|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-20-2018, 01:54 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.
And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.
As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.
That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.
Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 06:21 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.
And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.
As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.
That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.
Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.
|
There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 07:08 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,432
|
That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.
detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 09:10 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,496
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.
detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more
|
You do realize he's just a paid political troll don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 11:13 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.
detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more
|
I don 't know who is worried about what you post, I'm certainly not one who is worried about you post, certainly not worried about this typically uninformative, incoherent, irrelevant, useless, and rather ignorant response to what I said.
But carry on because "some here" are shivering with worry over what hallucination you might sputter out next.
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 07:12 AM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,432
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...
The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 08:35 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...
The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.
|
Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?
I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-20-2018, 07:06 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,432
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?
I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab
|
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 07:25 AM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab
|
Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?
I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.
As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 07:58 AM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Why are some jobs union jobs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?
|
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 08:54 AM
|
#11
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,449
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Actually Liberals and Conservatives only like choice if you agree with them.
Liberals tend to believe that government should have limted authority over your private life and behavior. Liberals expect more government authority over peoples' wealth and earnings and more regulation of businesses.
Conservatives tend to expect more government authority over morality and more regulation of your behavior. Conservatives prefer limited government authority over peoples' financial matters and prefer less regulation of businesses.
Authoritarians prefer government with a significant control of your personal and economic matters and over businesses.
Though they disagree on specifics: authoritarians, conservatives, and liberals all expect government to "protect" people by forcing consenting adults to avoid risky, dangerous and foolish behavior that does not harm or endanger others.
Libertarians believe that government's role is to preserve personal and economic freedom -- including those of "minorties" -- and that government-provided "protection" should only include defense against foreign enemies, holding people who cause harm accountable, and providing for general order.
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 09:57 AM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,432
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?
I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.
As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..
So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...
The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.
|
| |