Are conservatives simply 25 years behind the curve?

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the poster made a sweeping generalization about Red and Blue states and I presented evidence that disagreed with it. You are welcome to dispute my post, but please back up your argument with something other than conjecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will ackowledge that the implied point (that the division is on strict state bounds) might be incorrect. Yet:

The sweeping generalization is what this thread is about. The specific point I was trying to get across was that those that receive welfare vote Democrat.

Most people vote for tons of mostly inconsequential reasons. I'm talking real people; the people that I live with, work with, hang out with, talk to. The voter is an environmentalist, the Democrats have a greener platform, therefore they vote Democrat. Or, the voter is a homophobe, the Republicans are against gay marriage, therefore the voter chooses Republican. Yet even in these simple cases, actual people will factor in dozens of minor beliefs, random polls, television anchors, newspaper editorials, that party over at the Wilson's last month, ad naseum into their voting choice. Any attempt to generalize a group that large and varied is going to get many partial matches.

What does it mean to be Republican? Is there any one definition that encapsulates everyone that has ever voted for them? No, of course not. And to some degree, who cares? This is a question of historical analysis. And is that really the question that was asked? Are we talking about conservative philosophy? The current Republican platform? Conservative commentators, politicians, or voters? The Republican platform of the 1950s? Bleh.

I think a better question is: what is the proper form of government? This isn't the thread for that, so I bow out. Bickering about whether or not conservatives have antiquated beliefs... who cares?

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]

I can sense you're going to start making moronic assumptions about what "liberal" and "conservative" mean, assuming stances on modern issues are their definitions. Even though I called it, I bet you still do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean, the definations of liberal and conservative are different over time, back then the issues we talk about today weren't preveleant at the time so there is no "standard" for a liberal and conservative throughout US history.

Regarding your other comment all that is saying is that in the democratic party the are some that are more conservative than others, in the republican party some that are more liberal than other. The reconstruction in 1964 is talking about the lines between the parties becoming more clear cut.

[FishHooks]

The people who founded the consitution were not deists, its a common mistake. The people who founded the country were also not deists, they were puritians who were escaping catholic prosecution because they thought things like not being able to get a divorse were obserd, they were very religious people, thanksgiving was a religious holiday.

[FishHooks]

That is not total spending, thats per tax dollar, New Mexico is #1 because of all the illegal immigrants. Your stats dont prove anything. Californa and New York are at the bottom because they collect so much tax revenue because many rich people live there.

[FishHooks]

People who would drag a black guy down the road would be racists, they compare those people to Bush, GET IT?

In the 2004 campaign the democrats ran adds with people hosing down black people against a wall with a firehouse claiming they were republicans, that again is playing the race card.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not total spending, thats per tax dollar, New Mexico is #1 because of all the illegal immigrants. Your stats dont prove anything. Californa and New York are at the bottom because they collect so much tax revenue because many rich people live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in San Diego. Are you saying that immigration is a problem unique to New Mexico? That doesn't really explain Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi or North Dakota though.

The point is this ... The poster said that the red states "are not generally recipients of government handouts", and I produced evidence saying to wit that, on the whole the red states are exactly used to government handouts. In fact, they are more used to government handouts than the blue states. Period. You can try to change the argument to anything you want to, but my contention cannot be debated. THE RED STATES ARE NET USERS OF TAX DOLLARS AND THE BLUE STATES ARE NET CONTRIBUTORS. I made no contention as to why that was, and I made no contention as to who in those states received the money. Quite frankly, though, I find your arguments that urban dwellers in the red states (re: democrats) and immigration are the reasons that the red states ARE GIVEN MORE THAN THEY CONTRIBUTE (i.e. handouts) forced to say the least.

This point, based on the numbers, cannot be debated (and you haven't begun to, anyway. You have merely attempted to reframe the debate). Again, you can try to explain why the numbers are what they are, but you cannot argue with the fact that they prove the poster wrong.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
People who would drag a black guy down the road would be racists, they compare those people to Bush, GET IT?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the description...I fail to see how that makes the ad makers racists.

[ QUOTE ]
In the 2004 campaign the democrats ran adds with people hosing down black people against a wall with a firehouse claiming they were republicans, that again is playing the race card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing the race card isn't racism.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who would drag a black guy down the road would be racists, they compare those people to Bush, GET IT?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the description...I fail to see how that makes the ad makers racists.

[ QUOTE ]
In the 2004 campaign the democrats ran adds with people hosing down black people against a wall with a firehouse claiming they were republicans, that again is playing the race card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing the race card isn't racism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Also, if the democrats are in fact racist, that doesn't exactly explain why an overwhelming number of the minority members of congress (African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Women) are Democrats.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878575.html

[FishHooks]

Numbers dont mean much, because you can manipulate stats anyway you want, it doesn't tell you want is included in those numbers. Those numbers are vague and are proboly incorrect as well. When we say governemt hand outs we talk about things like wellfare, not just "tax dollars".

[andyfox]

Conservative Democrats from the old Confederacy. If OP has said "Democrats" and "Republicans" instead of "Liberals" and "Conservatives," you'd have a point. It was the Liberals who led the way on civils rights, joined later by moderate Republicans, who cast the swing votes to defeat the voices of reaction in both parties.