Republican or Democrat

[Beskar]

i'm a strongly liberal independent. or perhaps a libertarian socialist, if such a thing can exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

It is, and I am one.

Did I mention yet that her approval rating now tops Obama's?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123665/Hi...ack-Obama.aspx

That is because of the low republican opinion of Obama. Then again, as they are republicans, they would dislike him for just being black. I think we have all heard about the Obama re-painting the White House joke of theirs.

[Aemilius Paulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

It is, and I am one and I advocate it.

That is quite paradoxical. The hallmark of socialism is big government, "big" be because it regulates a great deal. Libertarian is the exact opposite, advocating a small government that does very little, mostly related to keeping the nation safe, with law and order. And all this you already know yourself. Thus, you cannot be a socialist libertarian because you will have to compromise either of those beliefs. Once you compromise, you are no longer one of those things.

I understand you most likely believe in a socialist political system and in libertarian freedoms of action, but that will not happen. In any case, you will have to create plenty of taxes (or tariffs if you really wish to murder business and violate WTO) to sustain the high spending characteristic of a socialist government.

Gah, you are like a National Bolshevik - you want the best of both :P. But life is harsh, and you will have to choose between the two. Yes, I read the Wikipedia article, but the nature of the socialism described there is no socialism at all. It is mere libertarianism - the absence of government. Socialism cannot be sustained there.

And will people ever learn that anarchism will never work, not in today's society?? It is the human nature to be led, to huddle in the safety, stability and complacency of government. And it is likewise the human nature for leaders to emerge when there is little government. People are sheep, we are stupid, and soon a new gov't will be elected in an anarchy. Either that or the "first among equals" anarchist will seize power.

Ever read about Makhno in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War? An anarchist he was. Bet a dollar to doughnut he would become a dictator if he won.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I have the luxury I don't have to chose. I would, however, consider myself a pretty run-of-the-mill Democrat.

The American Middle Class is under siege, being robbed blind. It is the Democrats, and not that pied piper party of the Republicans, who are their natural ally.


Hillary! Hillary!


Did I mention yet that her approval rating now tops Obama's?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123665/Hi...ack-Obama.aspx

Guess which party represents the richest areas of the country. Guess which party wants to levy new taxes on the middle class.

Hint; they are one and the same.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That is because of the low republican opinion of Obama. Then again, as they are republicans, they would dislike him for just being black. I think we have all heard about the Obama re-painting the White House joke of theirs.

+1 for being policitically correct enough to find racism in everything, -10 for making an extremely incorrect generalisation.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Guess which party represents the richest areas of the country. Guess which party wants to levy new taxes on the middle class.

Hint; they are one and the same.

CR

GOOD FOR THE LEADERS, GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY! THINKING BAD, TAXES GOOD! GOOD FOR THE LEADERS, GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY!

[Beskar]

+1 for being policitically correct enough to find racism in everything, -10 for making an extremely incorrect generalisation.

Though all the republicans were sprouting the "When Obama gets into the Office, he will repaint the White House, Black!! huffah huffah".

[Subotan]

GOOD FOR THE LEADERS, GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY! THINKING BAD, TAXES GOOD! GOOD FOR THE LEADERS, GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY!

I wonder who the Four Horsemen of America are then...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Though all the republicans were sprouting the "When Obama gets into the Office, he will repaint the White House, Black!! huffah huffah".

First time I've heard that one, but even so, it's just a joke. Either way, your characterisation of Republicans as racist is silly.

[Aemilius Paulus]

your characterisation of Republicans as racist is silly.

I disagree. While few of them are truly racist, many are slight racist, meaning that they most likely think of themselves as superior to blacks and/or have distasteful views towards blacks. Either way, conservatives in America have a good, solid record of promoting racism. Of course, far from all of them do it, but the fact of the matter is that Republicans are prone to racism while Democrats are not usually so.

Believe me, if those 50+ year old Republicans are not as much as slightly racist, then I will be damned. They grew up in racist times, in traditional, most likely racist families. Even today, in my school, white students often sneer at blacks, and dislike them. Racism is still very much alive. As much as I loathe to be on the Democrat's side here, promoting "political correctness", I do believe in what I say, for I see so much of it around.

[Lemur]

I forget which stand-up comic said it, but it's apt: "Most Republicans are not racists, but most racists are Republicans." And certainly, when I look at the people in my life, the three unreconstructed racists that I know are, yep, Republican.

By the same token, most Democrats are not pot-smoking slackers, but most pot-smoking slackers are Democrats. You can have a lot of fun with this rhetoric.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I forget which stand-up comic said it, but it's apt: "Most Republicans are not racists, but most racists are Republicans." And certainly, when I look at the people in my life, the three unreconstructed racists that I know are, yep, Republican.

By the same token, most Democrats are not pot-smoking slackers, but most pot-smoking slackers are Democrats. You can have a lot of fun with this rhetoric.

Very good point Lemur, I could not have put it better, as much as I tried.

It is true, Republicans as a whole, in general may not be racists, but the only racists you meet are almost certainly Republicans. Neither says good things about Republicans though. They refuse to take a hardline stance against racism, and in doing so, they are virtually supporting it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry, but both Republicans and Democrats have racist elements, and neither party is racist. I would even disagree that one party is more racist than the other, though the more vocal racists may well belong more to one party.

How many former KKK officials do the Republicans have in Congress?

[Aemilius Paulus]

How many former KKK officials do the Republicans have in Congress?

Jesus Chris, EMFM, Robert Byrd was born in 1917! That was before the Blacks switched from the Republicans to Democrats. Back then, the Dems were the racist guys. That was too long ago to make any meaningful parallels, as the parties back then resembled almost nothing of what they are today. But that would have been a kick comeback though, if you actually found a younger Democratic Senator .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jesus Chris, EMFM, Robert Byrd was born in 1917! That was before the Blacks switched from the Republicans to Democrats. Back then, the Dems were the racist guys. That was too long ago to make any meaningful parallels, as the parties back then resembled almost nothing of what they are today. But that would have been a kick comeback though, if you actually found a younger Democratic Senator .

Sure. And when was the last time he was reelected? If you can find a single current member of Congress who was both a Republican and a KKK official, perhaps you could point him out, because I couldn't find one.

[Beskar]

Wouldn't be on the front row for PR purposes anyway.

[Subotan]

Sure. And when was the last time he was reelected? If you can find a single current member of Congress who was both a Republican and a KKK official, perhaps you could point him out, because I couldn't find one.

The KKK generally had an allegiance with the Democrat Party in the South, back when they were the party of landowners. Times have changed since that period, especially since 1968 with Nixon's strategy of targeting the South. Neither the Democrat nor the Republican Parties are the same as they were back when the KKK was at it's height (1920s/1950's-1960's)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sure. And when was the last time he was reelected? If you can find a single current member of Congress who was both a Republican and a KKK official, perhaps you could point him out, because I couldn't find one.

That is because no Republican is as old as him. He is a coincidence - really - there are few Senators of his age, and there is a very small that out of the quite small number of Congressmen two are both that old and former KKK members. Do not ignore what I said in my previous post.

When he was young, Democrats were the racists. When he was first elected, the nation was still largely racist. And he was elected. He did a bully job as a Senator, and we all know that it is nearly impossible to unseat Senators in US when they are at least somewhat popular. Senate is a House of Incumbents.

You gave me one example. Yet the examples of racism-tainted Republicans abound. I do not even have to research it - you can look it up yourself, it is simple.

[Lemur]

EMFM, the racial equation of the parties changed due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (pushed through a Dem congress and signed by a Dem president) and the ensuing Southern Strategy.

I know you're not a citizen of the United States, but if you're going to start going on about members of congress, you ought to know some basic U.S. political history.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I do know basic American political history, thank you very much. I was just disagreeing with Beskar's assertion that most Republicans are racist, and that the Republican Party is an inherently racist one.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I do know basic American political history, thank you very much. I was just disagreeing with Beskar's assertion that most Republicans are racist, and that the Republican Party is an inherently racist one.

Just to be fair, I am not saying that they are inherently racist, but more as Lemur wisely noted.

[Don Corleone]

Though all the republicans were sprouting the "When Obama gets into the Office, he will repaint the White House, Black!! huffah huffah".

Actually, that was a Democrat local politico in Denver, holding a fundraiser dinner for Hillary. But don't let the facts get in the way... you had a really good screed going there, no matter how disjointed from reality it was.

[Beskar]

Actually, that was a Democrat fundraiser in Denver, holding a fundraiser dinner for Hillary. But don't let the facts get in the way... you had a really good screed going there, no matter how disjointed from reality it was.

I was informed it was a republican and I know of many republicans who kept repeating it. I however, never heard a democrat. So it might be a case where both occured, but don't let facts get in the way.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I was informed it was a republican and I know of many republicans who kept repeating it. I however, never heard a democrat. So it might be a case where both occured, but don't let facts get in the way.

Name a prominent Republican who did, with evidence. I don't care who said it though - it was a joke, unless they said it seriously or with malicious intent.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Baskar, I'm man enough to admit I was wrong when I was wrong. The joke was made by a one William R. Farr of Greeley CO. When I originally read the story on Drudgereport, back in January 2008, the article stated that the joke was made at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser in Colorado. In reality, it was a dinner to honor University of Colorado president Hank Brown. From what I can tell, William R. Farr's political affiliations, Democrat or Republican, have not been made public.

Now, unless you have proof Farr is a Republican, I'd say you were wrong in your assertion too, but that's up to you.

[Lemur]

When I originally read the story on Drudgereport, back in January 2008, the article stated that the joke was made at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser in Colorado.

Drudge has really been off his game for a while now. Dunno what happened to him, but he hasn't been nearly as accurate as he used to be, nor has he been driving coverage the way he used to do. Times change, I guess.

[Crazed Rabbit]

EMFM, the racial equation of the parties changed due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (pushed through a Dem congress and signed by a Dem president) and the ensuing Southern Strategy.

I know you're not a citizen of the United States, but if you're going to start going on about members of congress, you ought to know some basic U.S. political history.

And passed by 81% of republicans but only 65% of democrats in Congress. Why would racists vote for republicans instead of democrats because this bill was passed?

And from wiki:

The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race.

CR

[Lemur]

Why would racists vote for republicans instead of democrats because this bill was passed?

And if I were making the argument that all Republicans throughout all of history were a bunch of racists, you would have knocked me out of the park.

My point was that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begat the Southern Strategy, which led to the re-alignment that you see today. Republicans, whose base was originally industrial-state abolitionists, became a Southern party, while Democrats, who used to be the party of the rural South, became a coastal and Northern party.

[Fisherking]

Oh NOOOOOO!

Not that again!

Let’s get back to the War on Poverty that was designed scenically to get the black vote...

Why? Because at that point Blacks were traditionally Republicans and that is why the South had all their poll taxes and what not to keep them from voting.

The Republican dominated Warren Court removed those and it was a severe threat to the Democrats.

Their ploy worked, even though it devastated the Black Family structure and heightened the level of minority unrest that led to the riots in the late 1960s.

There is no way to quote what LBJ said about his intentions without it getting you banned here. But it had something to do with blacks voting for them for the next 100 years.

But the Democrats has sold themselves as the champions of the underdogs and left most of their conservative base behind.

The Southern Strategy was more of a term placed on events by the National News Media than anything the Republicans did. Nixon was not trying to appeal to racists in the south, he was simply more palatable to the voting population then the Democratic Candidate.

As is usually the case, it had nothing to do with the Republicans outsmarting the Democrats but more the Democrats outsmarting themselves. I don’t think the Republicans are capable of outsmarting anyone.

In any event it is only a matter of who’s lies you choose to believe when you follow one or the other.

So indeed there was a political realignment. The causes were more unintended consequences of the Democrats seeking more votes. It did however, help the Democrats to put a little distance between themselves and racism so they put Jim Crow in the closet...but he is still there!

So what ever the issue there are no innocent parties......

[CountArach]

The hallmark of socialism is big government, "big" be because it regulates a great deal.

Incorrect - that is the nature of Stalinism/Leninism. To quote Marx (Who, surely, is worth quoting in any debate on Socialism) in the Communist Manifesto:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Communism in its truest form is anti-Statist, as is Socialism.

Libertarian is the exact opposite, advocating a small government that does very little, mostly related to keeping the nation safe, with law and order. And all this you already know yourself. Thus, you cannot be a socialist libertarian because you will have to compromise either of those beliefs. Once you compromise, you are no longer one of those things.

Libertarian Socialism looks at the liberatory aspects of Libertarianism in relation to personal freedoms, such as gay rights, abortion rights, drug rights, etc. Socialism as an economic system, and communism as the end goal thereof, are unconcerned with the issue of personal freedoms. However, once it has been accepted that Socialism is anti-Statist then it follows that true Socialists must necessarily be Libertarian insofar as they can't accept that the State has a role to play in the private lives of citizens.

I understand you most likely believe in a socialist political system and in libertarian freedoms of action, but that will not happen. In any case, you will have to create plenty of taxes (or tariffs if you really wish to murder business and violate WTO) to sustain the high spending characteristic of a socialist government.

You realise you are talking to a Socialist right? You know, someone who hates business and the WTO? Oh, and someone who likes higher taxes?

Gah, you are like a National Bolshevik - you want the best of both :P. But life is harsh, and you will have to choose between the two. Yes, I read the Wikipedia article, but the nature of the socialism described there is no socialism at all. It is mere libertarianism - the absence of government. Socialism cannot be sustained there.

I think that the Soviets showed that Socialism in its Statist form is unsustainable as it simply turns into State Capitalism. Socialism as it is most properly understood is about personal responsibility towards the Community, which is seen as the highest good.

And will people ever learn that anarchism will never work, not in today's society?? It is the human nature to be led, to huddle in the safety, stability and complacency of government. And it is likewise the human nature for leaders to emerge when there is little government. People are sheep, we are stupid, and soon a new gov't will be elected in an anarchy. Either that or the "first among equals" anarchist will seize power.

Communities of Anarchists have successfully co-existed around the world at many different times for short periods (Then are crushed in a counter-revolution, but that is an irrelevancy here). Look at the Spanish Civil War for instance, or the modern Zapatistas. Large-scale Anarchism has never occurred.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Incorrect - that is the nature of Stalinism/Leninism. To quote Marx (Who, surely, is worth quoting in any debate on Socialism) in the Communist Manifesto:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Communism in its truest form is anti-Statist, as is Socialism.

Oh dear...

Marx here does not describe the communist state. 'The modern state' describes the existing bourgeois' states of his time.

You wouldn't be one of those revolutionaries who've only read the Manifesto and never (the completely unreadable) Das Kapital?


But we do need higher taxes. Starting with the Tonkin Tax, an overhaul of the WTO, and a renewed understanding that the modern state must be the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the people, instead of an instrument for plunder.
[/bourgeois]