First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Should U.S. make April 9 (end of Civil War) a national holiday?
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/17


Can't really read your responses because I'm on break but I assume the tl;dr is "How dare you accuse our party of wrongdoing. We aren't capable of that! The moment those people realize they were racists they changed party!!1!!!2"

Look it's simply petty to just throw your party's baggage onto another one. You can hate your past but you can't transfer it to someone else.
19880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 4/10/17
No. I don't want to side with the south, but The Civil War is testament that once you join the union you can't leave, I'm looking at you california and texas. I believe if a territory freely joins a country it should be allowed to freely leave that country. So the only states not allowed to leave would be those gained through purchase. So territories gained form the Louisiana purchase and alaska should be permanent and the others free to do as they choose; if they have good reason to leave.
15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/10/17 , edited 4/10/17

MysticGon wrote:



Can't really read your responses because I'm on break but I assume the tl;dr is "How dare you accuse our party of wrongdoing. We aren't capable of that! The moment those people realize they were racists they changed party!!1!!!2"

Look it's simply petty to just throw your party's baggage onto another one. You can hate your past but you can't transfer it to someone else.


Not my fault your assertion makes no sense. You're the one ignoring reality to foist your party's present day baggage off onto another one because of the positions it held in the past. You're ignoring the actual substance of party positions to suit your own agenda. Is racism and the confederacy the history of the democratic party? Yes. Is that the present reality? No. And the post this is all in reference to concerns itself with present day reactions. Hence your assertion that the modern democratic party would still be upset over the loss of the confederacy in spite of undeniable ideological transformations between then and now does not follow. The Republicans took up that albatross all by themselves, that's not my fault. People upset about the confederacy losing the civil war would tend to skew red on the whole, they would be the ones getting upset over this. Hence the people in modern day upset over losing the Civil War would be Republicans more often than they would be Democrats. I suppose you can deny that assertion if you really want to, but I don't think reality is going to bear you out.

What it boils down to is this. I am a Democrat because I am a Liberal/Progressive not a Liberal/Progressive because I am a democrat. If the parties shifted so that the Republicans wound up on the Left again I'd vote Republican. The actual substance of party beliefs is more important than the party itself. No one is denying that the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. They aren't in present day because the parties have traded places on the political spectrum. It's nothing shy of disingenuous to say that the democratic party is still the confederate party or that the Republican party is the party of Lincoln when ideological transformations have altered both parties so much that they now hold positions that are in stark opposition to those they held in the 19th century. It was a bad argument when Ann Coulter made it and it's a bad argument now.

Also wouldn't the fact that the democrats are apparently taking umbrage with the fact you're even insinuating they're upset the confederacy lost kind of undermine your point?
22957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/10/17 , edited 4/10/17

MysticGon wrote:



Can't really read your responses because I'm on break but I assume the tl;dr is "How dare you accuse our party of wrongdoing. We aren't capable of that! The moment those people realize they were racists they changed party!!1!!!2"

Look it's simply petty to just throw your party's baggage onto another one. You can hate your past but you can't transfer it to someone else.


Parties platforms change over time, usually through a major political change that causes a party realignment. The parties today hardly adhere to the same ideology of their cohorts, and even those that shared their name.

However, there are a few telling difference, as the "left-right" spectrum is considered constant, hailing from the day of Whigs, Tories, Federalists and Republicans, with a general right issue being that of states versus federal, used to justify slave territory that would have tipped the balance between the Northern wing and the southern Wing, on the argument that a state had a right to choose its ability to legalize or outlaw slavery. State rights against the intrusion of the federal government were considered a right wing issue.

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Temporary-Farewell/Party-Realignment/

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
^Explained why, with more regards to pro business small government policies during western expansion.

Recently, it was Franklin Roosevelt who shifted the change, primarily among black voters who voted Hoover. Franklin Roosevelt was a democrat, but his ideas today are considered the shift to the current democratic platform.

This meant effectively that party names are meaningless to the ideological shift given by new members and new politicans, hence why it is so dangerous to see things in a democratic-republican view.

Hence why it is called a "Shift". Liberal minded folk of the North packed up and went allying with the Democrats and the former Dixiecrats came to form Republican, something currently caused by the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Hence why blacks are overwhelming democratic, because they are overwhelmingly liberal.

It is not a case of Republicans put their foot down after releasing former slaves. The party was replaced by those who had traditionally conservative views, perhaps over time, but more often than not were people who filled when Lincoln era Republicans retired.

It is a pretty complicated issue, where the Liberal Conservative terms were not used as they were today. Even more complicated when one determines the reasoning for said issues. Even then, one could say Lincoln was conservative, but only in our time, but liberal for his own time, seeing as the passage of the slave protection amendments.

So, back to my question. I am sailing on a wooden schooner. I replaced a wooden board every few days, whilst on a long journey, and completely replaced all the boards on said ship. I sail home. Is it the same ship, despite different boards?

The concept of a permanent identity to terminology is a tricky one. I am mainly arguing about your claim. You are letting your bias cloud your judgement of facts. You should not love the Republicans for fighting against the Democrats, you should support their conservative ideals if you truly believe them. No matter what unruly members you surround yourself with, I see no reason why that should change your ideology. It should be what you consider logical, regardless whether others who "identify" with such a tag would say or do. A tag is just a tag.

Edit: I was using current conservative principles of the now Republicans and applied it to the Civil War Era, including State's Right.

1605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Online
Posted 4/10/17
Why do you guys even bother? He already said he didn't read your last posts. If he wants to believe democrats are somehow still butthurt about the Civil War, let him live in his little fantasy world.
22957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/10/17
Much of the South identifies as Republican, yet waves flags that were the traditional battle flag of the Confederacy. They are the ones who would be traditionally be portrayed as "butt hurt" about the Civil War, and for a great deal of us, we erected monuments to people like Robert E. Lee, the main Confederate general.

15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:

Why do you guys even bother? He already said he didn't read your last posts. If he wants to believe democrats are somehow still butthurt about the Civil War, let him live in his little fantasy world.


I for one seem to have a subconscious streak of masochism, it's the only way to explain why I even still post here sporadically.
22957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/10/17
On another front...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/robert-e-lee-statue-to-be-removed-from-va-park-aft/

I understand some of the reasoning. We do not erect monuments to genocidal leaders like Hitler or those who fought for him. The system of slavery, although over 150 years ago, should not be forgotten, nor is the time between the the end of slavery in 1860s and our own of any moral consideration.

Although, we did erect some monuments to Erwin Rommel, the general overseeing such battles as Al Alamein. While not expressing doing any war crimes, even the ones where he was directly ordered to, it is still debateable. His hand in the bomb plot is highly questionable, if not propaganda in of themselves, although sacrificing himself to save his family from Hitler's regime is indeed admirable, yet he still fought for Hitler and his Nazis, despite being just a German at heart.

How about Robert E. Lee?
20075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 4/10/17
The fourth of July commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, not the end of the revolution. Holidays the celebrate the end of wars celebrate the deaths of those who fought IMO.
843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/10/17 , edited 4/10/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

On another front...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/robert-e-lee-statue-to-be-removed-from-va-park-aft/

I understand some of the reasoning. We do not erect monuments to genocidal leaders like Hitler or those who fought for him. The system of slavery, although over 150 years ago, should not be forgotten, nor is the time between the the end of slavery in 1860s and our own of any moral consideration.

Although, we did erect some monuments to Erwin Rommel, the general overseeing such battles as Al Alamein. While not expressing doing any war crimes, even the ones where he was directly ordered to, it is still debateable. His hand in the bomb plot is highly questionable, if not propaganda in of themselves, although sacrificing himself to save his family from Hitler's regime is indeed admirable, yet he still fought for Hitler and his Nazis, despite being just a German at heart.

How about Robert E. Lee?


Robert E. Lee was an important figure in the Mexican American War. Robert E. Lee did fight for the Confederacy; however, after the war, Robert backed President Andrew Johnson's reconstruction efforts and was integral to the postwar efforts to mend the relationship between the North and the South. Both President Johnson and Robert E. Lee made certain to try and assuage both the North and South, in order for the country to move on as a whole. Honestly, I believe that blatantly pissing on the South's sacrifices and important figures does nothing but sabotage the unification efforts. Angering people is not how they're won over, and cements resistance that can erupt into another civil war.

EDIT: To be honest, I'm of the opinion that both fervently pushing "the south will rise" as well as the act of rubbing in the South's loss demonstrate that neither side has moved on, and that they're both salty as hell.
lawdog 
44859 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/11/17
No. The Civil War is not something to be memorialized as a holiday, because it was a massive failure of America as a whole. It is vitally important to remember it, but the war was a failure on all sides on dealing with the incestuously combined issues of slavery and states rights.

Further, it's not something that would be a healing experience. The Civil War ended 152 years ago - we don't need a holiday commemorating America's biggest clusterf*ck that still killed more Americans than in either world war. As this forum shows, all it'd up doing would be a point of contention.
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/17

vanguard1234523 wrote:


MysticGon wrote:



Can't really read your responses because I'm on break but I assume the tl;dr is "How dare you accuse our party of wrongdoing. We aren't capable of that! The moment those people realize they were racists they changed party!!1!!!2"

Look it's simply petty to just throw your party's baggage onto another one. You can hate your past but you can't transfer it to someone else.


Not my fault your assertion makes no sense. You're the one ignoring reality to foist your party's present day baggage off onto another one because of the positions it held in the past. You're ignoring the actual substance of party positions to suit your own agenda. Is racism and the confederacy the history of the democratic party? Yes. Is that the present reality? No. And the post this is all in reference to concerns itself with present day reactions. Hence your assertion that the modern democratic party would still be upset over the loss of the confederacy in spite of undeniable ideological transformations between then and now does not follow. The Republicans took up that albatross all by themselves, that's not my fault. People upset about the confederacy losing the civil war would tend to skew red on the whole, they would be the ones getting upset over this. Hence the people in modern day upset over losing the Civil War would be Republicans more often than they would be Democrats. I suppose you can deny that assertion if you really want to, but I don't think reality is going to bear you out.

What it boils down to is this. I am a Democrat because I am a Liberal/Progressive not a Liberal/Progressive because I am a democrat. If the parties shifted so that the Republicans wound up on the Left again I'd vote Republican. The actual substance of party beliefs is more important than the party itself. No one is denying that the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. They aren't in present day because the parties have traded places on the political spectrum. It's nothing shy of disingenuous to say that the democratic party is still the confederate party or that the Republican party is the party of Lincoln when ideological transformations have altered both parties so much that they now hold positions that are in stark opposition to those they held in the 19th century. It was a bad argument when Ann Coulter made it and it's a bad argument now.

Also wouldn't the fact that the democrats are apparently taking umbrage with the fact you're even insinuating they're upset the confederacy lost kind of undermine your point?


Not when I don't sense any sincerity in it. When the unemployment, incarceration, dropout or welfare situations still run higher than the national average...

And when this is the situation for those that have work...


The wage gap between black and white Americans has persisted for the past half century. In 1967, black families had a median household income of $24,7000, while white families earned a median income of $44,700. By 2014, the median household income for black families had increased to $43,300, but white families earned a median income of about $71,300.

At the same time, the number of hours worked in the past 40 years increased, a report published Wednesday by the Economics Policy Institute found. And the increase in hours worked was larger for blacks than for whites.


http://www.ibtimes.com/america-racist-wage-gap-african-americans-persists-blacks-work-more-hours-2518294

The fact that they can whisper sweet nothings in the black community's ears every 4 years and get a few limousine liberals, unions and news agencies to tell them to vote because Republicans are racist and want to take away their rights isn't enough to convince me a full role reversal. It's just smacks of make nice for the camera PR.

Especially when the first black senator from the south since Reconstruction is a Republican and the most recent confirmed KKK member was a Democrat.

Doesn't fit the narrative I know. What LBJ did was cool though. I'm definitely grateful for that.
Ejanss 
16621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

I think so. We celebrate our country's birth every year, so why not its preservation?


Because Massachusetts ALREADY celebrates our country's birth a week later, on April 17, Patriot's Day (ie. Concord & Lexington), or Monday nearest thereto.
Yes, from the bombing movie, since it's when they hold the Boston Marathon.

So. That's that, then.


MysticGon wrote:
Doesn't fit the narrative I know. What LBJ did was cool though. I'm definitely grateful for that.


Okayyyy, I...seem to have tuned in late and missed a bit of the thread.
22957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 4/11/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

On another front...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/robert-e-lee-statue-to-be-removed-from-va-park-aft/

I understand some of the reasoning. We do not erect monuments to genocidal leaders like Hitler or those who fought for him. The system of slavery, although over 150 years ago, should not be forgotten, nor is the time between the the end of slavery in 1860s and our own of any moral consideration.

Although, we did erect some monuments to Erwin Rommel, the general overseeing such battles as Al Alamein. While not expressing doing any war crimes, even the ones where he was directly ordered to, it is still debateable. His hand in the bomb plot is highly questionable, if not propaganda in of themselves, although sacrificing himself to save his family from Hitler's regime is indeed admirable, yet he still fought for Hitler and his Nazis, despite being just a German at heart.

How about Robert E. Lee?


Robert E. Lee was an important figure in the Mexican American War. Robert E. Lee did fight for the Confederacy; however, after the war, Robert backed President Andrew Johnson's reconstruction efforts and was integral to the postwar efforts to mend the relationship between the North and the South. Both President Johnson and Robert E. Lee made certain to try and assuage both the North and South, in order for the country to move on as a whole. Honestly, I believe that blatantly pissing on the South's sacrifices and important figures does nothing but sabotage the unification efforts. Angering people is not how they're won over, and cements resistance that can erupt into another civil war.

EDIT: To be honest, I'm of the opinion that both fervently pushing "the south will rise" as well as the act of rubbing in the South's loss demonstrate that neither side has moved on, and that they're both salty as hell.


Ah, I see. I was a bit divided on the Robert E. Lee statue move, but I am not too sure on history.
15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

MysticGon wrote:


vanguard1234523 wrote:


MysticGon wrote:



Can't really read your responses because I'm on break but I assume the tl;dr is "How dare you accuse our party of wrongdoing. We aren't capable of that! The moment those people realize they were racists they changed party!!1!!!2"

Look it's simply petty to just throw your party's baggage onto another one. You can hate your past but you can't transfer it to someone else.


Not my fault your assertion makes no sense. You're the one ignoring reality to foist your party's present day baggage off onto another one because of the positions it held in the past. You're ignoring the actual substance of party positions to suit your own agenda. Is racism and the confederacy the history of the democratic party? Yes. Is that the present reality? No. And the post this is all in reference to concerns itself with present day reactions. Hence your assertion that the modern democratic party would still be upset over the loss of the confederacy in spite of undeniable ideological transformations between then and now does not follow. The Republicans took up that albatross all by themselves, that's not my fault. People upset about the confederacy losing the civil war would tend to skew red on the whole, they would be the ones getting upset over this. Hence the people in modern day upset over losing the Civil War would be Republicans more often than they would be Democrats. I suppose you can deny that assertion if you really want to, but I don't think reality is going to bear you out.

What it boils down to is this. I am a Democrat because I am a Liberal/Progressive not a Liberal/Progressive because I am a democrat. If the parties shifted so that the Republicans wound up on the Left again I'd vote Republican. The actual substance of party beliefs is more important than the party itself. No one is denying that the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. They aren't in present day because the parties have traded places on the political spectrum. It's nothing shy of disingenuous to say that the democratic party is still the confederate party or that the Republican party is the party of Lincoln when ideological transformations have altered both parties so much that they now hold positions that are in stark opposition to those they held in the 19th century. It was a bad argument when Ann Coulter made it and it's a bad argument now.

Also wouldn't the fact that the democrats are apparently taking umbrage with the fact you're even insinuating they're upset the confederacy lost kind of undermine your point?


Not when I don't sense any sincerity in it. When the unemployment, incarceration, dropout or welfare situations still run higher than the national average...

And when this is the situation for those that have work...


The wage gap between black and white Americans has persisted for the past half century. In 1967, black families had a median household income of $24,7000, while white families earned a median income of $44,700. By 2014, the median household income for black families had increased to $43,300, but white families earned a median income of about $71,300.

At the same time, the number of hours worked in the past 40 years increased, a report published Wednesday by the Economics Policy Institute found. And the increase in hours worked was larger for blacks than for whites.


http://www.ibtimes.com/america-racist-wage-gap-african-americans-persists-blacks-work-more-hours-2518294

The fact that they can whisper sweet nothings in the black community's ears every 4 years and get a few limousine liberals, unions and news agencies to tell them to vote because Republicans are racist and want to take away their rights isn't enough to convince me a full role reversal. It's just smacks of make nice for the camera PR.

Especially when the first black senator from the south since Reconstruction is a Republican and the most recent confirmed KKK member was a Democrat.

Doesn't fit the narrative I know. What LBJ did was cool though. I'm definitely grateful for that.


I'm sorry was something in there supposed to convince me or mean something? Cause it didn't. You didn't even do anything to tie your evidence of the wage gap to the democratic party, cause you know they haven't been exclusively in charge of the government for the last 40 years. And seeing as Republicans tend to support policies favoring tax breaks for the wealthy and that Reagan was the one who championed the whole "welfare queen" concept I tend to doubt that the Republicans have been ceaselessly fighting the Wage gap as the poor man's friend. And again first black senator being Republican and a Democratic KKK member doesn't actually change the relative stances of the parties.

Doesn't fit the narrative, I swear to God that's the calling card phrase of people who don't realize they're reading things from a narrative of their own. All of your arguments have relied on assumed premises you do a shoddy job of supporting because you take them for granted. You are basing all of this off a preconceived notion of the Democratic Party that exists in your head and filtering reality through that perception. Like when you decided to reply to a strawman democrat argument instead of waiting til your break was over and actually reading and evaluating responses to your argument.

Honestly I don't know why I'm even still responding. There's no point in replying to someone who isn't actually listening to what other people are saying. Who conjures up straw men to fight instead of dealing with the substance of replies to his posts. Who is perennially, unjustifiably smug when he has yet to produce a single shred of evidence sufficient to substantiate his logically inconsistent argument.

You had already made up your mind that modern democrats were acting in bad faith, and as soon as you did that arguing with you became a wasted endeavor. Nothing I or anyone else says matters because you can just deny it's sincerity, thus any substantive distinctions don't matter. Which is fitting because you place party affiliation higher than substantive ideological differences between parties.

Your responses have been churlish and logically inconsistent from the get go. You haven't bothered taking the time to actually deal with the meat of anyone else's arguments so really why should anyone bother to deal with the meat of yours?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.