^A new challenger has appeared. A hush descends over the crowd.

@leon .. how is free speech a right "given by nature" in any sense? Yeah, you can open your mouth and whatever you want can come out of it, but specific languages are evolving human constructs, not natural ones. I don't get what you mean by that.

"@leon .. how is free speech a right "given by nature" in any sense? Yeah, you can open your mouth and whatever you want can come out of it, but specific languages are evolving human constructs, not natural ones. I don't get what you mean by that."

Does anybody own you?

By that logic, literally anything is a right given by nature.

Other than refusing to breathe, eat, and drink, you are your own person, so go all Ammon Bundy on us; it's your right, guaranteed by nature.

Difference between Right and Left minded thinkers on free speech.

Right thinkers: People have a right to say anything offensive or not! Derives from Natural Law, Classical Liberalism, and Enlightenment thought.

Left thinkers: People have a right to say anything UNLESS I PERSONALLY GET OFFENDED! Derives from Fascism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, etc.

That sums up this debate.

No it doesnt but thats your right. To say inaccurate things and pass them off as reality.

Being wrong is freedom too

Difference between Right and Wrong minded thinkers on free speech.

Right thinker: think and don't mischaracterize others
Wrong thinker: ND, who mischaracterizes Left thinkers. Derives from Fox News.

@Brainbomb and @Hauta: Original comments! But, this is truth. Obviously you all won't admit it, but in your heart you know it be truth.

Its not

The modern Republican party is thrilled democrats of the 1860's were dumbfucks in favor of oro slavery - so much so its given them 160 years of alibi's to be complete racists thenselves propping up whatever lame founding fathers excuse they can be it free speech - property rights- presrrvation of history. Yawn.

and what has the left given us? disrespect of institutions, religions, authority; loss of personal responsibility; murder of children; spiral of poverty, broken families; a culture of dependency, a culture of death; punishment for success and achievement.

The republican party has done all that plus racism, war, misery, poverty, oil mongering, barbarian slaughter

The republican party has fought for rights, the constitution, and rights of all Americans for 150+ years. All the Democrats can do is slander the Republicans because the Democrats are (what Brad said + more)

Parties are shit. Binding yourself to glorifying one is a chain unto yourself.

No ND theyve murdered trillions and burned cities to the ground.

Lol are you talking about the Democrats again Brain?

No. The Republican poverty wants billions of muslims/jews/minorities/animals/plants to die based on their envirinmental policies

Like where do you get that stuff from man? It's completely untrue. Are you trolling me right now?

The Democrats are no longer the party of 1860. Until 1960, they tolerated racists in the party. Since Kennedy, that element has declined a lot. So much so that 90% of Blacks vote Democratic. Imo, the republicans were fair enough after Lincoln, had highlights under TR and Eisenhower and then changed for the worse, starting with Goldwater. Anyone claiming that the Democratic Party never changed is an idiot or dishonest (Brad). Anyone who claims the republicans since Goldwater care about the common man is either shilling (Fox etc) or willing to overlook financial wellbeing in order to get social/religious policies they like.

The fact you have to ask if I am trolling tells me you are uncertain

"90% of Blacks vote Democratic"

When you tell someone repeatedly that they're disadvantaged and need you're protection, they will eventually listen. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Democrats are an insidious group that has been manipulating the demographics of America for decades to creating a permanent majority in the electorate.

"Anyone who claims the republicans since Goldwater care about the common man is either shilling (Fox etc) or willing to overlook financial wellbeing in order to get social/religious policies they like."

Anyone who claims that Democrats since Kennedy care about anything except keeping a stranglehold on the poor man's vote is either willing to overlook that fact for their own temporary gain (welfare) or is a member of the Democratic political machine.

"Anyone who claims the republicans since Goldwater care about the common man is either shilling (Fox etc) or willing to overlook financial wellbeing in order to get social/religious policies they like."

"Anyone who claims that Democrats since Kennedy care about anything except keeping a stranglehold on the poor man's vote is either willing to overlook that fact for their own temporary gain (welfare) or is a member of the Democratic political machine."


Ah, the light to be seen. Both are true.

@Hauta

actually, if you look at the Democrats in congress from the late 1950s to mid 1970s: you see a LOT of the same faces. check it out online, 85th congress to the 93rd. the change happened less due to ideology switches, rather natural changing of guard within party. most new democrats who came in, actually had always been registered as Democrat.

there's this idea of the "New left" and "New right" that isn't quite accurate when you have deep retrospection

As far as demographic shifts in voting, the Republican/Progressive split really hurt mainstream Republicans with the black vote, and the FDR era was really when Democrats began securing the black vote: yes, even racist democrats in the south, who still kept Jim Crow alive. this is mostly due to the pro-welfare left, and the economically disadvantaged black population.

meanwhile the christian voting base had its major shift during Reagan, years after the supposed "New Right" and "New Left"

what ACTUALLY happened was the Democrats didn't wake up and say "hey let's not be racist" rather they changed tactics, to an anti-racist party. same politicians, new strategy.

and then you get a generation of kids growing up, where Democrats failed with Carter, and as Reagan swept up many states, we begin to see the states change loyalties primarily due to massive urbanization during the population booms of the time. thus the red racist south was born, in the minds of much of the new generation.

during the late 80s-90s era, the youth who had grown up under the new strategy (who ACTUALLY believe racism was bad) came to the forefront and fought until securing the Clinton presidency. This was at a time when the Libertarian party had been MUCH more fringe, and up until that point, we hadn't seen any big-government conservatives (like HW Bush), so the fringe libertarians really hurt the "conservative" name with the militant religious, anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-evolution, and even still, heavily racist and sexist ranks.

Clinton was a significant turning point for when the Right looked to Bush, but then as the Iraq war set in, sure small government conservatives AND anti-war liberals helped spearhead much of the vietnam-era libertarianism that is no coming back again today.

meanwhile the fringe right had metastasized into the mainstream Republican party.

democrats looked around, and thought that the best way to win was to appeal to the abused minorities, despite a legitimate venue for that platform being less prevalent carrying into the 21st century.

now we're here, with a rise of socialism in the far left, and the mainstream democrats look more for the minority vote, as the Republicans bend over for anyone they can get a vote off of, splitting their party between true conservatives and the previous neocons. Libertarians find themselves much more in the middle, and attracting a growing center feeling demonized by each side in elections prior.

this isn't to say Republicans don't have their hands clean in everything. they were filthy in the pre-reagan years. i just don't like people saying there was some major "flip" or whatnot. the "New Left" and "New Right" weren't as much contained to the 1960s, as they were from 1930-1988

Trying to simplify it down to one decade, doesn't paint a fair picture at all

@Yanik, same faces doesn't necessarily mean same positions. For example, Strom Thurmond is famous for having changed over time. Next, I don't think the South's becoming Republican had anything to do with urbanization. The rest of that post is a bit verbose and meandering but I don't necessarily disagree with it.

As for the 1am post, my simplifying it down to one decade might be an oversimplification. I don't care if you spread the transition period from 1930-1988; the fact that the parties changed is my central point.

@Hauta

I know, i openly said it was a change in positions... but we've been told by the radical left that in 2017 you're a racist if you simply are white, so the idea that the same men who openly advocated for Jim Crow, are so openly accepted as heroes of the "New Left" about a decade later, is fairly inconsistent.

but in any case, you need to look into demographic trends. the 50s-70s were eras of urbanization, and suburbanization. this occurred most prominently in states that later would turn blue, as cities required more regulation and government influence, and became central for modern liberal thought.

meanwhile, many areas in the south maintained strong rural populations, thus attracting the conservative vote over time.

nonetheless, my problem is not that you simplified it down to one decade, it's the idea of the two-party shift.

if you're talking in terms of political members, there are still some remnants of the old guard democrats, such as former KKK member Robert Byrd, who served until quite recently. then you still have the youth democrats.

the right never took on a radical shift, but naturally acquired the abandoned christian voting bloc, and has stuck with that for quite a while since, with only recent acquisitions in the working population demographic.

i don't like the idea of a "Switch" at all

@Yanik, you seem to be the only one using the word "switch". I said that each party changed, not that they necessarily changed into each other.

The Democrats are no longer the party of 1860. Until 1960, they tolerated racists in the party. Since Kennedy, that element has declined a lot. So much so that 90% of Blacks vote Democratic.

simple change of democrats

Imo, the republicans were fair enough after Lincoln, had highlights under TR and Eisenhower and then changed for the worse, starting with Goldwater.

simple change of republicans

maybe i'm going in to deep into a tangent, but it kinda presented as a switch of sorts.