College goes to far?

[Espe]

What? So again, you are denying

I'm just recognizing historical fact, which is, once again:

"after the passing of the Voting Rights Act the racists fled the Democratic party. They didn't just quit politics though, they found a natural home among Republicans"

[Zecora]

This is absolutely false. Democrats adopting republicans views does not = republicans dropping them. You are saying republicans are for slavery? LMAO Your statement of fact is clearly a biased opinion.

The cause championed by the Republicans during the civil war era was that of civil liberties, and while the chief concern at that time was slavery, the continuation of the struggle for civil liberties was NOT about slavery (as that particular battle had been won). As the Democrats took up the continuation of the struggle for civil liberties, the Republicans largely abandoned it.

Nowhere did I claim that the Republicans are "for slavery", so you can take that particular strawman and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Coolioe]

So you are saying his analysis is true with his implication of republicans distorting history and that democrats don't? When you do exactly what you try ridiculing some for in the exact same post, your opinion holds no weight to anyone.

I mean, right wingers like to claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery which is pretty false, so ya i'd say what he said is true.

[Zyster]

I'm just recognizing historical fact, which is, once again:

"after the passing of the Voting Rights Act the racists fled the Democratic party. They didn't just quit politics though, they found a natural home among Republicans"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ry-mona-charen

[Espe]

"Better stop it, you're hurting my feefees"

I guess your problem is the the DHS and FBI then, they both put out statements of concern over right-wingers, who cause the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US.

[Zyster]

The cause championed by the Republicans during the civil war era was that of civil liberties, and while the chief concern at that time was slavery, the continuation of the struggle for civil liberties was NOT about slavery (as that particular battle had been won). As the Democrats took up the continuation of the struggle for civil liberties, the Republicans largely abandoned it.

Nowhere did I claim that the Republicans are "for slavery", so you can take that particular strawman and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Republicans have not largely abandoned it.

One of their core values is ensuring equal treatment for all people regardless of sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability,
or national origin to be immoral.

Not being for gay rights != abandoning civil liberties.

[Coolioe]

Millions upon millions of dollars worth of damages between these guys, and quite a few deaths. Oh noes, a right winger blew up a baby butcher shop when no one was in it, better lose our minds, but good thing those PETA people "freed" then executed all those animals that they stole from science labs and destroyed the labs, they're heroes!

"Better stop it, you're hurting my feefees" I like you, you make me smile.

You call abortion clinics "baby butcher shops" but think the property damage done by left wing groups is more damaging than the L I T E R A L L Y hundreds of people killed by right wing INDIVIDUALS? Really makes me wonder how much you value human life.

[Espe]

Republicans

Again, the RNC Chairman himself (a lifelong conservative) apologized for building a coalition of bigots and morons via the Southern Strategy for the votes they can't outright steal.

Beyond that, this thread wasn't about Democrats or Republicans until you brought it up.

[Zyster]

I guess your problem is the the DHS and FBI then, they both put out statements of concern over right-wingers, who cause the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US.

Actually, they put out statements that right wing terrorism as surpassed left wing terrorism. Not that left wing terrorism doesn't and hasn't existed which you keep trying to imply doesn't. They have 4 different categories they categorize terrorism. Both left wing and right win terrorism is a catagory. And there biggest problem with domestic violence right now isn't either. It's lone wolf terrorism acts being carried out by individuals among all 4 categories. The least you could do when arguing is recognize faults on all playing fields rather than only using sections of articles to try and argue that anything but left is wrong.

[Espe]

Yes, there were some other motivating factors that can be found if you look hard enough. If you read the documents the South drafted from the time it is clear slavery is reason #1 they started some shit. They felt it was their right to continue to enslave as many people as necessary to ensure their economic prosperity. I know it hurts when the truth is so ugly, but there it is.

I already linked the declarations of secession for them, I guess reading isn't their strong suit.

Imagine that

[NineSpine]

Please point out once since republican creation all of these has been changed or weren't part of the republican party platform.

http://republicansusa.org/GOPCoreValues.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

What? So again, you are denying democrats were ever racist and pro slavery?

The Republican Party Platform of 1904 included the following:

1. Opposition to free trade.
2. Support for the gold standard.
3. Transparency and regulation of big business.

It includes almost nothing on the list you provided.

[Espe]

I wonder who causes the most deaths though

According to the FBI and DHS, right-wingers.

Anything else I can clarify for you, sunshine?

[NineSpine]

Millions upon millions of dollars worth of damages between these guys, and quite a few deaths. Oh noes, a right winger blew up a baby butcher shop when no one was in it, better lose our minds, but good thing those PETA people "freed" then executed all those animals that they stole from science labs and destroyed the labs, they're heroes!

"Better stop it, you're hurting my feefees" I like you, you make me smile.

All you really just said is "It isn't terrorism when I agree with it".

[Espe]

Actually, they put out statements

That right-wingers cause the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US. I'm well aware.

[Zecora]

Republicans have not largely abandoned it.

One of their core values is ensuring equal treatment for all people regardless of sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability,
or national origin to be immoral.

Not being for gay rights != abandoning civil liberties.

I guess that's why the Republican president to be wants to ban all muslims from entering the US, and why so many republicans are working hard to curtail...guess what? civil liberties!

In summary: Whether it is because you genuinely believe what you sprout or you're just another republican apologist, you're full of shit.

[Dundebuns]

I think conservative values could work really well, if they weren't tempered so harshly by human greed.

[Zyster]

I guess that's why the Republican president to be wants to ban all muslims from entering the US, and why so many republicans are working hard to curtail...guess what? civil liberties!

In summary: Whether it is because you genuinely believe what you sprout or you're just another republican apologist, you're full of shit.

Now you are clearly just parroting Clinton. They want to get terrorism under control, which isn't a civil liberty, by creating a current band-aid till they can figure our a solid solution. Get your head out of your ass.

[alexw]

You do realize this was democrats right? I mean sure, attack him for whatever political affiliation he is all you want. Doesn't change this fact however. Though you will probably now respond with a respond trying to change history and stating that the then republicans were the now democrats. Whatever to try and save face I guess.

Yes and we know the republicans and democrats switched positions. The democrats became the party of civil rights, and the republicans became the party of regressing rights.

Its hilarious though that you somehow try and frame that as "saving face". I mean which is worse, belonging to the party that used to be against civil freedoms but has now wholeheartedly embraced expanding those freedoms, or belonging to the party that used to be for civil freedoms but abandoned that to try and court racists and civil rights regressives? Its obviously the latter isn't it?

There's no need for us on the left to save face. We are in the right and we know it. We also know your side is mostly a bunch of bigots and regressives that hides it behind religion and freedom of speech (I can call this guy a nigger if I want to, stop with this PC bullshit! Etc. Etc.).

[Zyster]

Party names are just names, they're not a binding contract to a certain set of policies for eternity. Thanks to some Democrats in the mid-20th century the Republicans and Democrats switched platforms(or party names depending on PoV).

No, they did not.

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convent...anplatform.htm

Much of this still exists today in the Republican party. Maybe you mean to say many democrats became republican and that Democrats eventually adopted many of the republican values.

[Adam Jensen]

Context? What are they learning that would lead to those questions being used?

Here's a short short short answer: 9-11 happened in part because there was a lack of communication between agencies. That answers the first part of the question.

Not sure how it connects with the second part of the question, but again, I'm not taking the course and lack the proper context to figure out what the professor is trying to get at.