AH challenge:more liberal america

[Beck Reilly]

Just as it PRIMARILY meant maintaing and expanding slavery when it was used by Confederates in the 1860's.

Maintaining and expanding slavery was a smaller issue within an overshadowing problem that was the Confederates real point - that the government was encroaching on territory that they believed to be none of the federal governments business. Besides being a fuse for war, the expansion and continuation of slavery was a beneficial effect of the Confederates key point.

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--The south voted for Goldwater because they perceived potential advantages from the way he organized his policies.---

In regard to what issue did the South perceive this advantage



---I'm sick of arguing this. Goldwater was an honorable man and he was not a racist. I've said my peace, and, frankly, I don't give a damn what you want to twist and contort to your own agenda. I don't give a damn what you or anyone else like you thinks about me or Barry Goldwater, but I'm sick of "listening" to your twisted bullshit.---

I know but FYI that agenda is called American history. Much to many people's chagrin here, I frequently use the facts in my posts as do a few others here-especially Ian.

 

[Beck Reilly]

I know but FYI that agenda is called American history. Much to many people's chagrin here, I frequently use the facts in my posts as do a few others here-especially Ian.

No, you are contorting American history into your own, super-PC (i.e. anti-white, anti-Christian) version of American history. Your so-called facts come from unreputable sources and thus, are not credible.

As for the rest, all I can say is that you are totally brown-nosing right now...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Oh, I'm hoping that Sharpton gets the nomination too. I would love to see a Sharpton/ Kucinich ticket, unlikely as that might be. Albeit for very different reasons than yours...

Oh, you are soooo wrong. Kucinich is bizarre but has the habit of saying things that make sense, and Bush doesn't want that. I think you would be better off with Sharpton-Lieberman.

Did anyone see SNL on Sat? Tina Fey had the best line "Lieberman's campaign was quiet, long and depressing enough to qualify as a Jewish holiday."

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting.---


Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--As for the rest, all I can say is that you are totally brown-nosing right now...--

My nose is a shade of caramel-brown so I dont need to brown nose-I'm stating another fact. Ian hardly posts here but whenever he does its usually to clean up some bullshit in a thread with FACTS-and he does a great job of it like in the Deist thread.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

LOL, Special power? What, can white people fly or something?

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---WTF is your problem with white people, anyways...?---


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[Paul Spring]

Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

Michael, that's what you conclude. You always come to the same conclusion, it doesn't matter what the other person says. This makes any attempt at a debate rather pointless.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---I am a left Liberal. I am VERY glad that Barry Goldwater was NOT elected in 1964.

On the other hand I accept the statement that he was a wholly honorable man.

I accept that he was not personally racist. However I believe that if his view of the Constitution and of States Rights had prevailed racism would be a lot stronger.----

You are right about the result of his being president Derek. But how honorable does that make him ? If he had a scrap of intelligence he also knew that his policies would have left segregation in place. Thats tells me that the he,the GOP and the millions of white voters who voted for him didnt have a problem with that. Maintaining segregation and Jim Crow is many things but its definitely not honorable.

How things happen can be just as important as that they happen. Segregation would have been destroyed by the courts just as discrimination against gays is being dismantled - because it's wrong and unconstitutional. forcing the issue through political and military means will never have the legitimacy that doing it through legal means would. If the Civil War had not happened and slavery died a "natural" death, I would argue this would have been a much better outcome for blacks in the long run even if an evil institution persisted slightly longer.

Goldwater did not support State's Rights so that it would prolong segregation. You are being one-issue to see things that way. We could fight terrorism more quickly and effectively if we just declared Bush Emperor, but that would not necessarily produce the best results overall. I would argue that the speedy end to Segregation could have damaged long-term race relations by causing many whites to feel that something was imposed upon them from outside.

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--Michael, that's what you conclude. You always come to the same conclusion, it doesn't matter what the other person says. This makes any attempt at a debate rather pointless.---


Actually thats what even a casual perusal of the facts of American history concludes. As an African -American I'm more than game for a debate whenever anyone here wants to deny or soft-pedal that obvious fact.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Actually thats what even a casual perusal of the facts of American history concludes. As an African -American I'm more than game for a debate whenever anyone wants here to deny or soft-pedal that obvious fact.

I'm sorry, but this is sickening. I'd like to know why, exactly, you are so constantly ready, willing, and able to place the race card in any situation?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting. I don't see how its possible to expect people to NOT have these anxieties. Most of the reactions in places like California have not been so much racist as a desire to defend the existing culture by expecting a minimal amount of integration, like learning to speak English, which seems to me to be reasonable.

Well, IMHO Thatcher destroyed the world I grew up in and it was nothing to do with race.

But

Grey Wolf

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---How things happen can be just as important as that they happen. Segregation would have been destroyed by the courts just as discrimination against gays is being dismantled - because it's wrong and unconstitutional. forcing the issue through political and military means will never have the legitimacy that doing it through legal means would. If the Civil War had not happened and slavery died a "natural" death, I would argue this would have been a much better outcome for blacks in the long run even if an evil institution persisted slightly longer.

Goldwater did not support State's Rights so that it would prolong segregation. You are being one-issue to see things that way. We could fight terrorism more quickly and effectively if we just declared Bush Emperor, but that would not necessarily produce the best results overall. I would argue that the speedy end to Segregation could have damaged long-term race relations by causing many whites to feel that something was imposed upon them from outside.---


The same arguments were made by people who opposed abolition in the 1860's and Civil Rights in the 1960's. Technically they may have proven to have been true but once again-as thoughout American history- it would have been a case of white people being allowed to continue unjustly profiting at the expense of black people.While that might not have been so bad for whites,I for one am glad that the forces prevailed that speed things up for ending those evils-that means the Republicans in the 1860's and the Democrats in the 1960's.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Actually, two of those are, in my opinion, the LEAST honorable politicians of the 20th Century. I am, of course, talking about the Kennedy's, arguably THE least honorable men to serve in Washington. Not only did JFK have absolutely NO moral standards (whether good or bad), but he was a horrible President as well. His brother, was no better, although he, obviously, was never President.

To further narrow the field, I meant Americans, as this entire thread is about America. That leaves us with Truman, Stevenson, Eisenhower, and King. I don't like Truman. He fired MacArthur, my favorite military officer of American history (I don't care whether it was warranted or not. In the end, MacArthur will be proved right). Stevenson was, although a nice man, a little too "red" for my liking. He was a good person, but he would have ruined this country had he been President. Eisenhower was a politician, pure and simple. He was a master politician and administrator and a relative do-nothing as President.

As for King, the last man on your list, I have only a tiny inkling of respect for him. He was made of the same moral fiber as the Kennedy's. You're talking about a man who slept with white prostitutes and plagarized his doctoral thesis. His constant criticizing of the US government's foreign policy, especially during the Vietnam War, really got on my nerves. The best thing about King: the day off from work.

There you go. Out of the Americans on that list, it is my opinion that Barry Goldwater is the most honorable.

Wow, you really lost me with this post. MacArthur was an incompetent egomaniac fool who should have been shot for treason for forcing an entirely superflous parallel Pacific Campaign to gratify is giant ego, which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans for no reason whatsoever, not to mention his disobedience to Truman.

As far as Kennedy goes, you have no basis for saying that he had no moral standards. Last I checked, randiness was not necessarily total lack of standards, and I see no reason to question his principles as a leader. And as for MLK, I can't help but suspect you of racism there. This is a man that led a mass movement that brought people of all races together to wage an ENTIRELY NON-VIOLENT campaign that did enormous good for our society, and I would argue that his assassination was one of the greatest social catastrophes of the last century, as after him things got badly off track.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.

Very well put, Paul.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.---


Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well? I'm sure that Mr Goldwaters strategy in Dixie was to be a balm for all those poor frustrated libertarians down there.

You are being monomaniachal and assuming that everyone who favors State's Rights do so because they are racist and segregationist. Goldwater had large numbers of supporters in states and regions that had no race issues at all.

 

[Beck Reilly]

As far as Kennedy goes, you have no basis for saying that he had no moral standards. Last I checked, randiness was not necessarily total lack of standards, and I see no reason to question his principles as a leader.

Michael asked me if JFK was more honorable than Goldwater. My answer was no. JFK was married, he slept with AT LEAST half a dozen different women, including the girlfriend of a Chicago mob boss AND an East German spy. (He had a thing for blond women. ) This is not the type of activities I'd expect of an honorable man, not to mention his only OKAY leadership as a President.

And as for MLK, I can't help but suspect you of racism there. This is a man that led a mass movement that brought people of all races together to wage an ENTIRELY NON-VIOLENT campaign that did enormous good for our society, and I would argue that his assassination was one of the greatest social catastrophes of the last century, as after him things got badly off track.

LOL, I'll be the first to admit, I was angry when I wrote this and I did go a little over the top. I'm sorry if I sounded racist, but I can only ask you to forgive me for sounding like this. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, to be honorable means to have integrity and the ability to do what you know is right. In my opinion, MLK had that second part, but lacked the first. I consider plagiarism the mark of a lack of integrity. It has, in recent years come to light that he plagiarized part of his doctoral thesis. This is a mark of a lack of integrity. It does not diminish his accomplisments, but, in my eyes, it is a stain on his personal life and a mark of a lack of integrity. Thus, I consider Goldwater, who may not always have been right but he clung to his sense of morality ferociously, a more honorable person. Again, I apologize for sounding racist, but i assure you that was not my intention. I hope what I said above will clarify things, but it may not change your mind. For that, I am sorry.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...----


This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.


PS If you are capable of having your views challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-Hutchinson just happens to be among the most succient.

There is a difference between FACTS and OPINIONS. Calling Goldwater a race-baiter is only an OPINION unless you can provide FACTS that prove this was what he was doing.

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--You are being monomaniachal and assuming that everyone who favors State's Rights do so because they are racist and segregationist. Goldwater had large numbers of supporters in states and regions that had no race issues at all---


By the 1960's the term "states rights" in American politics,at least in the south,almost exclusively referred to Jim Crow and segregation.Goldwater may have had supporters in other areas of the US but other than Arizona the only states that he actually won were in the Deep South where states rights was code for segregation.It should also be noted that lack of many blacks or other minorities doesnt mean a state or region in the US doesnt have racial issues. Every American,one way or another, has racial issues-thats the unfortunate reality of this society.