Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[mjr]

Watch...or don't. I'm not going to hammer you (like I was) if you comment without watching.

"The Dems want to pin the Confederate Flag, KKK, Great Depression, urban decay, and harsh marriage laws on the GOP... pin the tale on the Donkey instead!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

"Bill Whittle - Tea Party explain the facts on being a Conservative Republican and how many people defend their liberal beliefs by saying that they 'switched sides' with Republicans. He also addresses racism, Nazis and communism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k

Alfonzo Rachel (one of those apparently non-existent black Republicans) has a few things to say, too...

"Zo tells you why the Democrats are rewriting the Constitution. He reminds viewers that the Democrats rewrote the constitution once before, when they seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj0hbT3ce0g

"Zo gives a history lesson about the legacy of racism in the Democratic Party. Hear how Democrats take gross liberties with concepts of freedom on this ZoNation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-QwMUjD8xg

[Rapscallion]

I watched a few minutes of a couple of those. Seemed to be more or less trying to blame current people for the sins of those who were their great grandfathers.

I'd be more interested in what the current politicians are doing these days. History is good to learn from by trying not to repeat the mistakes, but I wouldn't want to be stuck there.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Are you doing this on purpose? Because I can't comprehend this being a serious post.

[mjr]

Seemed to be more or less trying to blame current people for the sins of those who were their great grandfathers.

That is a familiar argument, is it not?

[mjr]

Are you doing this on purpose? Because I can't comprehend this being a serious post.

I'm going to let everyone come to their own conclusion there. Some will take it seriously, some won't. That's the prerogative of the reader of the post.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm going to let everyone come to their own conclusion there. Some will take it seriously, some won't. That's the prerogative of the reader of the post.

Yes, your post is totally open to discussion and not just trying to be a shit disturber on the politics forum.

[mjr]

Yes, your post is totally open to discussion and not just trying to be a shit disturber on the politics forum.

It's absolutely open to discussion.

You've made it clear that this forum leans VERY liberal. If you want it to be an echo chamber, that's fine with me.

Again, watch the vids & comment -- or don't. I'm good either way.

[the_std]

It's absolutely open to discussion. You've made it clear that this forum leans VERY liberal. If you want it to be an echo chamber, that's fine with me. Again, watch the vids & comment -- or don't. I'm good either way.

I think the main problem here is not rejecting alternative viewpoints. It's that... Why does it matter now? It's pretty common knowledge that the two major American political parties would be unrecognizable compared to their early beginnings. It's well documented and publicized that the Democrats had some seriously shitty beginnings, and that people like Lincoln were shining examples of how the Republicans used to be.

But so what?

That is clearly not how the parties work now, and your sources are... Questionable. Like Raps said, there seemed to be a lot of blame and finger pointing going on. So what is the debate here? What are the talking points? What do you want in a discussion on this topic?

[mjr]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, though. Ask college-age kids if they know this history. See what they tell you. Ask High School age kids. I'd wager that if you as most people, a significant number of them wouldn't know this history.

Liberals like to paint themselves AND Democrats (because one can be a conservative Democrat) like they're pure as the driven snow, and only have the best interests of the people in mind. This is FAR from the case.

If the sources are questionable, I'm open to discussing where and why they're wrong.

[TheHuckster]

I'm sick of this flimsy and flawed argument being made from time to time. You want to argue Republican vs. Democrat? Great. Let's look at today's issues and viewpoints instead of comparing Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln and Obama to Stephen Douglas, and saying "See? Lincoln and Trump have R's next to their names, and Obama and Douglas have D's next to their names. They're the same people!" That's probably the absolute stupidest and most pointless argument you could possibly make when discussing political issues. Hell, it's pointless to compare two current political figures only by looking at the letters next to their names, much less two political figures whose parties, through the centuries, morphed their ideals and positions as the issues shifted from archaic issues like slavery and child labor over to modern issues like climate change and globalism.

The second video also had the similarly flawed argument saying Nazi's had "Socialist" in its name, therefore all socialists are Nazi's. Now, I disagree with a lot of the principles of strict socialist ideology, but simply pointing out something like Nazi having "Socialist" in its name to disparage any socialist ideas is absolutely wrong. We should therefore also condemn Democracy because North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Hey, that has both Democratic AND Republic in its name! Both parties can be compared to that country's political system!

If the sources are questionable, I'm open to discussing where and why they're wrong.

Well, I can start by saying where and why they're wrong is not because the party was pro-slavery before our grandparents, and possibly our great-grandparents, were alive.

[the_std]

Liberals like to paint themselves AND Democrats (because one can be a conservative Democrat) like they're pure as the driven snow, and only have the best interests of the people in mind. This is FAR from the case.

So you bring this up to show the democrats (never mind the "liberals", who have what to do with this if they aren't democrats?) that, because the party that began their movement hundreds of years before they were born were racists, never mind the fact that the current democrats would be a completely and totally different political party from their predecessors, then they aren't as good as they think they are?

[mjr]

Well, I can start by saying where and why they're wrong is not because the party was pro-slavery before our grandparents, and possibly our great-grandparents, were alive.

Ok. Let's have that discussion. Something must have happened. It would had to have been a gradual change, not an instant flip. So let's have a discussion on what may have happened.

After all, as late as the Johnson Administration, Johnson was quoted as saying, "I'll have those <racist term>s voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

So I'm just wondering where abouts the change happened, and why, and why then, if one group at one time thought it was bad, why another group would "adopt" that philosophy, as it were.

[mjr]

So you bring this up to show the democrats (never mind the "liberals", who have what to do with this if they aren't democrats?) that, because the party that began their movement hundreds of years before they were born were racists, never mind the fact that the current democrats would be a completely and totally different political party from their predecessors, then they aren't as good as they think they are?

A lot of whites and Republicans these days are STILL being blamed for slavery, though, as you point out, it was well over 100 years before most of us were born.

And you're right, the Democrats today aren't the Democrats of that time frame. Doesn't mean that there isn't still some bending and manipulation of history (even recent history) going on.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm going to let everyone come to their own conclusion there. Some will take it seriously, some won't. That's the prerogative of the reader of the post.

Ah, the tactic of "just point things out" while being utterly devoid of any point or content except to push a bias. It's right up there with "Just asking the question" with intellectual dishonest 'debate.'

Hell, the guy in the title did an "investigation" piece on how radical Islam was gaining influence on the federal government. >_>

Yeah, he at least wears his bias on his sleeve. Either that or he's pandering to a credulous group of fools who are historically easy to part from their money...

[the_std]

A lot of whites and Republicans these days are STILL being blamed for slavery, though, as you point out, it was well over 100 years before most of us were born.

Again, so what? Are you "giving them a taste of their own medicine"? Also, I would love for you to find an example of this blame you're talking about. From a credible source, too - I'm well aware that there are extremist groups who tout that line, and talking heads who get paid to create outrage might say that, but I highly doubt the majority of people in the States still blame whites and Republicans for slavery.