Dean wants to be the candidate for those flying the Confederate Flag

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Whoever thinks the abolition movement was part of the religious right is a tad bit delusional.

By virtues of their denominations and religious history, and their movement away from their Puritan & Calvinist roots, the Christian churches involved in the abolitionist movement were pretty moderate for their era.

[Ramo]

Yeah, it's not like conservatives are still denying gays fundamental human rights. They'd never do such a thing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yeah, it's not like conservatives are still denying gays fundamental human rights. They'd never do such a thing.

I wasn't equating liberalism with civil rights. I was referring to the spectrum of different Christian denominations in the US in the first half of the 19th century. They were all relatively conservative, but the abolitionists then were not the denominations (or their antecedents) which are now most heavily associated with modern Christian conservatism as a political movement in the US.

[Ramo]

I was responding to GF.

For the most part I agree with you. But abolitionist churches also typically alligned themselves with the lefty free soil, free labour, free men coalition - the original Fremont era Republican coalition before Lincoln and his protectionist, corporatist policies hijacked the party.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun


God this is an ignorant statement.

The Republican party and the Democratic party went through a political realingment in the 1890s and 1930s, so that today, they are two different parties than they were in the 1850s through 1880s.

The Republican party in the mid-nineteenth century was an activist party for civil rights and stronger federal government.

The Democratic party in the min-nineteenth century was a white supremacist party and advocated stronger states' rights.

To say that these two parties are the same today as they were in the mid-nineteenth century is incredibly naive.

Are you German perchance?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yeah, it's not like conservatives are still denying gays fundamental human rights. They'd never do such a thing.

gays don't have fundamental human rights?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Let's not kid each other. The primary intent of vouchers is to allow public tax money (most of which is not paid by the parents of school age kids, their tax contributions are only a small part of the per-kid cost) to be diverted to private religiously based schools.

The voucher movement sprouted right out of the ashes of the "Committee for Excellence in Education" a religious right group which tried to gain stealth control of public school boards all over the US.

I'm no proponent of religious education, but I do feel that our children (from every social class) do need to have an effective education. In the 1990s three of my co-workers (out of 15) were sending their children to Catholic schools. All of them were middle class people, without huge sums of money to throw away on prestige spending. None of them were Catholic. They simply wanted their children to attend a school that worked, and they had little enough confidence in the public school system that they felt it worth their while to spend their own money to make that happen. I think that the numbers of poorer people who feel the same way are even higher in percentage terms because often their schools are even worse than the mediocrity that we call public education in middle class areas. But people any poorer than my co-workers cannot afford to send their children to other schools.

[Ramo]

gays don't have fundamental human rights?

Like, in some states, to ****.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by MrFun
Hey moron -- I'm a Democrat and I'm well informed about the history of the Democratic party.

Alright, so you're a well informed moron.

Congratulations.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yeah, but AFAIC, ol' Howie should take himself out sooner, rather than later, so we have a chance at a real alternative to Bush.

They'll just nominate Sharpton instead.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ask Wesley Clark.

Wasn't he a Republican until a few months ago?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Abolistionists, aka, the religious right

Actually, the religious left, or center (remember I am a Republican, so the charges of liberals revising history won't stick with me ). They definitely weren't on the right wing of Christianity in America at the time.

Wasn't he a Republican until a few months ago?

No, AFAIK, he never was a Republican. He was always registered Democrat.

--

MtG, which candidate from the Democratic primary (slim pickin' I know) would you back?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Wasn't he a Republican until a few months ago?

No, AFAIK, he never was a Republican. He was always registered Democrat.

My mistake. It was the praise he was giving the President at a time when most Democrats where baying for blood (the tax cut) that confused me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

was the praise he was giving the President at a time when most Democrats where baying for blood (the tax cut) that confused me.

He's a good soldier. Support the chief when you are under him.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Abolistionists, aka, the religious right

Actually, the religious left, or center (remember I am a Republican, so the charges of liberals revising history won't stick with me ). They definitely weren't on the right wing of Christianity in America at the time.

Quote:

Wasn't he a Republican until a few months ago?

No, AFAIK, he never was a Republican. He was always registered Democrat.

--

MtG, which candidate from the Democratic primary (slim pickin' I know) would you back?

Clark, Then Kerry. Ideally a Clark-Kerry ticket, and I'd like to grab Zell Miller for the cabinet, since he's retiring from the Senate, IIRC. I'll tolerate Lieberman in there somewhere, but Clark is my preferred choice by far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh... sorry, I just don't like Clark. In the debates I saw he just seemed a little too left (even farther than Dean or Kerry).

I like the rest of what you said. If it was a Kerry-Miller ticket I'd vote for it right away... of course that'll never happen. Zell Miller just endorsed George W. Bush over EVERYONE running in the Dem primary.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Clark,

Why? He doesn't even have a real idea where he stands on the issue the Dems want to make central to their campaign: Iraq.

[Ramo]

In the debates I saw he just seemed a little too left (even farther than Dean or Kerry).

How so?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Ramo, it seems he wants to spend more than Kerry (his $100B 'plan', the Homeland and Economic Security Fund). Both want to repeal the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, but Kerry wants to accomplish the rest of his goals by tax cut incentives. And Clark isn't as pro-NRA as Dean.

[orange]

The first quote he made wasn't offensive, to me...and the second one (most recent) is, in context, not bad either. He's just saying that his policies would be good for a broad cross section of American society.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? He doesn't even have a real idea where he stands on the issue the Dems want to make central to their campaign: Iraq.

Exactly!

First, to know where you stand, you have to know what you're standing in.

Second, that at least puts him on a par with the Bush administration, because it seems more and more that they don't have a ****ing clue where they stand either.

Third, he's a recently retired O10 lifer with theater command experience. So he doesn't want to go off half cocked, he has professional relationships with the current people there (Sanchez is a former subordinate, and Abizaid a peer), and he knows that there's a hell of a lot of info that none of the candidates are privy to, and that the situation there is fluid and will change from month to month.

Precisely because of his background, he's not likely to be prone to ignorant second guessing like Dean and the others, and he's also not likely to be satisfied making some crystal ball future policy statement on the basis of half-assed or less info.

[Ramo]

But Imran, IIRC, most of Clark's plan entails corporate welfare and huge increases in law enforcement, not exactly the left's agenda. As for the NRA, hell, lots us radical lefties aren't very fond of gun control.

[Imran Siddiqui]

most of Clark's plan entails corporate welfare and huge increases in law enforcement, not exactly the left's agenda.

I consider more government spending more conducive to the theoretical American 'left'. The theoretical American 'right' likes tax cuts.

As for the NRA, hell, lots us radical lefties aren't very fond of gun control.

Who the Hell cares about you radicals?! Not like you matter .

I'm using practical American terms: Left - Democrats, Right - Republicans

[Ramo]

Thing is, those are more properties of the moderate wing of the democratic party. The liberal wing doesn't necessarily see those kinds of policies as attractive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The liberal wing doesn't necessarily see those kinds of policies as attractive.

The liberal wing would rather see targetted tax cuts than more government spending?

Where have you been?

[Ramo]

The liberal wing wants to see the budget spent in totally different ways.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The liberal wing will back a spender over a tax cutter, that's for sure.

It's silly to assert that a guy that wants to spend more on governmental programs than another guy is more 'right-wing' (when both want balanced budgets)... especially in the American parlance.

[Ramo]

I don't think that the liberal wing would back more spending on the grounds that it's more spending. For instance, I don't think that the liberal wing would back a massive crackdown on abortions. Similarly, I don't think that the liberal wing would back policies like lots more cops and jails and corporate subsidies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think that the liberal wing would back more spending on the grounds that it's more spending.

I think they'd back more government spending in order to boost the economy and pay for health care .

Face it, Clark is more lefty than Kerry .

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I don't think that the liberal wing would back more spending on the grounds that it's more spending.

I think they'd back more government spending in order to boost the economy and pay for health care .

Face it, Clark is more lefty than Kerry .

Kerry is from the great state of Taxachussettes no? Clark is hardly a lefty. And he definitely a real threat to bush:
Bush dodged service, the service is Clark's career
Bush stands next to Clark, the ladies pick clark
Clark is fairly economically conservative, his social views are liberal.
Bush is an economic cut tax and spender...... normally would be considered lunacy, but some people forget why they are Republican in the first place.