Has debating made you forget you are human?

by eddie Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:52 pm

Has it become about being right?

Has it become about Winning for your political side - Right wing/Left wing Republican/Democrat?

Has it made you narrow minded so that you must agree with something because it is your “label”?

Has it taken away your ability to see fellow posters as human beings?

How important is it to you, to be so rigid in your beliefs that you are petrified of actually listening to an opposite view in case it makes you question everything you thought you knew?

Just how open are you?

by Syl Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:02 am

eddie wrote:Has it become about being right?

Has it become about Winning for your political side - Right wing/Left wing Republican/Democrat?

Has it made you narrow minded so that you must agree with something because it is your “label”?

Has it taken away your ability to see fellow posters as human beings?

How important is it to you, to be so rigid in your beliefs that you are petrified of actually listening to an opposite view in case it makes you question everything you thought you knew?

Just how open are you?

I always try to see people on forums as human beings, though sometimes some dont always show the same consideration to everyone else.
I know it'll never happen and I understand why, but I still maintain that if it was the norm to use your own name and your own photo as an avi on forums posters would not be so quick to treat others in the way they sometimes do.

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:11 am

I think I have always known you’re like that.

I bet tired of pretension. And ego. I think that’s what tires me out most.

I like to see everyone as human.

by Eilzel Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:05 am

I think it does with many. I think it's either debating itself and the silly goal of 'winning' or the deep rooted tribalism that leads people to simply be unable to let go and accept differences of opinion.

I've had my mind changed on a few things debating people over the years. It can be enloghtening if you allow it to be, but I think most people don't.

At the same time I think absolutely everyone has certain subjects where their ability to hear out alternative views is limited or nonexistant.

by Syl Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:06 am

eddie wrote:I think I have always known you’re like that.

I bet tired of pretension. And ego. I think that’s what tires me out most.

I like to see everyone as human.

I think one of the problems on this forum now is that some people are too political.
They let their party preference cloud their judgment of other people....its getting to be stupid.

I try to avoid politics on forums, but sometimes a thread about what you had for dinner can turn into a far right/left political rally. Rolling Eyes

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:19 am

Youre right Syl it’s all about politics. And I know why.

People feel safe behind their political views because it allows them to be lazy.

I’ll go into it further if no one understands.

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:20 am

Example:

Blame Trump! Blame Blair!

No. Blame you. We make our own choices.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:14 am

eddie wrote:Example:

Blame Trump! Blame Blair!

No. Blame you. We make our own choices.

You're exactly right. The American people caused Trump to be in power. Some will argue that a vote for the alternative was what they were trying to avoid. But a 'no-vote' for the opposition, was a vote for Trump.

America is responsible for Trump.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:17 am

blame humans Wink

Has it taken away your ability to see fellow posters as human beings?

no, but I personally seem to be lacking in compassion towards humans merely because they a human.

To be devils advocate (my natural position):
Why care about the 'enemy'?
why not just accept (as Quill and to a lesser extent myself)
that we will never agree and get along and reality is only one 'dream' can proceed to be made into reality for our society. So for the 'dream' to be realized we must split from or defeat the enemy.
that's reality
Life is Not Nice

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:26 am

Veya, you have turned cold. That’s why you’re the way you are.

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:28 am

Something real is what I’m seeking, one clear voice in the wilderness.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:53 am

eddie wrote:Veya, you have turned cold. That’s why you’re the way you are.

Yes, Probably
although I am not sure which is actually my nature.
I have always 'Chosen' to be kind, rather than felt compelled to be geek

But in what is probably a side effect
My Disney Princess skills are getting ridiculously good now...
Has debating made you forget you are human? Disney-princess_58389_2

Has debating made you forget you are human? Disney-princess_58389_2

by eddie Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:30 am

No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:29 am

eddie wrote:Something real is what I’m seeking, one clear voice in the wilderness.

Don't say what you mean, you might spoil your face...

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:07 am

eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

Often it's not really a matter of lying. So often, when we see other people as lying, we're actually just not seeing things from their point of view.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:08 am

eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

I thought he was being quite open. Where did he say he thinks he's warm?

by Guest Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:19 am

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:
eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

Often it's not really a matter of lying. So often, when we see other people as lying, we're actually just not seeing things from their point of view.

That is a fair point.

I have no doubt Veya can be very nice, and he gets wound up with me many times

So I do not think he intentionally lies with me

His does so to score points, as he is as passionate as me, with his beliefs.

I have nothing against Veya. Somestimes he actually makes sense

by Syl Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:34 pm

If we expect other people to be the way we imagine ourselves to be (on a good day) disappointment will surely follow.
No one is perfect, some lie, fence sit, judge others harshly, on forums it's all too obvious because the only thing we have to go on are words....no human contact to soften the blows.

Sensitivity and forums dont really go hand in hand most of the time,

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:38 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:Something real is what I’m seeking, one clear voice in the wilderness.

Don't say what you mean, you might spoil your face...

Eddie... Did you read my post?

And did you get it...?

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:12 am

eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

NO, you think you're warm but you're simplistic (in my opinion) which is ineffective in achieving long term change and therefore pointless.

the way I see it.
I care for the herd, you care for the individual Wink

I am inline with 'natures order'. You are inline with 'snowflake nicety'
we are both as warm to what we care for.
but we view the world differently and therefore care for different things.

I do not particularly consider myself 'warm'. I am 'logical' over 'emotional' ... neither warm or cold is the defining attribute
I would more lean towards considering myself 'hard' because I can Do what is needed despite emotion, but that is a trait of being 'logical'

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:27 am

I have a Question for Everyone...

DO you think your warm/cold/logical/emotional and do you think others think your warm/cold/logical/emotional?

by nicko Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:59 am

I'm all those !

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:46 am

nicko wrote:I'm all those !

Like a Japanese Haiku... Precise and insightful Has debating made you forget you are human? 202592697

I am sure almost everyone is some combination of them all
It's like a simple version of that personality test ben posted
no one scores 100% logical or emotional, but we do tend to lean on way or the other Wink

by eddie Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:26 pm

veya_victaous wrote:I have a Question for Everyone...

DO you think your warm/cold/logical/emotional and do you think others think your warm/cold/logical/emotional?

It all depends upon which character I am when I get up in the morning and by midday, I may be someone else entirely. Cool

by Victorismyhero Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

NO, you think you're warm but you're simplistic (in my opinion) which is ineffective in achieving long term change and therefore pointless.

the way I see it.
I care for the herd, you care for the individual

umm,,,no you dont you care for the "species" otherwise you would only care for (at best) fellow aussies (your herd), and not all those others that exist elsewhere (the species).

I am inline with 'natures order'. You are inline with 'snowflake nicety'

again, no you are not...natures order is survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost

we are both as warm to what we care for.
but we view the world differently and therefore care for different things.

I do not particularly consider myself 'warm'. I am 'logical' over 'emotional' ... neither warm or cold is the defining attribute

and again no, you are rarely "logical" nor are you particularly emotional, I see you as souless and confused
I would more lean towards considering myself 'hard' because I can Do what is needed despite emotion, but that is a trait of being 'logical'

by veya_victaous Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:02 am

Lord Foul wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
eddie wrote:No. You think you’re still warm....but you’re not .

Why? Be open. So many people lie. Please don’t.

NO, you think you're warm but you're simplistic (in my opinion) which is ineffective in achieving long term change and therefore pointless.

the way I see it.
I care for the herd, you care for the individual

umm,,,no you dont you care for the "species" otherwise you would only care for (at best) fellow aussies (your herd), and not all those others that exist elsewhere (the species).

I am inline with 'natures order'. You are inline with 'snowflake nicety'

again, no you are not...natures order is survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost

we are both as warm to what we care for.
but we view the world differently and therefore care for different things.

I do not particularly consider myself 'warm'. I am 'logical' over 'emotional' ... neither warm or cold is the defining attribute

and again no, you are rarely "logical" nor are you particularly emotional, I see you as souless and confused
I would more lean towards considering myself 'hard' because I can Do what is needed despite emotion, but that is a trait of being 'logical'

And You know very little about me Obviously near nothing if you can't acknowledge that I am probably more logical than You.

I never said the herd was Humans, and it's not a specific thing either it's general Outlook, the good of the group or the individual.
And I definitely Care and more respectful towards the global Herd than YOU or any Pompous Eurotrash that want to pretend Your way is best (or the majority view)

I see you as a fraud, a pretender.... for all you claim you could have been your not Rolling Eyes

Your obviously not really in contact with nature if you think Survival of fittest is the common case.
Weaker but Bred like crazy and adsorb the inevitable deaths is far more common tongue

the Exploitation on Niches ignored by others is also more common than merely being the fittest.

the 'herd' of life is a tapestry more beautiful and complex than anything your Soul-less being can comprehend.
Go play with your old crooked staff you neo-druid snowflake snobby

by Eilzel Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:42 am

Veya, for all we agree on things, your insistence on using terms like Eurotrash really only ends up nullifying your entire point by making you seem as intolerant as those you argue against...

by eddie Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:48 am

Eilzel wrote:Veya, for all we agree on things, your insistence on using terms like Eurotrash really only ends up nullifying your entire point by making you seem as intolerant as those you argue against...

That is entirely why he has become less respected and less believable, over the years on this forum. He’s actually far nastier about white, English people than any other group of people.

He’s also one of those people fnat labours under the impression that he’s “a prophet for the good of mankind” but every single open-eyed poster on here can see that he’s kind of deluded about that.

He gets away with it though it doesn’t go unnoticed.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:56 pm

eddie wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Veya, for all we agree on things, your insistence on using terms like Eurotrash really only ends up nullifying your entire point by making you seem as intolerant as those you argue against...

That is entirely why he has become less respected and less believable, over the years on this forum. He’s actually far nastier about white, English people than any other group of people.

He’s also one of those people fnat labours under the impression that he’s “a prophet for the good of mankind” but every single open-eyed poster on here can see that he’s kind of deluded about that.

He gets away with it though it doesn’t go unnoticed.

What a disappointing thing to say. Veya is well-respected and admired by me, Wolf and everyone on this site.

Again, I shy away from these types of threads, because they inevitably turn into these kinds of insults and testimonials re a poster. It's the same as if a thread were started about someone, which is now disallowed.

by eddie Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:41 pm

Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

Do you see any difference between them? I don’t.

I have a lot of time for Veya, as I do you, but I think he’s a hypocrite when it comes to treating all groups of people the same, much as you are. You openly admitted that you rejoiced when white people are picked on and Veya agreed with you.

Do you think that’s an okay way to think?

You can’t take that back and you can’t say you’re any different to the likes of Tommy, in this regard either.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:50 pm

eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

I realize that debates get heated, but there is a distinct pattern of Brits against Ozzies on this site. Wolf gets it from the Brits; Veya gets it from the Brits. What, are the Aussies not passive enough for your egos? Sounds for all the world, for you guys, the colonists should be seen, and not heard.

We kicked your ass in two wars, and now you sup off our hind tit. We like the Ozzies and Canadians. Get used to it, or dinner might be late. Evil or Very Mad

by eddie Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:57 pm

Well, you managed to talk about something else entirely by mentioning some wars that I don’t give a rat’s arse about - thought you disagreed with war anyway, surely you can’t brag about something you didn’t participate in and are against?

I don’t care what your excuses are, you cannot tell someone’s not to be racist by calling them a racist name. I don’t bad mouth anyone on here based off where they’re from.

It’s not in my nature.

You and Veya and Wolf and Tommy and smelly bandit eat al, cannot say the same, can you?

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:21 pm

eddie wrote:Well, you managed to talk about something else entirely by mentioning some wars that I don’t give a rat’s arse about - thought you disagreed with war anyway, surely you can’t brag about something you didn’t participate in and are against?

No, I'm just making the point that we in the US are divorced from any attitude you Brits may have toward colonists. And now that you guys are so dependent upon us, get in line.

Eds, I've told you repeatedly that I am no pacifist. It's just that I don't hasten willy-nilly into stupid and expensive wars. It's called the Defense Department for a reason...WTF are our soldiers doing in foreign adventures thousands of miles away? Our wars should be limited to when we are attacked at our borders.

Incidentally, that is money wasted on toys for Admirals and Generals, that if not spent could go to an elaborate health care system...which we lack. What's the difference between saving lives from foreign external enemies, and saving lives from foreign internal enemies? Only the ego thrills of fighting other humans, and killing their babies.

by Guest Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

I realize that debates get heated, but there is a distinct pattern of Brits against Ozzies on this site. Wolf gets it from the Brits; Veya gets it from the Brits. What, are the Aussies not passive enough for your egos? Sounds for all the world, for you guys, the colonists should be seen, and not heard.

We kicked your ass in two wars, and now you sup off our hind tit. We like the Ozzies and Canadians. Get used to it, or dinner might be late.

Two wars?

I guess you mean the expanisonist war by the Americans to sieze Canada in 1812, where they failed.

Where the British burnt your White house to the ground, you mean?

Noboy won that conflict in any shape or form, but what is certain, it did stop the designs of the Americans to further expand northwards into Canda

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:48 pm

Didge wrote:I guess you mean the expanisonist war by the Americans to sieze Canada in 1812, where they failed.

Haha...the one that was fought in New Orleans..

We fired our guns, and the British took to runnin,
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico...
— Johnny Cash

Guess they learned...they never fooked wi' us after that. Twisted Evil

by Guest Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I guess you mean the expanisonist war by the Americans to sieze Canada in 1812, where they failed.

Haha...the one that was fought in New Orleans..

We fired our guns, and the British took to runnin,
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico...
— Johnny Cash

Guess they learned...they never fooked wi' us after that.

There has only been two conflicts

American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
War of 1812 (1812-1815)

That is one of the battles, with New Orleans. Which that battle took place after peace had been concluded by the way

You had your capital burned to the ground, quite fitting I think, based on what the yanks did previously

So we easliy fucked the yanks, blockading them and in 1815, the war with Napoleon was over.

Its more luck, that the British felt you had enough.

Otherwise battle hardened troops would have come over in tens of thousands and finished the war in a matter of weeks

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

I realize that debates get heated, but there is a distinct pattern of Brits against Ozzies on this site. Wolf gets it from the Brits; Veya gets it from the Brits. What, are the Aussies not passive enough for your egos? Sounds for all the world, for you guys, the colonists should be seen, and not heard.

We kicked your ass in two wars, and now you sup off our hind tit. We like the Ozzies and Canadians. Get used to it, or dinner might be late.

Would those have been your 1917-1918 WW1 and our 1914-1918 WW1, and your December 1941-1945 WW2 and our 1939-1945 WW2?

And you kicked our asses? I have always been under the impression that we kicked German, Italian and Japanese asses.

by eddie Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:00 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

I realize that debates get heated, but there is a distinct pattern of Brits against Ozzies on this site. Wolf gets it from the Brits; Veya gets it from the Brits. What, are the Aussies not passive enough for your egos? Sounds for all the world, for you guys, the colonists should be seen, and not heard.

We kicked your ass in two wars, and now you sup off our hind tit. We like the Ozzies and Canadians. Get used to it, or dinner might be late.

Would those have been your 1917-1918 WW1 and our 1914-1918 WW1, and your December 1941-1945 WW2 and our 1939-1945 WW2?

And you kicked our asses? I have always been under the impression that we kicked German, Italian and Japanese asses.

Well, exactly, I thought the US and the UK were allies?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I guess you mean the expanisonist war by the Americans to sieze Canada in 1812, where they failed.

Haha...the one that was fought in New Orleans..

We fired our guns, and the British took to runnin,
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico...
— Johnny Cash

Guess they learned...they never fooked wi' us after that.

Yes, you really owe those Southerner Rednecks a great debt of gratitude, don't you?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:03 pm

eddie wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Would those have been your 1917-1918 WW1 and our 1914-1918 WW1, and your December 1941-1945 WW2 and our 1939-1945 WW2?

And you kicked our asses? I have always been under the impression that we kicked German, Italian and Japanese asses.

I must confess that I never regarded the USAF base t'other side of my garden fence until the 1980s to be part of enemy territory!

Well, exactly, I thought the US and the UK were allies?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:04 pm

eddie wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Would those have been your 1917-1918 WW1 and our 1914-1918 WW1, and your December 1941-1945 WW2 and our 1939-1945 WW2?

And you kicked our asses? I have always been under the impression that we kicked German, Italian and Japanese asses.

I must confess that I never regarded the USAF base t'other side of my garden fence until the 1980s to be part of enemy territory!

Well, exactly, I thought the US and the UK were allies?

I must confess that I never regarded the USAF base t'other side of my garden fence until the 1980s to be part of enemy territory!

by nicko Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:18 pm

Quill, you got your ass kicked in NAM or had you forgot !

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:28 pm

nicko wrote:Quill, you got your ass kicked in NAM or had you forgot !

Oh, I agree. All wars started/fought by Republicans were losers. Nam. Iraq. Nicaragua...all of them. Republicans are authoritarian monarchists. That's why I am so amazed that Republicans are still allowed to start wars. There should be a constitutional amendment.

And, a constitutional amendment that wars cannot be started until the US is invaded. These foreign adventures are none of our business, and should be banned.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:31 pm

eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

Do you see any difference between them? I don’t.

I have a lot of time for Veya, as I do you, but I think he’s a hypocrite when it comes to treating all groups of people the same, much as you are. You openly admitted that you rejoiced when white people are picked on and Veya agreed with you.

Do you think that’s an okay way to think?

You can’t take that back and you can’t say you’re any different to the likes of Tommy, in this regard either.

I have never 'rejoiced' or advocated or celebrated in any way about any group being picked on!!!

by Guest Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Quill, you got your ass kicked in NAM or had you forgot !

Oh, I agree. All wars started/fought by Republicans were losers. Nam. Iraq. Nicaragua...all of them. Republicans are authoritarian monarchists. That's why I am so amazed that Republicans are still allowed to start wars. There should be a constitutional amendment.

And, a constitutional amendment that wars cannot be started until the US is invaded. These foreign adventures are none of our business, and should be banned.

So you think the American Civil war, which brought about Abolition, by Republicans, were losers?

Do you want me to once again expose how many wars have been started or had the Americans get involved by Democrat Presidents?

Vietnam, was started by a Democrat for a start.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:46 pm

Anyway, back to the reason for the thread..........

I like to think of myself as being cast in the mould of Sir Pelinore Gwaine-Cust, a rather splendid character created by novelist Dennis Wheatley in his Gregory Sallust series, who always said of himself, somewhat self deprecatingly, that "...I have an eye for a horse and a pretty woman and an infinite capacity for vintage port...but no brains. No brains at all..."

Or perhaps the irascible barrister Horace Rumpole, created for the TV series Rumpole of The Bailey by John Mortimer.

What say you, dear fellow posters?

by eddie Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill, I don’t think “everyone” likes how Veya speaks about certain groups of people just as Tommy isn’t liked for his comments about groups of people.

Do you see any difference between them? I don’t.

I have a lot of time for Veya, as I do you, but I think he’s a hypocrite when it comes to treating all groups of people the same, much as you are. You openly admitted that you rejoiced when white people are picked on and Veya agreed with you.

Do you think that’s an okay way to think?

You can’t take that back and you can’t say you’re any different to the likes of Tommy, in this regard either.

I have never 'rejoiced' or advocated or celebrated in any way about any group being picked on!!!

Some people may say you do, I don’t.

In any case, my point about that was not taken up with Quill. He started to talk about war for some reason.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:14 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Oh, I agree. All wars started/fought by Republicans were losers. Nam. Iraq. Nicaragua...all of them. Republicans are authoritarian monarchists. That's why I am so amazed that Republicans are still allowed to start wars. There should be a constitutional amendment.

And, a constitutional amendment that wars cannot be started until the US is invaded. These foreign adventures are none of our business, and should be banned.

So you think the American Civil war, which brought about Abolition, by Republicans, were losers?

Do you want me to once again expose how many wars have been started or had the Americans get involved by Democrat Presidents?

Vietnam, was started by a Democrat for a start.

First, the Republicans didn't start the Civil War. The Civil War was started by disgruntled slave owners in South Carolina, with the attack of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in December 1860, and was one of the founding member states of the Confederacy, in February 1861.

Second, Vietnam was started by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

Third, the Republicans were a different party at the time of the Civil War. Pay heed, you should know your history:

In 1792, the first Republicans were what we call the Democrats today. Their full name was the Republican/Democrats, with their primary initiates being the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison. Their opposites were the Federalists, the party of George Washington, VP John Adams, Massachusetts, and New Yorker, Secretary of the Treasurry, Alexander Hamilton. Yes, it was north versus south even then.

The next appearance of the Republican Party, began in in 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin. Its primary platform was anti-slavery and anti-polygamy (polygamy was followed by the LDS sect). After slavery was abolished, the original Civil War Republicans split into two parts, one turning to their other political cause: women's suffrage. The faction working for the woman vote, creating the Progressive Party, which ran Teddy Roosevelt for president in 1912. The other faction simply turned to graft and corruption, having no cause anymore...very much like today.

For a long time the Republican Party just represented "business", as President Calvin Cooledge so aptly put it. But, the latest iteration of the Republican Party occurred in 1964, when Lee Atwater and followers of failed candidate, Barry Goldwater, redesigned the party with the Southern Strategy. Republicans became champions of three different causes: (1) anti-civil rights/pro-segregation; (2) anti-communism; and (3) the interests of money (outgrowth of the period after the Civil War).

The primary causes of the Republican Party today are anti-civil rights/pro-segregation, and moneyed interests. The anti-communist fad has gone away.

by Guest Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you think the American Civil war, which brought about Abolition, by Republicans, were losers?

Do you want me to once again expose how many wars have been started or had the Americans get involved by Democrat Presidents?

Vietnam, was started by a Democrat for a start.

First, the Republicans didn't start the Civil War. The Civil War was started by disgruntled slave owners in South Carolina, with the attack of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in December 1860, and was one of the founding member states of the Confederacy, in February 1861.

Second, Vietnam was started by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

Third, the Republicans were a different party at the time of the Civil War. Pay heed, you should know your history:

In 1792, the first Republicans were what we call the Democrats today. Their full name was the Republican/Democrats, with their primary initiates being the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison. Their opposites were the Federalists, the party of George Washington, VP John Adams, Massachusetts, and New Yorker, Secretary of the Treasurry, Alexander Hamilton. Yes, it was north versus south even then.

The next appearance of the Republican Party, began in in 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin. Its primary platform was anti-slavery and anti-polygamy (which was followed by the LDS sect). After slavery was abolished, the original Civil War Republicans split into two parts, one turning to their other political cause: women's suffrage. The faction working for the woman vote, creating the Progressive Party, which ran Teddy Roosevelt for president in 1912. The other faction simply turned to graft and corruption, having no cause anymore.

For a long time the Republican Party just represented "business", as President Hoover so aptly put it. But, the latest iteration of the Republican Party occurred in 1964, when Lee Atwater and followers of failed candidate, Barry Goldwater, redesigned the party with the Southern Strategy. Republicans became champions of three different causes: (1) anti-civil rights/pro-segregation; (2) anti-communism; and (3) the interests of money (outgrowth of the period after the Civil War).

The primary causes of the Republican Party today is anti-civil rights/pro-segregation, and moneyed interests. The anti-communist fad has gone away.

The biggest load of revisionist load of bullshit I have ever heard

Civil rights became later a part of the war. The union and keeping this together was the main cause of this conflict and the right of slave states to govern

Kennedy starting sending in forces into Vietnam, that were directing forces and attacks on the Vietconq

Your blind hate of the Republicans, is so bad now, it has gotten you to the point, where you are just making up history and not based on any facts.

Its also rubbish to claim the Republicans of the past are what would be classed as democracts today. As in now way even in the time of Lincoln, did they support equal rights for Blacks. You had a minor view advocating such a view, which went against what most Americans, wanted which was Abolition. This poor attempt to redefine politics and history to make something seem like it was Democrats, when it was the democrats against abolishing slavery. Its a complete perversion of the true events of history

There was never ever a concept of Republicans, until the 1850's, before this it was Federalists, whigs, Democrats. So yoiu are just making up stuff as you go along

So I am really am sorry, no amount of revisionism, is going to change the fact that Licoln, was very much a conservative in political beliefs. To claim otherwise is complete and utter nonsense. His cabinet was made up of Conservatives and Abolitionists and even a former Democrat in Stanton and only one Radical in Chase

So please spare me your revisionist history, that seems to think Democrats are never at fault. They constantly have been as have Republicans

There is nothing worse than when someone is so dishonest when speaking of history as you have been here.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:31 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

First, the Republicans didn't start the Civil War. The Civil War was started by disgruntled slave owners in South Carolina, with the attack of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in December 1860, and was one of the founding member states of the Confederacy, in February 1861.

Second, Vietnam was started by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

Third, the Republicans were a different party at the time of the Civil War. Pay heed, you should know your history:

In 1792, the first Republicans were what we call the Democrats today. Their full name was the Republican/Democrats, with their primary initiates being the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison. Their opposites were the Federalists, the party of George Washington, VP John Adams, Massachusetts, and New Yorker, Secretary of the Treasurry, Alexander Hamilton. Yes, it was north versus south even then.

The next appearance of the Republican Party, began in in 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin. Its primary platform was anti-slavery and anti-polygamy (which was followed by the LDS sect). After slavery was abolished, the original Civil War Republicans split into two parts, one turning to their other political cause: women's suffrage. The faction working for the woman vote, creating the Progressive Party, which ran Teddy Roosevelt for president in 1912. The other faction simply turned to graft and corruption, having no cause anymore.

For a long time the Republican Party just represented "business", as President Hoover so aptly put it. But, the latest iteration of the Republican Party occurred in 1964, when Lee Atwater and followers of failed candidate, Barry Goldwater, redesigned the party with the Southern Strategy. Republicans became champions of three different causes: (1) anti-civil rights/pro-segregation; (2) anti-communism; and (3) the interests of money (outgrowth of the period after the Civil War).

The primary causes of the Republican Party today is anti-civil rights/pro-segregation, and moneyed interests. The anti-communist fad has gone away.

The biggest load of revisionist load of bullshit I have ever heard

Civil rights became later a part of the war. The union and keeping this together was the main cause of this conflict and the right of slave states to govern

Kennedy starting sending in forces into Vietnam, that were directing forces and attacks on the Vietconq

Your blind hate of the Republicans, is so bad now, it has gotten you to the point, where you are just making up history and not based on any facts.

Its also rubbish to claim the Republicans of the past are what would be classed as democracts today. As in now way even in the time of Lincoln, did they support equal rights for Blacks. You had a minor view advocating such a view, which went against what most Americans, wanted which was Abolition. This poor attempt to redefine politics and history to make something seem like it was Democrats, when it was the democrats against abolishing slavery. Its a complete perversion of the true events of history

There was never ever a concept of Republicans, until the 1850's, before this it was Federalists, whigs, Democrats. So yoiu are just making up stuff as you go along

So I am really am sorry, no amount of revisionism, is going to change the fact that Licoln, was very much a conservative in political beliefs. To claim otherwise is complete and utter nonsense. His cabinet was made up of Conservatives and Abolitionists and even a former Democrat in Stanton and only one Radical in Chase

So please spare me your revisionist history, that seems to think Democrats are never at fault. They constantly have been as have Republicans

How would you know, you've never finished primary school. Notice your short answer only starts with Kennedy, Igor? You're not equipped for this conversation, I can tell. Laughing

by Sponsored content