QuoteTo take your analogy, it is true that not all conservatives who supported the war supported shooting student protestors.  But [almost literally] all who supported shooting student protestors supported the war and were conservatives.

Many people who supported the shooting of students couldn't have care one way or the other about the war. The simply saw the students as riotous lawbreakers who needed to be stopped.

QuoteThe same applies to anti-war protestors and blowing up college buildings.

How many of the National Guardsmen who shot at the students at Kent State have be promoted to "hero of the right" status, as Bill Ayers has been elevated to "hero of the left" status?

QuoteErgo, you are merely comparing different extremes of the political spectrum, and erroneously concluding that this means that the two were fundamentally different "types" of conservatives, for example.  The war hawks and those who supported shooting hippies were not fundamentally different; both were conservatives, just to different degrees.

Actually you're simply displaying the Left's tendency  to think of people in groups and to ascribe the views and outlook to the entire group. If you actually knew anything about conservatives, you'd know that we run the spectrum from Paleo-Cons on the extreme right to Neo-Cons on the near right. The big difference between the left and the right is that the right won't necessarily close ranks on every left/right issue as the left always seems to do.

QuoteThe primary opposition to the civil rights movement came from the right.  Did some conservatives support it?  Sure.  Did some liberals oppose it?  Sure.  You can always find exceptions to trends.  Doesn't mean the trends do not exist.

As someone who lived through that era, which obviously you haven't, the primary opposition came from where it had always come - FROM DEMOCRATS. You're continual attempt to disown half of your party while claiming credit that rightfully belongs to Republics, wholly for the rump of your party, is fairly transparent. You Northern Liberal supported those racists for one hundred years, and then because a minority of you Dems FINALLY voted for a Civil Rights Bill - exactly like the ones all you Dems had voted against for decades - where supposed to give you credit for Civil Rights.

QuoteFor example, I can think of conservative politicians who supported civil rights.  But few did so as fervently as liberals such as MLK or even JFK.  Partially because they knew their base opposed it, and also partially because they themselves were not feeling it.  Similarly, the most fervent opposition to the movement came from the south.

IT CAME FROM DEMOCRATS IN THE SOUTH, THE EXACT SAME SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, NORTHERN LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAD SUPPORTED FOR YEARS. Again where did you ever get the idea that JFK supported Civil Rights? Mostly he was interested in keeping the Dems Southern base intact. That's what he was in Dallas for, to mend fences with Southern Dems.

Mdgiles, I know that you are old.  Really old.  So perhaps this would account for your startlingly short attention span/memory capacity.

I've already made it clear, several times in fact, that I don't give a shit about party histories.  I care about ideological histories.  Democrats were racist.  Too bad for you they were conservative.  That's all I care about.  Do you fancy the democratic party a corporation, and me its marketing director?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 05:28:51 PM
Mdgiles, I know that you are old.  Really old.  So perhaps this would account for your startlingly short attention span/memory capacity.

I've already made it clear, several times in fact, that I don't give a shit about party histories.  I care about ideological histories.  Democrats were racist.  Too bad for you they were conservative.  That's all I care about.  Do you fancy the democratic party a corporation, and me its marketing director?

Yes, and the point you keep missing is, they still would not have been "one of us".  A conservative democrat does not equal a liberal republican.  You (again) are trying to narrow and twist statements, so that you sound rational, when the more you do that, the less rational you sound.  It is the old, love is blind, God is love, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God argument, it does not wash.

Quote from: JustKari on August 11, 2012, 06:48:37 PM
Yes, and the point you keep missing is, they still would not have been "one of us".  A conservative democrat does not equal a liberal republican.  You (again) are trying to narrow and twist statements, so that you sound rational, when the more you do that, the less rational you sound.  It is the old, love is blind, God is love, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God argument, it does not wash.

What he fails to understand, is that back in the days of slavery, "modern liberalism", (which began with the New Deal), didn't exist. Pretty much everyone was conservative. We didn't have people laying around and blaming the rich. We didn't have people railing for gay rights. We didn't have people calling for the government to take care of them.

By using his flawed and convoluted logic, the point he is attempting to make, is that, because there used to be conservative democrats, conservatives are racists. Since this line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, it's impossible to argue against it in a rational manner.

I'll continue reading sci fi's posts, for entertainment value, but I think I'm done responding to his nonsense. He stands as a reminder of why this upcoming election is so important.

Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2012, 05:26:45 AM
What he fails to understand, is that back in the days of slavery, "modern liberalism", (which began with the New Deal), didn't exist. Pretty much everyone was conservative. We didn't have people laying around and blaming the rich. We didn't have people railing for gay rights. We didn't have people calling for the government to take care of them.

By using his flawed and convoluted logic, the point he is attempting to make, is that, because there used to be conservative democrats, conservatives are racists. Since this line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, it's impossible to argue against it in a rational manner.

I'll continue reading sci fi's posts, for entertainment value, but I think I'm done responding to his nonsense. He stands as a reminder of why this upcoming election is so important.

Ran away from my response to this, didn't you?  Even if we go by your assumption that "modern" liberalism did not exist until the 20th century, my point would still apply to the civil rights movement, the war on Evolution, contraceptive use and basic gay rights that even you would support today.  So you've "refuted" a portion of my argument, and then try desperately to pretend that you can ignore the other 90%.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:13:30 AM
Ran away from my response to this, didn't you? 

Ohhh  the Irony!!!
You have the audacity to claim someone else ran away?
Ohhh that's rich!

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 07:22:57 AM

Ohhh  the Irony!!!
You have the audacity to claim someone else ran away?
Ohhh that's rich!

Actually, I responded to your accusation in seven separate posts.  You ignored all of them.  Who's being ironic now?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:27:49 AM
Actually, I responded to your accusation in seven separate posts.  You ignored all of them.  Who's being ironic now?

If you insist on continuing this lie, you will get a time out.
If you admitted that you were wrong about Palin, then simply copy and past the quote, if you fail, you will be taking a break from the forum.
One thing that all members understand, is if you make a bull shit claim and are asked for proof of said claim, be prepared to back it up with evidence.
So I will ask one last time, prove your claim, or take a timeout.
And I better not get some song and dance, just proof.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 07:34:16 AM
So I will ask one last time, prove your claim, or take a timeout.
And I better not get some song and dance, just proof.

How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:43:31 AM
How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

You really are a piece of work.
So now, it was hyperbole

I'll will let you see your post but not respond, so you can dwell on your answer, which I will bold and expand, so you can read what you said clearly.

Looks and sounds pretty childish and stupid when you see it blown up, doesn't it?
Well that's how we view all your posts, childish and stupid.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 08:00:20 AM
So now, it was hyperbole

I need to say no more.  You just proved my point here and now.

"now" is was hyperbole?  I stated so several pages ago, more than half a dozen times by now, half of them directed at you.

In other words, you accuse me of a crime, but have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you never even bothered to read anything I posted.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:43:31 AM
How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

I am a book editor,hate to tell you, since you used examples of that libs commonly use as fact, hyperbole defense will not work in this situation.  From dictionary online:

hyperbole [ hahy-pur-buh-lee ]

noun Rhetoric 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

The only person that your statement was hyperbole to, was you, therefore NOT obvious, and NOT hyperbole.  Try again.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 08:01:49 AM
I need to say no more.  You just proved my point here and now.

"now" is was hyperbole?  I stated so several pages ago, more than half a dozen times by now, half of them directed at you.

In other words, you accuse me of a crime, but have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you never even bothered to read anything I posted.

You know why you are on timeout? It's your need to insult someones intelligence rather than man up when you make a mistake.
I've been using the term mistake, only out of courtesy, but I'm done being courteous, you are just a fuckin idiot that never uses critical thinking, let alone think for yourself.

You repeated what you thought was the truth because you are a tool of the left, then when I called you on it to back it up with proof, you claim I'm an idiot for not seeing it as hyperbole.
This is just another one of those evasive moves that spoiled kids use to get out of admitting they are incompetent.

Own it son, you showed you are nothing but a fool and tool of the left, not worthy of posting on this forum.

Quote from: JustKari on August 12, 2012, 08:12:55 AM
I am a book editor,hate to tell you, since you used examples of that libs commonly use as fact, hyperbole defense will not work in this situation.  From dictionary online:

hyperbole [ hahy-pur-buh-lee ]

noun Rhetoric 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

The only person that your statement was hyperbole to, was you, therefore NOT obvious, and NOT hyperbole.  Try again.

This is where he makes mistakes, he thinks were as stupid as his peers, the people that post on lib sites.

I'll add to that, his need to use (PIE) Parse, Insult and Evade.
Yes, it's something I've coined, but if you can remember it, it will help in spotting a troll.

It's something they have learned from the Marxists when responding to the Right, they needle in on one tiny point, something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, then insult the one making the real point to try and put them on the defensive, and finally, they ask a question to throw the argument back in the lap of their perceived enemy.
All the while avoiding having to address the actual issue at hand.