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

[Kara_CS]

And it'd matter if they'd know it...why? Who cares if they know this stuff? It's not relevant to today's society.

I would argue that it is relevant for the simple reason that the entire GOP strategy since the Dixiecrat shift is to get people to vote against their own best interests. There are Republicans in Congress right now who are trying to gain (or maintain) favor among minority voters with the narrative that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln," that they freed the slaves and voted for civil rights legislation. And they're pulling it off because our society has a short, generational memory and younger voters don't know these same Republicans were the very Democrats who voted against civil rights in the 60s.

The entire reason this thread exists is because someone has been fed that very lie and was given reference material to that effect, and accepted it at face value without doing the research to see what happened after the civil rights movement of the 60s.

[mjr]

Your "debating" is pretty funny to me.

Glad I could be a source of amusement.

From time to time, I don't necessarily articulate my positions well. But see, no one is forcing anyone to read, or comment on, any of these posts. and yet, here you are...

[mjr]

I would argue that it is relevant for the simple reason that the entire GOP strategy since the Dixiecrat shift is to get people to vote against their own best interests.

And those interests would be what, exactly? According to who? Is there a list somewhere of what these "best interests" are? Are you talking about individual interests, or interests of society and the Republic as a whole? Who are these people and how do they know what MY best interests are?

[mjr]

If this place is so awash in filthy liberalism than by all means leave ( you can even pretend that the nasty liberals ran you out if it makes you feel better ).

Gee...I was always told that Liberals were open-minded, accepting, and tolerant of others' differences. Is that not true??

You've certainly done nothing in your time here except incite conflict through intellectually dishonest BS like this.

This kind of shit is not what this website is for or about.

So, then, why do you read my posts?

[Gravekeeper]

So, then, why do you read my posts?

Because I worry that a bridge somewhere is lonely.

[mjr]

Because I worry that a bridge somewhere is lonely.

That's as good a reason as any. It might provide you an answer to the bridge guardian's question.

[Kara_CS]

And those interests would be what, exactly? According to who? Is there a list somewhere of what these "best interests" are? Are you talking about individual interests, or interests of society and the Republic as a whole? Who are these people and how do they know what MY best interests are?

Facetiousness will get you nowhere, my dear.

[TheHuckster]

One party tells a group of people, based solely on the pigmentation of their skin, that they can't get ahead and that they NEED government's help to do so.

Wrong. While I will concur that there are some who believe it's solely based on the pigmentation of their skin, it doesn't comprise of an entire political party. Neither party is a hive-mind.

From time to time, I don't necessarily articulate my positions well. But see, no one is forcing anyone to read, or comment on, any of these posts. and yet, here you are...

When one makes a point as flimsy as "Democrats used to be pro-slavery. Now they aren't. Discuss." and then is called out on how flimsy a point it is, the correct rebuttal is either, "The point is relevant because X" or "I understand why you think it's flimsy."

Instead your rebuttal is paraphrased as: why are you reading and replying to the argument if you think it's flimsy?

Heck, at this point I'd rather watch a talking heads cable news program. At least sometimes the crawling news feed on the bottom has some interesting stuff on it.

[mjr]

Facetiousness will get you nowhere, my dear.

Possibly. But I think the question is worth asking.

How does someone else know what MY best interests are, and if I'm voting against them?

My best interests are what I perceive them to be -- not what someone else thinks they should be.

So the entire "voting against your best interests" argument is somewhat fallacious, considering each person has their own best interests, and considering that one person probably does not know what's in the best interest of others.

[mjr]

Heck, at this point I'd rather watch a talking heads cable news program. At least sometimes the crawling news feed on the bottom has some interesting stuff on it.

And nobody's stopping you.

[the_std]

And nobody's stopping you.

No one seems to be stopping you from replying to any of the arguments made against your post. Want to take a crack at it, or are we going full ostrich here? Cause no one likes a member of a debate site who won't debate.

[Kara_CS]

And those interests would be what, exactly? According to who? Is there a list somewhere of what these "best interests" are? Are you talking about individual interests, or interests of society and the Republic as a whole? Who are these people and how do they know what MY best interests are?

Seeing as how the GOP routinely opposes social programs and laws that would benefit poor, black, southern communities (you know, the things that would affect livelihood, health, education, jobs, infrastructure, and overall quality of life; ie, things that are generally considered to be in everyone's best interests) I can only presume at this point that you are either being deliberately obtuse for the sake of playing devil's advocate, or are so adamant in your willful ignorance of the issue you're trying to argue that nothing I say is going to make any difference anyway.

No one seems to be stopping you from replying to any of the arguments made against your post. Want to take a crack at it, or are we going full ostrich here? Cause no one likes a member of a debate site who won't debate.

Agreed. I think I'm done here. Asking questions is fine, but presenting information and then asking questions and demanding other people provide the answers, just to continue to ask questions and demand answers rather than researching the issue for oneself isn't really an involved debate.

[Andara Bledin]

How does someone else know what MY best interests are, and if I'm voting against them?

I'm pretty sure that voting to raise the tax value paid by the bottom 90% of the populace while reducing the tax value paid by the top 10% is going to be against your best interests.

I mean, hell, it's against the best interests of the top 10%, too, since gutting the middle class reduces their ability to increase their wealth far more than whatever breaks they might be getting.

Some things are so assinine on their face (and it's asses all the way down) that it's blindingly obvious that it's against everybody's best interests, and yet shit like that keeps getting passed.

Case in point: Any Violence In Video Games law that's been attempted in the last 20+ years. Every single one struck down as Unconstitutional at massive expense to the state that sponsored the legislation, and some states go back several times. It costs the taxpayers millions every time you defend one of these things, and that's not even counting the time wasted in writing, proofing, and voting on the damned things, and yet, there's still state legislatures trying to pass them.

Yeah, there are some things where people's best interests are pretty obvious, and yet people will still vote for shit that does harm to them and their communities, great and small, and most of the time because the team with the right letter next to their name was the one that sponsored it.

[Hyena Dandy]

How does someone else know what MY best interests are, and if I'm voting against them?

It's possible for you to think something is in your best interest, and be WRONG. Because it does not have the effect that you expect.

[BlaqueKatt]

Agreed. I think I'm done here. Asking questions is fine, but presenting information and then asking questions and demanding other people provide the answers, just to continue to ask questions and demand answers rather than researching the issue for oneself isn't really an involved debate.

It's called JAQing off actually, and has it's own rational wiki entry.