that nazi comes from national socialism, meaning that nationalist political philosophies are combined with socialist economic principles. Fascism was a particular form of socialism where central control of the economy was achieved through intense regulation of largely privately owned businesses rather that outright ownership.

At the end of the day socialist is just a word. It's like the KKK saying they are a civil rights organization, but because they call themselves that doesn't make it the case. The real issue at play here is that you are taking a 2015 viewpoint on the usage of the term when in reality you should be looking at it from a 1920s/1930s lens.

You say Fascism was a particular form of socialism but it's a baseless argument. The foundation of socialist ideology revolves around the notion that history is a struggle between classes, and the power of industry should be put in the hands of the workers. These are two concepts that Nazism stands firmly against, and part of the reason why from the beginnings of the Nazi takeover they targeted every leftist organization in Germany.

It's like comparing Saudi Arabia & Great Britain because the two both have monarchies and saying that makes up for the vast fundamental differences and deep contradictions of political ideology that exist between the two.

Note that a mixed capitalist-socialist system approaches fascism very nearly. Note also that militarism and nationalism are key elements of socialist/communist government. Ever seen a May Day parade in a communist country? So even those practices are not necessarily "right wing."

Now you are just openly admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about. Marxism, Socialism, & Communism are economic/social philosophies. Fascism is economic/social/government. Marx/Engels wrote about the workers, they didn't focus on advocating for a authoritative dictatorship, and the concept of such is by no means a central role to that political ideology.

What we say with the communists govt of the USSR isn't necessarily the product of its ideology saying that is what should be done, but power hungry leaders/tragedy of the commons taking effect.

Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

Well at least you hold my opinions in much higher regard than I hold yours.

Only appears that way because I refrain from saying exactly how I feel on the topic of how much weight I give to your talking points.

(03-10-2015 12:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  To answer the original question...because the ideas behind the Selma this year do not align with those of the historic event. Today, politicians have coopted the movement and lied about the other side. Then, the movement was about people of conscience and principles....mainly a faith based movement focused on actual and real disenfranchisement of Blacks from voting...NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW AN ID.

And like the Civil Rights Act, the GOP supported the Voting Rights Act at a higher percentage than Democrats. The GOP today supports the actions of those members in passing that historic legislation for the time. Today, such actions leading to the disenfranchisement of Blacks then are exceedingly rare today. In fact, Blacks are now in positions of power in many of the places where they once found it difficult to vote.

Today's "civil rights" movement is all over the place and mainly just parrots the whims of the Democrat Party. It is involved in green jobs, climate change, unions, gay marriage, etc...things which most Black people don't care about or actually do not support. So, no, Republicans did not think it wise to show up en mass to an event that would be focused on liberal issues and probably be untruthful about the actual past of history and nor were they welcomed (or given a speaking opportunity) by the event's sponsors, whom are representatives of the Democrat Party.

50 years ago, the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity. Today it's about equal results.

Those are far different goals.

That's a really good way of putting it. +1

(03-10-2015 12:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  To answer the original question...because the ideas behind the Selma this year do not align with those of the historic event. Today, politicians have coopted the movement and lied about the other side. Then, the movement was about people of conscience and principles....mainly a faith based movement focused on actual and real disenfranchisement of Blacks from voting...NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW AN ID.

And like the Civil Rights Act, the GOP supported the Voting Rights Act at a higher percentage than Democrats. The GOP today supports the actions of those members in passing that historic legislation for the time. Today, such actions leading to the disenfranchisement of Blacks then are exceedingly rare today. In fact, Blacks are now in positions of power in many of the places where they once found it difficult to vote.

Today's "civil rights" movement is all over the place and mainly just parrots the whims of the Democrat Party. It is involved in green jobs, climate change, unions, gay marriage, etc...things which most Black people don't care about or actually do not support. So, no, Republicans did not think it wise to show up en mass to an event that would be focused on liberal issues and probably be untruthful about the actual past of history and nor were they welcomed (or given a speaking opportunity) by the event's sponsors, whom are representatives of the Democrat Party.

50 years ago, the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity. Today it's about equal results.

Those are far different goals.

there's you're 21st century version of racism....

genetic engineering isn't too far away either....

I am so glad I'm gonna be dead....

(03-10-2015 12:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  there's you're 21st century version of racism....

genetic engineering isn't too far away either....

I am so glad I'm gonna be dead....

Oh no, you're not getting off this ride so easily. We'll just make a clone for you and transfer your memory to it.

(03-10-2015 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  there's you're 21st century version of racism....

genetic engineering isn't too far away either....

I am so glad I'm gonna be dead....

Oh no, you're not getting off this ride so easily. We'll just make a clone for you and transfer your memory to it.

Maybe Stink is trying to erase his memory chemically to preclude such an event????

JK

(03-10-2015 12:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well at least you hold my opinions in much higher regard than I hold yours.

Only appears that way because I refrain from saying exactly how I feel on the topic of how much weight I give to your talking points.

I don't think so. Basically you are regurgitating the standard fare that is taught in most sociology courses, which is why I say that the world would be a better place if possession of a degree in sociology were a capital offense.

Basically what you've said on here is, "This is what fascism is, and it's that way because I say it's that way, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot."

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

(03-10-2015 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:Again, if right wing means less government and left wing means more government, as it generally does in the USA, then Stalin and Mao and Castro and Mussolini and Hitler are all left wing. As is George W. Bush.

You are a tool if that's seriously what you believe, at this point it's no use talking to someone who is so delusional.

It makes perfect sense to me. Can you explain what you don't understand about his comment?

(03-10-2015 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well at least you hold my opinions in much higher regard than I hold yours.

Only appears that way because I refrain from saying exactly how I feel on the topic of how much weight I give to your talking points.

I don't think so. Basically you are regurgitating the standard fare that is taught in most sociology courses, which is why I say that the world would be a better place if possession of a degree in sociology were a capital offense.

Basically what you've said on here is, "This is what fascism is, and it's that way because I say it's that way, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot."

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

So in other words:

F*** what the academics have to say about this. "This is what fascism is, and it's that way because I say it's that way, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot." If you disagree with me I will call you out for following the philosophy of: "This is what fascism is, and it's that way because I say it's that way, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot."

Pot meet kettle much?

You just exposed yourself as one of the conservapedia types. Any ounce of credibility that you had left is gone.

You're right about one thing. I don't care what you think.