If only Atlas existed...

[Simfan34]

Simfan why is Barack Obama dressed a Nation of Islam member in your signature?

Because he looks like someone I could support.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldies, there are a plethora of reasons the Republican Party is today more worthy of your vote than the Democratic Party.

Not only is 'the Democrats supported slavery in the 1860s' not one of them, that's actually really stupid. Because organizations that have been around for centuries change with the times.

The example that you are Christian but disapprove of the Crusades was brought up. You answered that that's OK, because Christ would have disapproved of the Crusades too.

Lincoln wanted to deport black people to Central America. However, this is not a valid reason to oppose the Republican Party today. Why? Because everybody who was part of the organization back then is dead. Therefore, they no longer matter. You have to judge an organization by what it does now, or what it's done in the comparatively recent past (within the memberships of the majority of it's current members is how I would define this) to decide whether you approve or disapprove of it. The 1860s can't decide your vote in 2012.

Lincoln wanted to establish a voluntary colonization program, and that was actually a very common position among abolitionists.  I'm not simply a Republican because of the history, and I realize that those guys are dead, but that is what doesn't matter.  What matters is that the suppprters of slavery were Democrats, and I don't think anybody who knows that would want to associate themselves with the Democrats because of that.  I realize that it was a long time ago, but it's part of the history.  Does the Democrats' past support of slavery make you want to support them, no matter how long ago it was?  And remember that many places voted a certain way for over a century because of the Civil War.  As I said, I have plenty of other reasons that I'm a Republican; the civil rights history is simply one of those.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

People do know that the Democrats supported slavery way back when. However, they're still willing to be part of that party in today's society because they prioritize current policy over past policy. If someone is pro-choice, supports a national healthcare system, etc. having them vote GOP because of a 150 year old war is pointless & likely a disservice to them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can we take this somewhere else and leave this thread alone?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

People do know that the Democrats supported slavery way back when. However, they're still willing to be part of that party in today's society because they prioritize current policy over past policy. If someone is pro-choice, supports a national healthcare system, etc. having them vote GOP because of a 150 year old war is pointless & likely a disservice to them.

Most people probably don't know it, since Democrats and the mainstream media have done such a good job of hiding it and pretending that Republicans were the ones who supported slavery and segregation.  That's why Democrats can get away with saying that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow laws and poll taxes, or that voting Republican would result in cross-burnings and church bombings.

Can we take this somewhere else and leave this thread alone?

My feelings exactly.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism.  And are you so pathetic that you have to get rid of the Old Confederacy to make you party look like they were the heroes of civil rights when they weren't?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

What I mean is that within the South, both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans (which did in fact exist) opposed the Civil Rights act almost universally. Outside the CSA, both parties overwhelmingly supported the Act, with a slightly higher % of Northern Democrats doing so.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism. 

I have a problem with this. If it wasn't racism, what was it? And regardless of its name, was it in any way right?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I guess it's cool to hate the micks then (as long as you white).

[traininthedistance]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism. 

I have a problem with this. If it wasn't racism, what was it? And regardless of its name, was it in any way right?

Back in the 1800s, the Irish, Italians, etc. were (I kid you not) not universally considered "white".  I hate to get all academic theory on you, but "whiteness" is a social construct.

[Mechaman]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism.

I'm sorry what is this, I don't even. . . . . . .

Do you seriously hear yourself sometimes?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism.  I realize they weren't considered white, but they were by just about any objective standard.

I have a problem with this. If it wasn't racism, what was it? And regardless of its name, was it in any way right?

It was nativism.

I guess it's cool to hate the micks then (as long as you white).

No.  I certainly do not excuse the nativism that was prevalent in many GOP circles for so many years.  I myself am about half Irish by ancestry (and proud of it).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Don't forget Indian policy. Republican administrations were guilty of some right atrocities in that area.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Don't forget Indian policy. Republican administrations were guilty of some right atrocities in that area.

And I certainly don't excuse that.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Don't forget Indian policy. Republican administrations were guilty of some right atrocities in that area.

And I certainly don't excuse that.

And how would you feel if we were to remind you this at every opportunity? HURR DURR THE GOP IS PARTY OF XENOPHOBIC NAVITISM?

[Mechaman]

1904 US Presidential Election plus a version of recent events

Lief: Can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I'm going to have to vote for Roosevelt guys.  Granted, Parker is a little more liberal, but he and Roosevelt are basically the same and Roosevelt has at least a proven record of regulation and trust busting.
TNF: Unbelievable!  The man is a warmongering pro-WASP elitist who has been on record in his staunch belief that the superior races should rule the weaker.  Any man who is true in his liberalism will vote for Debs, the true choice for the working classes!  WE had things going kind of well until about mid last decade when the corporatocracy exploded the so-called "radicalism" of strikers who had the audacity to oppose that tyrant George Pullman and his ilk from returning us all to a level of serfdom that would be considered liberal only in the 10th century!  What the hell is wrong with you!
Antonio: I realize that Roosevelt is probably the best we could probably expect from the Republican Party, but there is no way I can support him.  He is still a Republican who is an open advocate of imperialism and who embraces the race politics that is all too common and popular among his party members.  I'm a registered Democrat and a proud liberal who supported both Cleveland and Bryan's call for honest and clean government and an opposition to the crony elitism of the Republican Party and their base.  I am not going back on that record just because the nominee this year isn't a purist.  Parker, at the very least, doesn't want to force a culture of White Anglo Protestant Supremacy on the immigrants and other nations of the so-called "uncivilized".
Dallasfan: Well, the GOP hates immigrants.  But at the same time I'm not going to vote for a Democratic Party that has hypocritical enough to support the second class citizenship of African Americans.  We have civil liberties and civil rights enshrined in our constitution!  Why are we even having a debate on whether we should or shouldn't be able to hang people! We need a party that supports the rights of all while not advocating extreme government socialism!  Ugh, I guess I have to vote for Debs, the Socialists at least have some advocates of non-government action.
Cathcon: Shut up you extreme liberal.  There is a reason why your ilk doesn't have a choice.  Because no one who is a patriot of American ideals would espouse such radical libertine ideals that only the most immoral thrill in.  GO back to your opium den and smoke on that, you zen sodomizer.  Besides have you been around lately?  Since McKinley and crew have come in the GOP has taken a new attitude towards the noble immigrant masses.  Roosevelt realizes the same thing, and is a proud American who has advanced the cause of American prosperity and liberty the world over.  We are freeing the world from tyranny and all you damned miscreants can talk about are some insane notion about equality between the races or some stupid moronic junk like that.  Let's talk about policies that make America strong and gives it a place in the world!  Ideas like a strong import tariff and an assertive navy, something you opium smoking alcoholics wouldn't understand!  Get off your lazy asses and get a job at a factory and work your way up instead of crying for the government to give you money while advocating anarchy!
Vosem: Any sane supporter of the AMerican economic system should support Roosevelt.  He is at the head of a rejuvenation of American industry and prosperity that will bring us to unlimited markets.  It is sane economic policy to back his calls for a stronger navy and to pacify the third races.  That way we can get millions of readily available new American labor to help these brave companies make massive profits.  I myself am favorable to a little lighter tariffs for our bigger industries, but overall I must agree with the moderate approach that Roosevelt and other Republicans are taking.  Better to be funded by the wealth of foreign imports than to resort to a graduated income tax like the crazy lot of miscreants and radicals I hear on here calling for.
Winfield: I do agree my friend.  Teddy Roosevelt was born with natural greatness.  As a proud devout follower of the party of Lincoln and Grant, I endorse this man for President and know that he will bring America to similar level of greatness as we have.  We must make this election a mandate for advocates of Republicanism everywhere to the greatness of American Exceptionalism.  This is the greatest nation on Earth and we must back that up by getting the masses to come out in favor of a party for Civil Rights, Equality, and Prosperity for all citizens.
Mechaman: Spare me the overly wrought bullsh*t you petty WASP boyo!
Inks: Mechaman, dear sir I am in no notion offended by vulgar language, but there is a modicum and set of rules in polite debate society that you shouldn't use such extreme language.  I am going to have to assign a point on your account for immodest behavior.
Mechaman: Spare me your revoltious filth, you powertripping authoritarian bastard!  WE all know what this is, an infraction on our lives and liberty!  This greatly limits my freedom of expression in a society of f***ing Protestant supremacy that dictates that we can't even enjoy a gorram drink on Sundays!
Scott: I can understand your concerns Mechaman, and I agree with you about freedom of speech and expression.  However, David Leip gets lots of business from public schools looking for electoral maps to use in their classrooms.  These are very rare maps, with detailed county level descriptions with colors on it that are by no means readily available on a commercial level.  Besides, what about the children!?  They need to use this library of resources and you are damaging their innocent and integrity when posting!
Mechaman: Oh Curses of Cromwell!  I'm not sure how it works in your part of the bumf*** Berkshires Nathan, but here in the cities the most innocent thing that kids are witnessing, and doing, is using so called "profane" language.  I know girls as young as 12 who sell themselves for the oldest profession so they can have enough money to buy a bottle of Schnapps on their off days.  Don't lecture me about the need to protect the sanctity and protection of "the children" by issuing infractions on our accounts for this arcane nonsense.  I already have paid Mr. Leip $1.20 for a two year membership, don't lecture me about mindful of the authoritarian goosestepping ideals of the few, the proud, the prudes.
Scott: Umm, this is Scott, not Nathan.  Look at my avatar before responding next time.  God, I hate it when people do that.
Inks: Whoops I accidentally silenced Mechaman from the Society gentlemen!  It was an honest mistake, but it will be a month before the guards are authorized to let him back in.  Once an order goes through it's official.  Sorry.
BRTD: I hereby declare this day MECHADAY!  MAY HE LIVE FOREVER AS A MARTYR FOR OUR TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS FOR A MOVEMENT OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE!
TNF: WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE AGAINST THIS GRAVE INJUSTICE!
R2D2: A great man's rights and liberties have been snuffed out by the extreme tyrants of this society!  Never again will we suffer for this indignity!  I call for David Leip to issue the resignation of the consistent and ready failure of this Nathan Inks!
Gustaf: Even if we were to unmute him somehow, he still has a consistent record of spieling radical dangerous and vulgar profanity that has no place in this educational environment.
Torie: Yes, this Mechaman is an extreme radical who has willingly and openly broken the sacred rules and establishment of this forum.  I am indeed very concerned about him, he seems to have some mental instability problems by years of alcoholic abuse and parental abandonment.  I really feel for this guy, so I'm going to minimize the impact of his recent vulgarities.
BRTD: How kind of you, kind and merciful tyrant.
Mechaman: Just played a game as Cleveland running in 1888.  I destroyed Harrison!  He barely won Vermont hahahahahaha!
MattVT: Praise the Lord!  The Messiah has returned!
Mechaman accepts his accolades.

[Lambsbread]

35 BC

Inks: I accidentally had Mechaman executed

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1990

Topic: Nelson Mandela to be released

opebo: What a horrible news! I really wish de Klerk had a guts to slaughter all bearded men.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1962:

Nelson Mandela v. Hendrik Verwoerd

Vosem: No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Verwoerd), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned separate but equal society and free markets; and another side that stood for total worldwide dictatorship, economic ruin, repression, and famine. The fact that Verwoerd happened does not mean that America should've followed policy that would've aided Mao or Nelson Mandela, who were incomparably more dangerous to more people. The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated. Whatever Verwoerd did -- and he did a lot -- ultimately he was on the right side of the Cold War.

[morgieb]

F**k what a thread.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

33 AD

Inks: When resolving some reports, I made a mistake with the system and accidentally cut off Mecha's head, accidentally killing him. I have already messaged Mechaman with an apology, but there's no response so far. I originally intended to simply cut off his tongue for blasphemy (namely using the J Word). I can't bring him back to life but it was nothing else than a honest mistake. I'm making a full disclosure.
Gramps: I applaud Inks' disclosure. Accidents happen. RIP MECH. At least for eternity.
opebo Inks, in fairness you should cease to have a head for a week.
ElectionsGuy: So this was an accident. I have no idea how the system works, but how do you accidentally cut off somebody's head?
Inks: I choose a wrong instrument.
Snowstalker: We must avenge comrade Mecha's death at the hands of the Roman scum.
Antonio: What's the "J word"
R2D2: Jehovah

A day later

Snowstalker: Where's R2D2?

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Foucaulf]

1951

Vosem: I'm part of an intellectual Jewish family who escaped from the USSR.
Everyone: OMG! Massive FF (Freedom Family)
Snowstalker: Bourgeois scum.

[Lambsbread]

I love being a martyr.