Ironside, Truman, a Democrat, was President in 1948 ,so that must mean that the country is on the ropes today because of the Republicans.I'll be by to collect my check later today.
Question: Did KKK members go to church before or after the meeting?
Ironside, if you take a look at these two maps you might be able to see what's really going on here:
County-by-county results for the:
- 1948 Presidential election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:194...
- 2012 Presidential election (you need. To click on the third map icon on the left to get the county-by-county map): http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/res...
The “relative perspectives” of the people on these issues have not changed much on a regional basis (that is, while the views of the country as a whole on, say, gay marriage may have shifted, the same areas that were most hostile to it “then” are still the most hostile to it “now”). The perspectives of the two political parties on these issues have largely reversed, however, which led to the seismic regional reversals shown in these maps. So the morally-superior (by your assessment) Republicans of today are, quite literally, the direct ancestors of the morally-despicable (ditto) Democrats of yesteryear!
They did, but I used the 1948 map to match the OP. I actually posted similar maps from 1900 and 2008 when Ironside tried last year to blame America's moral ills on the Democrats. Same patterns, fewer states so bigger gaps. Go too much earlier and you start running into now-defunct parties.
Scindapsus: 22 has it right. Look at the Party platforms. Which party promotes these social changes.
Scindapsus, Sometimes i let details stop me from seeing a very simple picture. Similar to my harping on and getting stuck in copyright laws in a previous blog, I could not comprehend the "message" or simple thought conveyed for looking at the trees. Which ultimately added misunderstanding to not only myself. At first I get lost in the details of well its 2013 and things are VERY different now etc etc... But when I think openly, what I see is how so many politicians, Dems in large have distorted and road the era of Roosevelt Reconstruction to a debauchery of libertinism. BIG BAD GOVERNMENT. I don't think this is what the Dem's of yesteryear had in mind.
Y'all are missing the point. When the party platforms changed, so did the affiliations of the people. The party per se is irrelevant. Back in the old days, when Democrats were all for slavery, Jim Crow, states rights, etc., this made them popular in some parts of the country and not in others. When the platforms of the two parties switched, this caused Democrats to become more relevant to those parts of the country that previously rejected the above-mentioned perspectives and to be rejected in those parts of the country that still clung to those views. And vice versa for the Republicans. The maps tell the story.
I think the question is not so much which political party has been in favor of states rights, freedom to own slaves, Jim Crow, etc., as that's obviously been subject to change due to political expediency over time. The question is where conservatives vs. liberals have tended to fall on these issues. Again, geography can inform us here.
I don't see the maps from later years ie the 40's..In reference to the link you posted.
But believe I may be starting to understand what you are seeing. In point, when looking at the 2008 map.
But why such a monumental sway in the map for 2008?
22, The election results in 2008 demonstrated that a political party can stumble so badly that voters are willing to put aside ideological differences and vote for any kind of change.
Scindapsus: When did the platforms of the two parties switch? Where is that documentation? Take a look at the 2012 party platforms, then try to answer my 64 thousand dollar question.
Fly, A hail marry pass to a Manchurain Candidate? Seems McCain was the better man when you look at decades of experience and he is an American Hero in my book a tad to liberal for most concervatives as well. But race aside Obama would never even been on the ticket in the 40's 50's etc,etc. I think McCain would have won on the hero card alone up to and around the 70's. If one can agree with this then we should have found the answer to Ironsides question. We don't have to go as far back as 1940 to have the knowledge it would take to discern a standard of practical truth. 22
McCain has never seen a war he didn't like and demonstrated very poor judgment when he chose Sara Palin as running mate.Discern away--no one political party can be blamed for our current decline.
Vietnam? Biden is a better choice? I recognize that all parties are to blame in ways but I perceive a greater accountability tethered to liberal thought. 22
Fly, will you explane why Palin was such a bad choice for a running mate? I feel Biden has no principles out side of a vote. I feel, Palin will stand, and has stood on what she believes. She has a back bone I like that. I feel if Biden's favorite color, is my favorite, is your favorite color too. What a joke of a person to bend so easily. 22
Past experience tells me that you will not concede an inch. However, I will take a minute to agree with 22 and Ironside that the middle to late 1960's were when the social/political Liberals first got a foothold in the national discussion through the media. This coincides with about the time the Democratic party changed its spots.
The 1960s Liberal/hippie/revoltutionary could bomb police stations and dodge the draft not only with immunity, but also with celebrity status. They could shoot innocent bank tellers and customers during robberies to finance their terrorist operations (they were called Freedom Fighters back then.) They could march in the streets, tear up property and occupy buildings, but it was always the police who were portrayed with the brutal tactics.
Later, when these hotheaded trailblazers grew up and had kids, they could finish their degrees, get advanced degrees and teach their BS to today's youth.
It is clear as day to me, and I will call you intellectually dishonest here and to your face if you do not concede at least one measure of truth in my statements.
For the great mass of Americans, the 1960's was more conservative than today. Today marijuana usage has become the norm ,but in the 60's was left to a relatively small segment in society. Children were born out of wedlock in the 60's but having a child outside of marriage was still considered to be scandalous by most Americans in contrast to contemporary Americans. The war in Vietnam Nam dragged on for a considerable time before the mass protests began and only because reporters were not "embedded" as they have been in recent wars. Compare popular culture today with the songs, the movies, and the television shows of today.Some of the popular entertainments of that era seem puritanical by our standards. Yes, there were radicals ,but they were essentially outliers. Unfortunately what was considered outré fifty years is accepted today.The reasons for this great shift are many and varied ,so I really don't think the Democrats -are -in -power -the -world -is -going -to -hell -thesis is adequate.Deep down I think you know better too.
The biggest problem with students today is not BS ,and BS comes in many flavors including the plain vanilla conservative flavor, but in the toxic anti-intellectualism, narcissism,and apathy that prevents them from learning much of anything. Call me whatever you like if it makes you feel better.
22, Palin's ramrod backbone extends to her skull which is also quite thick. If you have listened to her and the commonplaces, malapropisms,nonsequiturs and gaffes appeal to you, nothing I could say would dissuade you.
Fly, I can hand pick what I like about Palin. Just as you can hand pick what you dislike about her. Simply the fact that she stands her ground makes her IMO a far cry better than Biden for my voting taste. I still cant wrap my head around how the 2008 election paned out or why. I do agree with you that "we they them" are all guilty in one way or another for the moral make up of this or country. However it can be said there are some factions, single people and political parties that hold greater sway in the progress of the separation from our moral and constitutional foundation. To me Obama is a great threat and a contributing force that is now an idealism supported by much of the media and America. This idealism is so very much outside of our constitutional outline of democracy that it in no way supports the freedoms that are democracy. Look truly to the past and if you still support this man to be our commander and chief then you are blind to facts. Placeing you as part of the close mined presumtions that are so often part of the acusations placed upon people such as Palin. Maybe this is the answer to Ironsides question "closed minded people". 22
It curious that the same Republicans who claim to embrace populism denigrate Biden because he is a plain man who speaks plainly. It is the same cognitive dissonance that allowed Reblicans to support Romney and his elitist policies and think that they were supporting the aspirations of middle America. As far as Palin goes, it would be not that hard to find a female Republican with a brain.So what is her appeal? I am at a loss.
Fly I am not a Republican. I don't like the accusations that come with such labels. That's why I am not a Democrat either. Maybe I am wrong maybe Biden is not incompetent. "There ganna put yall back in chains" Biden "You can not go to a 7-11 without and Indian acsent" Biden "There just not use to somebody that's really smart" Biden "Happens to be a three letter word J-O-B-S" Bidens "This is a big f%^&*&g deal" Biden "How many of you know someone who has served in Iraq or Iran" Biden two or three times. He is a joke why because he is. You are right it would not be that hard to find a female Republican with a brain. I guess we all have competent moments as well as intellectually dishonest ones. Maybe Palin is just sexy maybe that's her appeal. Or maybe she doesn't crawfish on her beliefs in general.
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008
yep!! she's a smart one!!!
oooh oooh! how bout this one:
"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
she is a comedian. that's why I like palin so much
Well, if you're going to insist that we think about this in terms of Party names, let's look at your OP:
"In America, ... the Southern States [were] all controlled by 92% Democrat politicians. They held all important offices from Governor, the Legislature, and the Judicial System, to county, city, town and local police. It was one Party rule. ... In 1948, the percentage of children being raised by one parent was at it’s lowest level in our nation’s history. Blacks in 1948 had the highest rate of intact families in the United States. Black children were being raised by their natural parents at a 94% rate, the highest rate for any demographic group in America..."
"In 1948, American families that attended church was at it’s highest rate in American history. Divorce was at it’s lowest rate. Abortion was at it’s lowest rate. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Drug use both legal drugs and illegal drugs was at it’s lowest level. In 1948, Americans enjoyed high employment rates and economic mobility. They could find a better paying job, got more pay raises and promotions because of higher productivity. Business was able to operate free of unnecessary government rules, regulations, laws, and taxes. The economy was strong."
So, it would appear that America was most moral in your eyes when the Democrats were almost completely in charge, no doubt bottoming out during the Bush years when all branches of government were under Republican control!
When one says "and demonstrated very poor judgment when he chose Sara Palin as running mate". It seems to be very contradicting when you look at Obamas pick. I think Palin would and is a hard worker for one. And yes Turkey we all gaffe to sometimes. But I am convenced that Biden is a moron.
Facts have a way of focusing on what is going on in our country. Facts are the truth, not opinions. History is the study of human facts. What people did, and what they said. Facts have a way of upsetting people with strongly held opinions. The definition of opinions is: Personal view, the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment.
The reason we educate our children is so they will know the facts about our country. We can not maintain our Free Society without a well educated population that knows the facts about our country. Sadly, we have been teaching opinions to our children for far to long in our schools and universities. As a result, we have generations living in America that don't know what makes you an American. What makes you an "American" is not being born here, that concept is old world thinking, what makes you an "American" is the belief in individual Freedom. Freedom given to every person by God not by government or a ruler. A belief in the fundamental principals stated in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. These are the facts that everyone wanting to be an “American” must know.
Our American History has been a struggle between those who do not believe in our Founding Principals and those who do. Our two political parties are a reflection between these two opposing forces. The history of these two political parties demonstrate which side of the issue they stand for. Liberal vs. Conservative
I stand with our Founding Principles because, in an imperfect world these Principles provide the greatest opportunity for everyone to succeed provided, they are honest, disciplined, and hard working. I learned this by being in the United States Army, an institution dedicated to our Founding Principals. Conversely, a person can be taught to be dishonest, undisciplined, and lazy. Those who are unwilling to be honest, disciplined and hard working, gather in groups and organizations to fight to change our county to their beliefs and opinions on how our country should be run. Thus, the Democrat Party and it’s supporters.
The facts I present about 1948 are to show that if we were honest about our history, the truth is, that the Democrat Party has throughout it’s history been fighting to change the way we were founded.
Faced with your own facts, you seemed to have abandoned any pretense of them supporting your assertions, which you now simply elevate to the status of the truth. Ah well. You did kind of start out in a mess by pointing out that things were different, both better and worse, in 1948 when the Dems were in control, and then try to conclude from this that the Dems were the only ones responsible for the bad things, and only the bad things.
And it must be awkward to keep ignoring the fact that in 1948 the evil Dems dominated our own part of the country while the good and true Repubs dominated the godless Northeast, which is a complete reversal of the situation today. I mean, do you really think that Southerners were evil but their ancestors are good, while Yankees were good but are now evil? What could have caused such a massive versioning of our national morality??
Honest, disciplined, and hard working people don't need rules, regulations and laws. They can self regulate themselves. This is why our Founding Fathers believed in small limited government with checks and balances to fight against the consolidation of power that always results in destroying individual Freedom. Rules, regulations and laws are needed to control dishonest, undisciplined and lazy people in a society. The more we fail to teach our children; they learn by watching what adults do; to be honest, disciplined, and hard working, the more rules, regulations and laws we need to control the moral decay in our society. Thus the need for bigger and bigger government, which one Party advocates. Democrats create the chaos and problems with government programs, then offer government solutions to the problems they created. It is Liberalism on steroids. We don't need government programs. We need a return to our Founding Principals which will return us to a moral, disciplined and hard working society, in which anyone can prosper and be what ever they wish to be. Flash news… Detroit just filed for bankruptcy. Please tell us what good the Democrat Party, that controlled that city for over 50 years, did for that city? Where ever Liberal Democrats raise their head, moral and economic decline follows. In the 1970’s,80’s, and 90’s New York City went bankrupt under Democrat City government control. Rudy Giuliani a Republican turned things around by lowering taxes, cutting the size of government, which created budget surpluses and lowered the crime rate. There is a difference in philosophy between the two Parties, just as there is a difference in their history.
OK, Ironside I was going to just let this one go because you started out so far in left field in the OP. Since you're 65 and were born in 1948, I think you're probably the root of the entire decline of American civilization. Obviously, you are only trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Democrats to draw suspicion away from yourself.
It is because not everyone is "Honest, disciplined, and hard working people don't need rules, regulations and laws" that we have government. That government and those rules and regulations and laws are designed to protect you (presuming you are honest, disciplined and hard working) from those who are not. If you think we don't need government programs, send your Social Security check to the US Treasury for deposit into the general fund. (I think you mentioned you were a teacher so maybe you're drawing state retirement instead of SS.)
Your feeble attempts to lay the blame for the nation's ills at the feet of one party to the exclusion of the other are laughable. Why not just blame the Jews? The Irish have always been good scapegoats as well. Could be a Muslim stealth intifada.
Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job in crafting the Constitution and ensuring the legislative gridlock we currently have. Thank God for that. If I had my druthers, I would only allow Congress to sit for 180 days and require 90% attendance for a quorum and no speeches without a quorum. That should get a lot of those talking heads off TV pretty quickly.
I digress - back to the Founding Fathers. They compromised! Yes, that foul word. That's why blacks were 3/5s of a person. That's why life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were used in the Declaration of Independence rather than life, liberty, and property. And they were elitists - they wanted the hoi polloi kept out of the process. That's why we are a republic and why only property owners could originally vote.
I'm sure nothing I say will change your mind set and I will not try and confuse the issue with facts. We all have our personal delusions,
And, Charlie, speaking of delusions: "The 1960s Liberal/hippie/revoltutionary could bomb police stations and dodge the draft not only with immunity, but also with celebrity status. They could shoot innocent bank tellers and customers during robberies to finance their terrorist operations (they were called Freedom Fighters back then.) They could march in the streets, tear up property and occupy buildings, but it was always the police who were portrayed with the brutal tactics"! Really.? I never remember any SDS, Weatherman or other radical, being portrayed as a Freedom Fighter or being accorded celebrity status (other than Patty Hearst - a special case). And I never saw any indication that those who bombed police stations or robbed banks were not pursued with all of the vigor as any other criminal. You must have been reading significantly different news reports than I during that period.
I agree that the Republicans have given in to the big government model put together by the Democrats over the past 100 years. A progressive march towards Socialist government. Many Republicans use government, the tax code to reward their big donners and supporters. These Republicans only disagree with the Democrats on who should be in charge of the Big Government.
No ,I am not the problem that I discribe. I spent my time in the Army and never fell for the Liberal Philosophy. As for SS, I had no choice but to have my money taken out by the government for SS. I am only getting it back. As for your discription of the 1960's, what Charlie says about SDS, Weathermen or other radicals was what the Liberal Left was calling them and still does to this day. Bill Ayers and Angela Davis have been invited by GSU to speak as if they are Americans to be admired. They are not Americans. They are revolutionaries of the left dedicated to the downfall of our government. The 1960's was all about the Left wanting to change our country. The only good thing about the 60's was the Civil Rights Movement of MLK targeted at the Democrat one Party rule in Southern States and their Jim Crow laws. I stand corrected. The music was great in the 60's!
Fly, you said, "As far as Palin goes, it would be not that hard to find a female Republican with a brain.So what is her appeal? I am at a loss."
Wow, really. Com'on Fly...she has a really nice set of ...glasses.
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist. :-)
Age 18 is another Liberal measure pushed thru by the Left. It is not a proper age to give full adult status to an individual. Age 21 was right and should be returned too. The notion that an 18 year old member of the military can fight and die for thier country but could not vote was used to change this. 18 year old members of the military are managed very closely in the military. The Lefts argument has hurt millions of young 18,19,and 20 year olds in our country. It is time to end this failure of the Left too!
Bryant, You'd have a hard time convincing my mother of that. I have to assume you prefer she hang with Palin. Given your answer. 22
Ironside, Dermestid Beetle
Fly - that liberal weenie- is hanging with the horse flies right now ,so I thought I'd weigh in. I like your idea about raising the age of majority ,but I think you don't go far enough. I think we ought to raise the age of majority to 65. If citizens were considered to be adults at 65, we could get away from nambypamby,socialist ideas like Social Security and pensions for the aged. Since 65- yr- olds would be considered adults ,they would be required to stand on their own two feet without an allowance from Uncle Sucker and without taking from the Makers. People under the age of 65 would not be allowed to join unions since they would not become adults until age 65. Whiny liberals would be voting in smaller numbers since many of them would have learned the error of their ways by the time they hit the big 65! Think of it-- the tea party could become the majority party!!!!
I like your idea about close supervision. People under 65 could be put under close supervision--just like in the army! People could go to summer camp every summer, learning valuable skills like making lanyards or learning how to field strip an assault weapon.Think of the educational opportunities.People could get back to right thinking in no time!!!!
Children under the age of 65 would receive the supervision they desperately need. With a tweak here and there, I think we can get back on the right path.