Welcome to PatsFans.com

Right wingers, always on the losing side of history

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    I'll grant you there was once a time the Republican Party was more liberal than the Democratic Party. (In fact, I read the other day that in the 1870s, MA was solidly Republican while New Hampshire was solidly Democratic.) But, if we look at right-wingers without regard to party, they have fared very badly.

    They were for slavery
    They were for segregation
    They were against the women's vote
    They were against equal rights for women
    They were against blacks participating in professional sports
    They were against interracial marriage
    They were against Social Security
    They were against minimum wage
    They were against child labor laws
    They were against the FDA, OSHA, and other agencies that protect us
    They were against civil rights and voting rights
    They were against collective bargaining
    They were against legal aid for the poor
    They were against environment cleanup
    They were against abortion (and just lost a major battle in South Dakota)
    They were against stem cell research (and just lost a major battle in Missouri)

    Today, they are against gay rights, but as Massachustts, Arizona, and New Jersey, and hundreds of cities and towns, have shown, they are on the losing side of that battle. Though that battle is still young, every year gays take new steps towards achieving equality.

    Be a loser. Hold onto the mythical past. Stay right wing.
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +520 / 6 / -2


    [​IMG]
  3. italia44

    italia44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    patters.....

    The best indictment of your post is to

    let it stand,for all to see
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Some of those I am proud to be against.

    Against abortion ? Damn right. Kill those babies :confused:

    Against stem cell research ? No Republicans are, get your facts straight.

    Against Social Security ? It can be done much better in other ways.

    Against Minimum Wage ? This is much better set by the states due to vastly different costs of living across the country.

    A bunch of the others I just roll my eyes at, I don't think, for example, interracial sports was a party vs. party thing.

    Typical crap :mad:
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    BTW, my dear Patters, this past election does not show that the country is less Conservative or Republican - just that the Republican party had gotten lost. How could they argue about Democrats' spending the way they've been spending ? How could they argue about Democrats' values the way they've been acting ? Etc.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,186
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +663 / 2 / -9

    LEFT WING BABBLING LIBERAL DO-GOODING CRAP.
    bricks
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    BF, I never said it was a Party thing. I tried to make that clear, but perhaps did not succeed). There have certainly been times when the Republicans have been the more progressive party, not only during Lincoln's era, but also during part of the modern civil rights era, when it was the Dixiecrats who fought equality.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    On some issues they still are. For example, Social Security reform. Moving away from the horrendous system we have and allowing partial privatization where people can be free to save for their own retirement and having a safety net only for those who can't is certainly more progressive than just increasing the SS tax to make sure it doesn't go bankrupt. The Democrats' solution is basically the same as Grandma putting her money under her pillow - hardly a progressive, thoughtful solution.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +520 / 6 / -2

    Agreed. What else would we expect from a typical fraud.


    [​IMG]
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I don't think its quite fair to say that right wingers were against all those things. I'm 99% sure the south would have abandoned slavery on their own eventually, for example. I think the left and right are better defined as being different in terms of rate of change towards improving things. The left sees the glass as 1/2 empty all the time and wants to hurry up and fill it. The right sees the glass as 1/2 full and wants to be certain its wine your adding and not vinegar. So they're never in any rush.

    BF you keep calling SS horrendous because you don't understand what its supposed to do. Its supposed to make certain that no matter what, you don't end up eating cat food in your old age. That's it. Its like insurance, I've thrown a ton of money into a hole called 'car insurance' because I've never been in a serious accident. That doesn't mean I've wasted it.
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Yes I do understand it. If it were how you described we would put, at most, 50% of what we do into it and those who have no money when they're old would get some. It's a pitiful retirement plan. Everyone gets it even if they don't need it. My parents don't need it. But they get it. It should be as you described, a safety net for those who have nothing. Instead it's a retirement payment for everyone.

    Comparing it to car insurance is silly. Rates are kept low for car insurance because you only get paid if you need it.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2006
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +520 / 6 / -2

    The problem with SS is that old people are eating cat food.

    Paying only those who need it would never fly. After hijacking my paycheck to pay into it, you would now be keeping my cash to give to others. The money I put into SS is mine. Whether I'm a zillionaire, or begging in the streets at 70, I want it. The government already takes enough from me at gun point, and I'd be damned if they are going to rob me weekly, collect interest on said robbery, and then give it to someone else.

    SS was a noble intention gone awry. I totally understand its creation. The problem with it is that the money is too freely given to those who do not deserve it. I have multiple tenants, elderly none the less, who live in subsidized units, and who's lone income is a SS check. The problem? Well, these elderly individuals were not born in the USA, and never worked here. Basically, they'd never paid a dime into the system, yet collect a check from it. The govt has totally lacked disipline in giving away rightful cash. More proof that money is better served in the hands of those who earn it. I for one, feel that SS should be optional. I should have the choice of paying into it. I think I could do better with my own money.
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I think it should be means tested and considered welfare for the elderly. If you need it you get it. Otherwise you don't. But we could chop it to about 25% of the SS tax if we only gave it to those who needed it.

    BTW, on my car insurance statement I worded it badly when I said you only get it if you need it, I meant that you only get it if you're in an accident - obviously rich people still get their money if they're in an accident.
  14. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,119
    Likes Received:
    475
    Ratings:
    +1,049 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    This post makes little sense...you cannot lay past wrongs on a current group of people. Also, parties do change and right wingers of long ago would be thrown out of politics today...they might make neo-cons look good.

    I will say this...we all know political parties are about power and agendas. However, political parties can be as stupid as they are coy. This latest example is a warning for any and all parties in the future...

    You were voted in by the people.
    You have an obligation to govern the people.
    You have an obligation to listen to the people.
    You especially have an obligation to listen to the majority and reflect it's desires.

    The only rational for what we have witnessed the last 4 years is that perhaps Bush and company thought they could grow and nurture neo-cons...in hindsight .... do they now realize how stupid that was? I hope so.

    I hope both parties realize that if they reflect the people they can stay in power much longer than the average....we change .... so should they.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    You can draw a political line in terms of thinking that transcends the parties. That's why I used the term right wing and not Republican. Yes, it's true our thinking has evolved, but who our political ancestors? I believe that many right-wingers have a more sympathy for some of the wrongs of the past than do progressives. Right-wingers and conservatives are often more interested in preserving the status quo than advancing human rights. The gay issue is a good example of that.

    Politicians are supposed to lead, not just reflect the people. Most people just aren't interested enough in political questions to think them through. I think what's really needed (but will never happen) is for there to be honest political debate among politicians and a much bigger role for scholars. Much too much of our political life is directed by advertising, talk radio, columnists, and other shallow sources of information.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>