Current Events > TN lawmakers punish Memphis for removing Confederate statues

(+) Yeah! (+)

Caution999 posted...

Abraham Lincoln: "The south shall be forgiven!! ...until 2018, when I want people to revise history and forget about what happened here."

The South shouldn't have been forgiven. Reconstruction should have lasted into the 20th century.
---

Caution999 posted...

The guy who killed Lincoln? A Democrat
The guy who killed MLK Jr? A Democrat
The guy who founded the KKK? A Democrat

Caution999 posted...

So you believe EVERYbody in the GOP is like this one guy?

You're demonizing the other side by making us all the same. Congrats.

Professional bullshitters like Trump and Hannity have years between contradictory tweets.

Amateurs contradict themselves within the hour.
---

Caution999 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution999 posted...

The Republican party supports more...family values today.

"Family Values"

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76490433

So you believe EVERYbody in the GOP is like this one guy?

You're demonizing the other side by making us all the same. Congrats.

I didn't even say anything remotely like that. Also you are one to talk about demonizing a side over one person.
---

I only brought that stuff up because of people like E3 who believe that one side is racist, and the other side isn't.

Guy never picked up a history book though
---

Balrog0 posted...

it really isn't clear if you just look at the state-level results of presidential elections. I bet if we looked at the composition of the house it would be more telling though

Governors
Alabama had an unbroken string of Democrats from 1874-1987, and have now had a Republican in office since 2002
Louisiana: Democrats from 1877-1980, Republicans have held the office 16 of the last 22 years
Georgia: Democrats from 1872-2003, Republicans since
SC: Democrats from 1879-1975, GOP for 27 of the last 31 years
Mississippi: Democrats from 1876-1992, GOP for 22 of the last 26 years
---

so you're telling me that the switch actually happened in the mid 80s to mid 90s
---

or maybe early 2000s
---

Balrog0 posted...

so you're telling me that the switch actually happened in the mid 80s to mid 90s

Exactly.

So there was this mysterious lag since 1965. I guess the South had the 23K speed newspapers?
---

oh I think there are plenty of perfectly plausible explanations for why the process took a generation, some of which are indicated by the presidential election results

it isn't coincidental that the democrats to win southern states were democrats from southern states. political parties are social clubs as much as they're platforms for policies, people vote for what is familiar to them, and there are still to this day tons of generational southern democrats who are only democrats because that is what their families have alwyas been even though they are totally out of step with the national and even state parties
---

The switch was by no means instantaneous, yeah. It's notable to me that this list picks up steam in 1960s, mostly among southern politicians, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States#Democratic_to_Republican

It has this sequence of people who did so while in office in the 90s

1994 Mike Bowers, while Attorney General of Georgia (19811997)
1994 Fob James, former Governor of Alabama (19791983). Later Governor of Alabama (19951999)
1994 Richard Shelby, while U.S. Senator from Alabama (1994present) [Before Jones, he was the last Democrat to be Senator in Alabama; he is still in office]
1995 Jimmy Hayes, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana (19871997)
1995 Greg Laughlin, while U.S. Representative from Texas (19891997)
1995 Ben Nighthorse Campbell, while U.S. Senator from Colorado (19932005)
1995 Billy Tauzin, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana (19802005)
1995 Nathan Deal, while U.S. Representative from Georgia (19932011). Later became the 82nd Governor of Georgia (2011present)
1995 Mike Parker, while U.S. Representative from Mississippi (19891999)

Judging by their tenures, most won re-election despite the party change

The Republican to Democrat list is much smaller until the 2000s, and those officials generally seem to be of a lower-level office.

Anecdotally, I think West Virginia still has a bunch more registered Democrats (who then can only vote in their parties' primaries) just as institutional holdovers. There was some weird stat about how a bunch of Sanders' WV voters in 2016 planned to vote Trump in the general.
---

Acts of vandalism being punished......good.

The Admiral posted...

I don't really take issue with the state fining them for that. It's not like the $250K that was earmarked for a festival is really that big of a deal.

rofl textbook conservative doesn't see the problem with essentially taxing a city for something the didn't like

who was it that said the power to tax is the power to destroy
---

Balrog0 posted...

oh I think there are plenty of perfectly plausible explanations for why the process took a generation, some of which are indicated by the presidential election results

it isn't coincidental that the democrats to win southern states were democrats from southern states. political parties are social clubs as much as they're platforms for policies, people vote for what is familiar to them, and there are still to this day tons of generational southern democrats who are only democrats because that is what their families have alwyas been even though they are totally out of step with the national and even state parties

And that's fine. I think it's completely fair to say both sides have their fair share of racists. Post #7 annoyed me.

I'm just sick and tired of the public perception that Conservatives = Racists.
---

Balrog0 posted...

so you're telling me that the switch actually happened in the mid 80s to mid 90s

I'd say it started in the late 1940s. The "Dixiecrats" were those who seceded from the Southern Democratic party because they were opposed to the party's support of extending civil rights to black people in 1948.

Then you have Barry Goldwater who was critical of the Eisenhower administration because he thought their policies were "too liberal for a Republican president." Goldwater was staunchly opposed to the civil rights movement and would become the Republican party's presidential nomination in 1964. Liberal Republicans were opposed to Goldwater. They said he was too far on the right wing of the political spectrum to win a presidential election.

Goldwater lost to the democratic nominee Lyndon B. Johnson in a landslide. Johnson went on to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law as well as the voting rights act of 1965.
---

CableZL posted...

Balrog0 posted...

so you're telling me that the switch actually happened in the mid 80s to mid 90s

I'd say it started in the late 1940s. The "Dixiecrats" were those who seceded from the Southern Democratic party because they were opposed to the party's support of extending civil rights to black people in 1948.

Then you have Barry Goldwater who was critical of the Eisenhower administration because he thought their policies were "too liberal for a Republican president." Goldwater was staunchly opposed to the civil rights movement and would become the Republican party's presidential nomination in 1964. Liberal Republicans were opposed to Goldwater. They said he was too far on the right wing of the political spectrum to win a presidential election.

Goldwater lost to the democratic nominee Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson went on to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law as well as the voting rights act of 1965.

NOPE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT
THEY DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE AND IMMEDIATELY CHANGE PARTIES

THAT MEANS YOU'RE WROOOOOOOOONG
- current events
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

The totally-not-racist party of small government strikes again!

---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't really take issue with the state fining them for that. It's not like the $250K that was earmarked for a festival is really that big of a deal.

rofl textbook conservative doesn't see the problem with essentially taxing a city for something the didn't like

who was it that said the power to tax is the power to destroy

Did you deliberately not quote my entire post because you knew this would sound silly if you did?
---

The Admiral posted...

E32005 posted...

Caution going the Admiral route

Nice to see you keeping that streak alive

Dawww
---

Antifar posted...

Anecdotally, I think West Virginia still has a bunch more registered Democrats (who then can only vote in their parties' primaries) just as institutional holdovers. There was some weird stat about how a bunch of Sanders' WV voters in 2016 planned to vote Trump in the general.

In Arkansas, which if you look at most metrics was one of the last states to flip from D to R (our last D governor lasted until 2014, as did our last D Senator -- our state house didn't flip totally until 2012), there are still more elected officials that are Democrats than Republicans on the county level. That's despite the fact that the GOP has every statewide and federal office, plus a super majority in the house and senate.

The reason? A combination of the fact that party building takes time to become electorally effective, and the fact that county judges and sheriffs do not have term limits, letting old time incumbents stay in power even when they become out of touch with what their official party stance is
---

@CableZL

Just wanted to apologize for the "contradictions". My goal was to show post #7 that their side isn't exactly free of guilt here. In the process, I did exactly the same thing.

And this is why, this crap drives me crazy. Anyone who thinks racism is exclusive to one political party is out of their friggin mind.
---

The Admiral posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't really take issue with the state fining them for that. It's not like the $250K that was earmarked for a festival is really that big of a deal.

rofl textbook conservative doesn't see the problem with essentially taxing a city for something the didn't like

who was it that said the power to tax is the power to destroy

Did you deliberately not quote my entire post because you knew this would sound silly if you did?

rest of your post doesn't change anything i said
there's the part about them not getting proper permission, but that's not really true they found a technicality, a loophole.
Therefore this was a vindictive act, or as I should say

the power to tax is the power to destroy

---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't really take issue with the state fining them for that. It's not like the $250K that was earmarked for a festival is really that big of a deal.

rofl textbook conservative doesn't see the problem with essentially taxing a city for something the didn't like

who was it that said the power to tax is the power to destroy

Did you deliberately not quote my entire post because you knew this would sound silly if you did?

rest of your post doesn't change anything i said
there's the part about them not getting proper permission, but that's not really true they found a technicality, a loophole.
Therefore this was a vindictive act, or as I should say

the power to tax is the power to destroy

This wasn't a tax, so your post is still quite silly.
---

Caution999 posted...

And this is why, this crap drives me crazy. Anyone who thinks racism is exclusive to one political party is out of their friggin mind.

Why is your response to "Conservatives are currently being racist" to point out past times where other people were racist? No one in this topic is saying they'd be okay with Democrats punishing Republicans for removing confederate statues.
---

southcoast09 posted...

Good. They needed to answer for what they did to them.

Who are "they" and "then"?
---

The Admiral posted...

This wasn't a tax, so your post is still quite silly.

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

essentially taxing a city

---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

This wasn't a tax, so your post is still quite silly.

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

essentially taxing a city

Repeating something that's wrong multiple times over doesn't make it less wrong.
---

Right wingers REEEAAAAALLY love their losers.
---

Heard you were talking shit about my son itt.
---

My question is this: With regards to the demons of history:

Where do we draw the line? Should we just erase everyone up until about 1980 or so? We all understand these generals weren't particularly good people or stood for the right things. When do we get to a point and say to ourselves: "yeah, this guy did not have good morals or had much of a heart, but if it wasn't for him, this country could've been shaped very differently".

Let's erase George Washington from the $1.
Andrew Jackson? C'mon now.
Ben Franklin was a skirt chaser. He's gotta go.
---

The Admiral posted...

Repeating something that's wrong multiple times over doesn't make it less wrong.

if you don't wanna acknowledge that it is essentially a tax then you must be in hard denial

using funding as leverage against the people is wholly UnAmerican and again, I find it really funny that you actually see no problem with this
---

Caution999 posted...

Where do we draw the line?

treason
---

DadofStrawman posted...

Heard you were talking shit about my son itt.

Omg
---

Caution999 posted...

Where do we draw the line?

People that are only known for the bad things they've done, such as Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest, shouldn't have statues honoring them.

Additionally, even if people are known for the good they've done, they shouldn't have statues made for the purpose of intimidating others. For example, virtually all of the confederate statues were put up in the 50s and 60s specifically to counter the civil rights movement.

A statue of Martin Luther King Jr should not be put up to protest the gay rights movement.
---

Caution999 posted...

My question is this: With regards to the demons of history:

Where do we draw the line? Should we just erase everyone up until about 1980 or so? We all understand these generals weren't particularly good people or stood for the right things. When do we get to a point and say to ourselves: "yeah, this guy did not have good morals or had much of a heart, but if it wasn't for him, this country could've been shaped very differently".

How about we take down statutes specifically built during times of racial tension that were solely constructed not to "honor and respect the past" but to intimidate minorities. There's a reason why the vast majority of these things were constructed from the 1890s to the 1950s, with the largest spike between the 1900s and 1920s.

But sure, bitch and moan about protecting "muh history!" while ignoring the actual reason why these were constructed. Because shoving your head in the sand and ignoring context is what you do best.
---

if we take down statues of traitors and the founder of the KKK, where does it end? Will liberals ever be happy?
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

if we take down statues of traitors and the founder of the KKK, where does it end? Will liberals ever be happy?

---

Caution999 posted...

My question is this: With regards to the demons of history:

Where do we draw the line? Should we just erase everyone up until about 1980 or so? We all understand these generals weren't particularly good people or stood for the right things. When do we get to a point and say to ourselves: "yeah, this guy did not have good morals or had much of a heart, but if it wasn't for him, this country could've been shaped very differently".

Let's erase George Washington from the $1.
Andrew Jackson? C'mon now.
Ben Franklin was a skirt chaser. He's gotta go.

Taking down statues isn't erasing history. Where does this logic come from?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

if we take down statues of traitors and the founder of the KKK, where does it end? Will liberals ever be happy?

---

CableZL posted...

Taking down statues isn't erasing history. Where does this logic come from?

People who didn't pay attention in school so the only history they know is what they see on the streets
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Caution999 posted...

My question is this: With regards to the demons of history:

Where do we draw the line? Should we just erase everyone up until about 1980 or so? We all understand these generals weren't particularly good people or stood for the right things. When do we get to a point and say to ourselves: "yeah, this guy did not have good morals or had much of a heart, but if it wasn't for him, this country could've been shaped very differently".

How about we take down statutes specifically built during times of racial tension that were solely constructed not to "honor and respect the past" but to intimidate minorities. There's a reason why the vast majority of these things were constructed from the 1890s to the 1950s, with the largest spike between the 1900s and 1920s.

But sure, bitch and moan about protecting "muh history!" while ignoring the actual reason why these were constructed. Because shoving your head in the sand and ignoring context is what you do best.

Rekt, but they wont respond
---

Caution999 posted...

My question is this: With regards to the demons of history:

Where do we draw the line? Should we just erase everyone up until about 1980 or so? We all understand these generals weren't particularly good people or stood for the right things. When do we get to a point and say to ourselves: "yeah, this guy did not have good morals or had much of a heart, but if it wasn't for him, this country could've been shaped very differently".

Let's erase George Washington from the $1.
Andrew Jackson? C'mon now.
Ben Franklin was a skirt chaser. He's gotta go.

How about we start with the easy line of "No statues of traitors to America"? The statue for Benedict Arnold doesn't even contain his name.
---