OT Fans doing harm.

[JD08]

Don't be so trifling. I'm not talking about "fiscal conservatism" only. Way more than that, particularly "states rights" and "limited government", and extending to individual rights, the role of religion, and, yes, government budgets and taxation.

But that's the crux of it all.

 

[TheEye]

Jimbo gonna Jimbo. Dude has guaranteed money. A&M is his retirement plan. I bet he pulls a Taggart and retires from coaching.

 

[jd716]

Don't be so trifling. I'm not talking about "fiscal conservatism" only. Way more than that, particularly "states rights" and "limited government", and extending to individual rights, the role of religion, and, yes, government budgets and taxation.

They don't want to hear it man. The chief of the RNC apologized for the Southern strategy back in 05 and most Republicans still won't recognize it.

 

[SWFLHurricane]

Don't see a moral compass on that clown...

Neither did Candi as a Gator will testify...

 

[1LuvCane]

Neither did Candi as a Gator will testify...

Bro i understand **** happens in life but that **** is an esteem killer. The chump might as well stick to hookers...

 

[1LuvCane]

Jimbo gonna Jimbo. Dude has guaranteed money. A&M is his retirement plan. I bet he pulls a Taggart and retires from coaching.

He doesn't have a care in the world financially...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

But that's the crux of it all.

No it's not. There was no such thing as "fiscal conservatism" (vs. deficit spending) in 1860. We didn't have a 20 trillion deficit in 1860.

The BIGGEST issue in 1860 (vs. today) was states rights (and how that was a proxy for a state's "right" to be a slaveowner state).

In 1860, Democrats supported "states rights" and Republicans supported the US supremacy over the states.

In 1968 and 2020, Republicans supported "states rights" and Democrats supported the US supremacy over the states.

It's not one smaller political issue (such as, where do you stand on a balanced budget), it is the fundamental political issue of how the United States is organized and run from a political standpoint.

Democrats and Republicans have flipped in 100 (and 150) years. We can debate the causes (and, yes, Democrats began to move to the progressive side post-Woodrow Wilson in 1920, lost the Dixiecrats in 1948, and continued the progressive move with the Civil Rights legislation of 1964), but the flip happened.

We know who benefits by this fictitious claim that the Democratic Party of 1860 is "the same" as the Democratic Party of 2020.

Nobody is saying that either party has zero elements of racism. But the Democratic Party of 2020 is far less racist than the Democratic Party of 1860.

And we **** WELL KNOW that the Republican Party of 2020 would not go to war to hold the US together over race-based disparities.

 

[JD08]

No it's not. There was no such thing as "fiscal conservatism" (vs. deficit spending) in 1860. We didn't have a 20 trillion deficit in 1860.

The BIGGEST issue in 1860 (vs. today) was states rights (and how that was a proxy for a state's "right" to be a slaveowner state).

In 1860, Democrats supported "states rights" and Republicans supported the US supremacy over the states.

In 1968 and 2020, Republicans supported "states rights" and Democrats supported the US supremacy over the states.

It's not one smaller political issue (such as, where do you stand on a balanced budget), it is the fundamental political issue of how the United States is organized and run from a political standpoint.

Democrats and Republicans have flipped in 100 (and 150) years. We can debate the causes (and, yes, Democrats began to move to the progressive side post-Woodrow Wilson in 1920, lost the Dixiecrats in 1948, and continued the progressive move with the Civil Rights legislation of 1964), but the flip happened.

We know who benefits by this fictitious claim that the Democratic Party of 1860 is "the same" as the Democratic Party of 2020.

Nobody is saying that either party has zero elements of racism. But the Democratic Party of 2020 is far less racist than the Democratic Party of 1860.

And we **** WELL KNOW that the Republican Party of 2020 would not go to war to hold the US together over race-based disparities.

Sure.

 

[1LuvCane]

Sure.

I think someone can use a recipe. Any shrimp ideas?

 

[JD08]

I think someone can use a recipe. Any shrimp ideas?

Sometimes I like to go simple. Put them on skewers on the grill and baste with garlic butter with a little cayenne added for some back heat. Serve over rice pilaf.

I like recipes for derailed threads.

 

[1LuvCane]

Sometimes I like to go simple. Put them on skewers on the grill and baste with garlic butter with a little cayenne added for some back heat. Serve over rice pilaf.

I like recipes for derailed threads.

Keep it simple. Got it

 

[Gatorhater]

OP left out one minor detail. This actually ended peacefully and both sides built a giant conciliatory bonfire made of Ill-fitting logs and wood scraps that promptly collapsed upon itself and killed everyone. RIP. 2020 is a real motherf*cker.

You had until the collapse. Nicely played.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

I like recipes for derailed threads.

But do you have a recipe for the sort of white russian that would make even the most undudeliest of dudes abide?

 

[JD08]

But do you have a recipe for the sort of white russian that would make even the most undudeliest of dudes abide?

Not really my thing, I drink beer, Dark and Stormy's and that's about it.

But here's something I found on the Internet.

https://www.****tailchemistrylab.com/home/white-russian

 

[Zbrod95]

No it's not. There was no such thing as "fiscal conservatism" (vs. deficit spending) in 1860. We didn't have a 20 trillion deficit in 1860.

The BIGGEST issue in 1860 (vs. today) was states rights (and how that was a proxy for a state's "right" to be a slaveowner state).

In 1860, Democrats supported "states rights" and Republicans supported the US supremacy over the states.

In 1968 and 2020, Republicans supported "states rights" and Democrats supported the US supremacy over the states.

It's not one smaller political issue (such as, where do you stand on a balanced budget), it is the fundamental political issue of how the United States is organized and run from a political standpoint.

Democrats and Republicans have flipped in 100 (and 150) years. We can debate the causes (and, yes, Democrats began to move to the progressive side post-Woodrow Wilson in 1920, lost the Dixiecrats in 1948, and continued the progressive move with the Civil Rights legislation of 1964), but the flip happened.

We know who benefits by this fictitious claim that the Democratic Party of 1860 is "the same" as the Democratic Party of 2020.

Nobody is saying that either party has zero elements of racism. But the Democratic Party of 2020 is far less racist than the Democratic Party of 1860.

And we **** WELL KNOW that the Republican Party of 2020 would not go to war to hold the US together over race-based disparities.

That’s a lie that’s debunked by any historical literature known to man. I’m a history freak and can tell you anything about most of the countries of this world, the world wars. Civil war, and the revolutionary war. Some people are math junkies but I am a history junkie.

Another thing, the union didn’t fight the civil war because of slavery. They fought for the preservation of the union with most soldiers thinking of plantation owners as treasonists. Slavery was just an instigator and always was a political talking point. Again that’s in any historical doctrine in history. That in itself destroys everything that you said. You’re seem to be a helluva lawyer but your sense of history reeks of high school level knowledge with a bunch of biased opinions and debunked liberal talking points that were never factual.

The union always believed in states right but also believed in the conservation of what was already built through the constitution and the original Declaration of Independence. Their concern was always Preservation, not US supremacy over the states.

Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? | PragerU

The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites?…

www.prageru.com

Union During the Civil War

Civil War in Four Minutes, Historian Gary Gallagher weighs in on the 19th century concept of union and describes the severe repercussions it would have on the nation. This video is part of the Civil War Trust's In4 video series, which presents short videos on basic Civil War topics.

www.battlefields.org

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

I think the "party switch" narrative is an oversimplification, as it does not represent some sort of overnight change in party platforms, but is rather the result of the disintegration politically of the "Solid South" that previously was essentially a one-party state (outside of Texas and East Tennessee, and possibly Western North Carolina).

Simply put, whatever your political ideology in the South, you were a registered Democrat and voted Democrat and ran Democrat if you wanted to win any political race. By virtue of the populace leaning more politically status-quo (I don't think it makes sense to call them "conservative" in today's sense of a political conservative), those types of candidates won. Change in party-line voting reflects more the change in the composition of Democratic Party candidates.

The election of 48 was perhaps a signal in national elections, but it didn't change anything about local or statewide Democratic Party dominance in the South. I once wrote a paper on the subject.

In the late 1960s, seeing political opportunity, some heretofore status-quo Southern Democrats switched party affiliation. No doubt, Nixon capitalized on this growing trend with appeals to the "law and order" crowd. But again, this isn't some major ideological leap by either political party. As Southern Dem politicians left the party in gradually greater numbers in the next 30 years, it was increasingly a more "social justice" party due to removal of the former candidates. More process of elimination than a conscious "switch."

Did the Republican Party receive an injection of more "social conservatism" as a result? Sure, but I'd argue the Democratic Party changed far more, by virtue of being left without its more old school wing. The Republicans had fiscal conservatives already, and still do. The Democrats didn't so much "switch" as they gradually lost an entire faction of the party candidate pool.

Basically, I'm not saying what you've listed is wrong. Most of it is just factual electoral results. I just think the "party switch" narrative is better understood through gradual political defections by candidates (and eventually, voters), rather than some overnight revolution or a great ideological leap on the part of either party.

This post is incomplete to the point of nearing being invalid without specifically citing Johnson and the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

That’s a lie that’s debunked by any historical literature known to man. I’m a history freak and can tell you anything about most of the countries of this world, the world wars. Civil war, and the revolutionary war. Some people are math junkies but I am a history junkie.

Another thing, the union didn’t fight the civil war because of slavery. They fought for the preservation of the union with most soldiers thinking of plantation owners as treasonists. Slavery was just an instigator and always was a political talking point. Again that’s in any historical doctrine in history. That in itself destroys everything that you said. You’re seem to be a helluva lawyer but your sense of history reeks of high school level knowledge with a bunch of biased opinions and debunked liberal talking points that were never factual.

The union always believed in states right but also believed in the conservation of what was already built through the constitution and the original Declaration of Independence. Their concern was always Preservation, not US supremacy over the states.

Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? | PragerU

The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites?…

www.prageru.com

Union During the Civil War

Civil War in Four Minutes, Historian Gary Gallagher weighs in on the 19th century concept of union and describes the severe repercussions it would have on the nation. This video is part of the Civil War Trust's In4 video series, which presents short videos on basic Civil War topics.

www.battlefields.org

Your simple *** argument doesn’t destroy ****, you nasally impinged defect!

He wasn’t talking about the North’s motivations he was talking about the South’s motivation.

 

[Zbrod95]

This post is incomplete to the point of nearing being invalid without specifically citing Johnson and the Civil Rights Act.

Both of you have not an iota of knowledge on this subject. A switch never happened. Republicans didn’t start winning seats in the south til 1994. Only only Democrat from the 60’s switched to the Republican Party. Richard Nixon, who is blamed for the “switch” lost the south completely in 1968 and Carter completely won it in 1976. There was no switch. Y’all just lied again...which is apparently the only thing you’re good at.

 

[Zbrod95]

Your simple *** argument doesn’t destroy ****, you nasally impinged defect!

He wasn’t talking about the North’s motivations he was talking about the South’s motivation.

You’re full of **** you know nothing racist. You’ve alway been full of **** and I still wonder how you function on a normal basis. Your white racist liberal *** who locks his car door and clutches his man purse around Black people have done nothing but pander and lie to African Americans your entire life and are no different from your racist confederate brothers.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

Both have not an iota of knowledge on this subject. A switch never happened. Republicans didn’t start winning seat in the south til 1994. Only only Democrat from the 60’s switched to the Republican Party. Richard Nixon, who is blamed for the “switch” lost the south completely in 1968 and Carter completely won it in 1976. There was no switch. Y’all just lied again...which is apparently the only thing you’re good at.

That buzzing in your head from you sounding out your words clearly challenges your ability to process simple information from your “history studies”. You’re wrong. Broaden your reading sources,