Democrats have cornered the market on keeping their dependent followers on their plantation.

A sick version of Stockholm Syndrome.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Of course I noted that phrase, but that's not what I was responding to. I had no problem with Marty's post. Handsome Rob change that phrase. And 42 minutes was also trying to push a similar thought. Blame it on only Democrats.  Blame it on only progressives. That's when I jumped in. In order to take the timeline of understanding back far enough to the founding of the Democratic Party, you have to realize that people weren't merely racist back then. They actually held slaves.

So your rebuttal of democrats defending slavery since their inception is.... there were slave owners prior to the Democrats? Of course there were, neoliberals progressives have always had/wanted slaves. The democrat party was started by an well known slave owner according to you, Thomas Jefferson. They have always been for slavery.

It's pointless to ascribe these things to Democrats or Republicans.  Those parties have switched positions.  The Republicans used to be liberals and the Democrats used to be conservatives.

Liberals have never been for slavery.  Abolitionists were liberals.  Slave owners in the South were conservatives.  Lincoln was a Republican and a liberal.

My point was, it is ironic that liberals have now adopted identity politics, which originated with conservatives and was a main pillar of conservative thinking back when it was to their advantage.

---

You keep saying that, but the progressives at the turn of the century used darwinism to justify racial superiority. I can't recall the party affiliation, but it was the academic elites that propagated this division. If Mikesez would Google it for us and pretend to be an expert, we could get to the bottom of this.

---

You keep saying that, but the progressives at the turn of the century used darwinism to justify racial superiority. I can't recall the party affiliation, but it was the academic elites that propagated this division. If Mikesez would Google it for us and pretend to be an expert, we could get to the bottom of this.

Social Darwinism was something that academics debated. I'm not aware of any prominent politician endorsing it.  The two Presidents who called themselves "progressive" at the turn of the century were TR and Wilson.  They were both racist.  TR held that black people were inferior but must be treated equally under the law regardless, but Wilson actually tried to re-segregate the post offices.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Kamala Harris endorses Sleepy Joe after calling him a racist in debate. You really can't make this stuff up.

Gotta love the last 2 standing being white geriatrics in the party of "woke".

---

Marty's post blamed racism on the whites and the "conservatives" which he equates with Republicans. You had no problem with Marty blaming one side of the political spectrum but take offense at someone pointing out that the other side was the main source (originated Jim Crow and the KKK)?

You must like the job the government is doing on healthcare too (see my post in the COVID-19 thread). Next you'll blame it on Trump while it's the career bureaucrats (the "deep state" and based on what we've seen in the last four years, mainly partisan Democrats) at the CDC who are at fault.

And then you change the narrative to how we should ignore stuff about 60 years old. That was the "many years ago" that Marty was describing.

I didn't use the words "Republican" or "Democrat," and that is because the parties have switched sides on the subject of identity politics.  What I was saying was that identity politics in the United States originated with conservative white people.  Liberals have adopted it, starting around the 1970s, and that is reprehensible, but it didn't originate with them.  Liberals used to be in favor of things like having a "color-blind society," for example.  "Content of their character, not color of their skin" for example, was rhetoric that came from liberals.  Identity politics, rooted in racism, was part of the conservative philosophy.  It is ironic that conservatives and liberals now seem to have flipped on the issue of identity politics.  


Identity politics is bad, but I was just pointing out, it did not originate with liberals.  It originated with racist white conservatives who wanted to maintain the advantages they had in life, and exclude people of other races from full equality.

The terms liberal and conservative you are using do not accurately describe what happened in the early to mid 1900s, probably because the term "liberal" got turned around to mean Progressive, rather than supporting freedom with limited government like it originally meant, and "conservative" is now being used to describe everyone the Progressives dislike. True the 1960s version "liberals" wanted a color-blind society. The segregationist Democrat South was not Conservative, but they were progressives who supported the New Deal and opposed a color-blind society. It was lot more complicated than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Kamala Harris endorses Sleepy Joe after calling him a racist in debate. You really can't make this stuff up.

Gotta love the last 2 standing being white geriatrics in the party of "woke".

The only color they care about is green.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Kamala Harris endorses Sleepy Joe after calling him a racist in debate. You really can't make this stuff up.

Gotta love the last 2 standing being white geriatrics in the party of "woke".

And none of the pundits claiming that it's a shame Fauxcahontas dropped out are endorsing Tulsi Gabbard.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Kamala Harris endorses Sleepy Joe after calling him a racist in debate. You really can't make this stuff up.

Gotta love the last 2 standing being white geriatrics in the party of "woke".

The Democratic Party is a racehorse with cancer and two broken legs. The Republican Party is in much the same shape. They both need to be let go of and new parties, or just new leadership for the old parties, brought in along with a third for those of us too pissed off at the big parties to ever consider joining them.

And none of the pundits claiming that it's a shame Fauxcahontas dropped out are endorsing Tulsi Gabbard.

The last thing they want is Tulsi Gabbard getting onstage and exposing Biden for the senile old fool he is. They went to great lengths to shut her down the second she joined the race. Definitely can't have someone with appeal across the aisle actually [BLEEP] up and win this thing.

---

Of course I noted that phrase, but that's not what I was responding to. I had no problem with Marty's post. Handsome Rob change that phrase. And 42 minutes was also trying to push a similar thought. Blame it on only Democrats.  Blame it on only progressives. That's when I jumped in. In order to take the timeline of understanding back far enough to the founding of the Democratic Party, you have to realize that people weren't merely racist back then. They actually held slaves.

So your rebuttal of democrats defending slavery since their inception is.... there were slave owners prior to the Democrats? Of course there were, neoliberals progressives have always had/wanted slaves. The democrat party was started by an well known slave owner according to you, Thomas Jefferson. They have always been for slavery.

Oooo... tell me the one where spending tax money on general welfare is just as bad as whipping people when they fail to clear enough land during their sunrise to sundown work day! I love that joke...

---

I didn't use the words "Republican" or "Democrat," and that is because the parties have switched sides on the subject of identity politics.  What I was saying was that identity politics in the United States originated with conservative white people.  Liberals have adopted it, starting around the 1970s, and that is reprehensible, but it didn't originate with them.  Liberals used to be in favor of things like having a "color-blind society," for example.  "Content of their character, not color of their skin" for example, was rhetoric that came from liberals.  Identity politics, rooted in racism, was part of the conservative philosophy.  It is ironic that conservatives and liberals now seem to have flipped on the issue of identity politics.  


Identity politics is bad, but I was just pointing out, it did not originate with liberals.  It originated with racist white conservatives who wanted to maintain the advantages they had in life, and exclude people of other races from full equality.

The terms liberal and conservative you are using do not accurately describe what happened in the early to mid 1900s, probably because the term "liberal" got turned around to mean Progressive, rather than supporting freedom with limited government like it originally meant, and "conservative" is now being used to describe everyone the Progressives dislike. True the 1960s version "liberals" wanted a color-blind society. The segregationist Democrat South was not Conservative, but they were progressives who supported the New Deal and opposed a color-blind society. It was lot more complicated than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Yes, the Dixiecrats were progressive in some ways but very conservative in other ways.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They are limiting Joe to one 7-minute appearance per day. He's still blowing it.

---

I didn't use the words "Republican" or "Democrat," and that is because the parties have switched sides on the subject of identity politics.  What I was saying was that identity politics in the United States originated with conservative white people.  Liberals have adopted it, starting around the 1970s, and that is reprehensible, but it didn't originate with them.  Liberals used to be in favor of things like having a "color-blind society," for example.  "Content of their character, not color of their skin" for example, was rhetoric that came from liberals.  Identity politics, rooted in racism, was part of the conservative philosophy.  It is ironic that conservatives and liberals now seem to have flipped on the issue of identity politics.  


Identity politics is bad, but I was just pointing out, it did not originate with liberals.  It originated with racist white conservatives who wanted to maintain the advantages they had in life, and exclude people of other races from full equality.

The terms liberal and conservative you are using do not accurately describe what happened in the early to mid 1900s, probably because the term "liberal" got turned around to mean Progressive, rather than supporting freedom with limited government like it originally meant, and "conservative" is now being used to describe everyone the Progressives dislike. True the 1960s version "liberals" wanted a color-blind society. The segregationist Democrat South was not Conservative, but they were progressives who supported the New Deal and opposed a color-blind society. It was lot more complicated than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Most people don't really know history well enough to properly classify information. In a society that is relying more on rhetoric than truth, there is almost no way to have an honest discussion without pre-defining words and agreeing to an objective standard. I wish more people were trained in the art of the argument. I have more experience than most, and I still struggle sometimes to identify the premises and conclusions in more candid conversations. People are better at moving goalposts and muddying the discussion than they are at finding common ground.

---

You keep saying that, but the progressives at the turn of the century used darwinism to justify racial superiority. I can't recall the party affiliation, but it was the academic elites that propagated this division. If Mikesez would Google it for us and pretend to be an expert, we could get to the bottom of this.

Social Darwinism was something that academics debated. I'm not aware of any prominent politician endorsing it.  The two Presidents who called themselves "progressive" at the turn of the century were TR and Wilson.  They were both racist.  TR held that black people were inferior but must be treated equally under the law regardless, but Wilson actually tried to re-segregate the post offices.

Ok Google, now tell me what time Knives Out is playing at an AMC theater in Jacksonville on Friday.

---

The terms liberal and conservative you are using do not accurately describe what happened in the early to mid 1900s, probably because the term "liberal" got turned around to mean Progressive, rather than supporting freedom with limited government like it originally meant, and "conservative" is now being used to describe everyone the Progressives dislike. True the 1960s version "liberals" wanted a color-blind society. The segregationist Democrat South was not Conservative, but they were progressives who supported the New Deal and opposed a color-blind society. It was lot more complicated than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Most people don't really know history well enough to properly classify information. In a society that is relying more on rhetoric than truth, there is almost no way to have an honest discussion without pre-defining words and agreeing to an objective standard. I wish more people were trained in the art of the argument. I have more experience than most, and I still struggle sometimes to identify the premises and conclusions in more candid conversations. People are better at moving goalposts and muddying the discussion than they are at finding common ground.

---

Social Darwinism was something that academics debated. I'm not aware of any prominent politician endorsing it.  The two Presidents who called themselves "progressive" at the turn of the century were TR and Wilson.  They were both racist.  TR held that black people were inferior but must be treated equally under the law regardless, but Wilson actually tried to re-segregate the post offices.

Ok Google, now tell me what time Knives Out is playing at an AMC theater in Jacksonville on Friday.

Hey, at least you know I got my facts right.
This stuff about arguing well is not new.
You can't really accuse people of moving goal posts when they never agreed to where the goal post should be in the first place.
Most people that you think are arguing, are not actually trying to get to a goal.  
The subtext of most arguments that average people engage in is, "The world is very frustrating and it would be less frustrating if more people listened to me"
But what you get is what you give. This is all reciprocal.
I'm down for defining terms and setting goals before presenting premises and conclusions.
I haven't seen you try yet, though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You never get your facts wrong. You just often confuse fact for opinion or use them the wrong way.

I have tried to argue in good faith with you, Mike. I will try again. Let me think on it a while. If you screw this up, I will haunt you forever.

---

The subtext of smart people's argument is "The world is very frustrating and it would be less frustrating if you would leave me the [BLEEP] alone you leeches."
The subtext of your argument is always "I'm the smartest man in the room always and I'll go to any lengths to prove it. Oh, and #orangemanbad."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You never get your facts wrong. You just often confuse fact for opinion or use them the wrong way.

I have tried to argue in good faith with you, Mike. I will try again. Let me think on it a while. If you screw this up, I will haunt you forever.

I'm usually not confused about what is fact and what is opinion.  But, I do usually use the same voice to present facts and opinions.  I'm not a journalist.  I've considered marking every transition with "In my opinion..." or something like that but you don't usually see the opinion columnist guys doing that, so I don't either.  This is an internet forum.  Opinions are getting mixed in.  You spotted them. Good! You should.  Reply, saying "that's just, like, your opinion, man!" Great! It is! Now tell me yours.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You never get your facts wrong. You just often confuse fact for opinion or use them the wrong way.

I have tried to argue in good faith with you, Mike. I will try again. Let me think on it a while. If you screw this up, I will haunt you forever.

I'm usually not confused about what is fact and what is opinion.  

Just because you aren't confused doesn't mean you're right...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The subtext of smart people's argument is "The world is very frustrating and it would be less frustrating if you would leave me the [BLEEP] alone you leeches."
The subtext of your argument is always "I'm the smartest man in the room always and I'll go to any lengths to prove it. Oh, and #orangemanbad."

If you think you can do just fine without all the people who disagree with you, so much so that you think they are actually leeching off of you, sounds like you also think you're the smartest man in the room.

---

I'm usually not confused about what is fact and what is opinion.  

Just because you aren't confused doesn't mean you're right...

Like I said, try me.  Say that's just my opinion, and prove it by stating your differing opinion on the subject.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The subtext of smart people's argument is "The world is very frustrating and it would be less frustrating if you would leave me the [BLEEP] alone you leeches."
The subtext of your argument is always "I'm the smartest man in the room always and I'll go to any lengths to prove it. Oh, and #orangemanbad."

If you think you can do just fine without all the people who disagree with you, so much so that you think they are actually leeching off of you, sounds like you also think you're the smartest man in the room.

---

Just because you aren't confused doesn't mean you're right...

Like I said, try me.  Say that's just my opinion, and prove it by stating your differing opinion on the subject.

That's just your opinion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maybe you guys should post about the 2020 Democratic Primary Candidates instead of each other.

---