Are Republicans intolerant? Student says YES!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: chess9
Mursilis:

Please don't tell me you believe the current Republican Party bears any resemblance to the Republican Party of Lincoln.

More recently:

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

But you get an A+ for an awesome attempt. :)

-Robert

Thank you.

Ouch! that had to sting just a little bit. On the other hand the argument could also be made that the Democratic party of today bears little resembalance to the democratic party of Roosevelt or Kennedy either. The Democratic party of today in fact is quite different than the party of Carter as far as that goes. Some of us are old enough to remember the Tax and spend mentality of the democratically controlled congress in the late 70's to roughly the mid to late 80's. Now if they are serious about what they are saying which they may very well not be( they are politicians after all) they are more of a Tax and don't spend party. Just like the Republicans seem to have morphed into a Don't Tax but still spend party of late. In the pat 20 years it seems both parties have gone out of their way to steal the others issues and make them their own for political gain. Bill Clinton was a master of this and GWB seems to be very adept at it as well.

As far as tolerant or intolerant. If the definition of intolerance is simply having differing views then I would have to give the nod to The Libs on this one. The Libs certainly seem to go to far greater extremes to personally vilify those with views that do not agree with theirs.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: chess9
Mursilis:

Please don't tell me you believe the current Republican Party bears any resemblance to the Republican Party of Lincoln.

More recently:

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

But you get an A+ for an awesome attempt. :)

-Robert

Thank you.

Good god you aren't really that ignorant of 20th century politics are you? Or did you just decide to pull out a useless fact without providing any historical context whatsoever?

But just incase you're not kidding here's a nice quote for you

The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the twentieth century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in despair and could have slid into dictatorship. And the fact is, every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.

Now is Newt lying here?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
lol nice try, by todays standards, lincoln = democrat.
and well, after the democrats chose civil rights, their anti civil rights right wing jumped ship and gladly joined the current republican party...what does that tell ya?

republicans are intolerant, and they try to legislate it. choice? no, instead of giving everyone the choice on abortion, they want to impose their view on others. as with religion and homosexuality etc etc. freedom.... screw freedom when you can legislate morality..your morality:p
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corn
I try very hard to avoid personal ad hominum, i try to stick to issues, use links, i try very hard not to criticise individuals.

I don't.

Threads like this amuse me and merely typify the stereotype that liberals are driven by emotional need, not reasoned thinking. If it feels good, do it.....or say it.
Hey you only have Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Micheal Reagan, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity to blame for perpetuating that stereotype. I actually believe they do more harm to the Conservative cause by coming across as intolerant than they do good.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corn
I try very hard to avoid personal ad hominum, i try to stick to issues, use links, i try very hard not to criticise individuals.

I don't.

Threads like this amuse me and merely typify the stereotype that liberals are driven by emotional need, not reasoned thinking. If it feels good, do it.....or say it.
Hey you only have Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Micheal Reagan, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity to blame for perpetuating that stereotype. I actually believe they do more harm to the Conservative cause by coming across as intolerant than they do good.

May soon have a new voice in the mix ;)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
this thread is hopeless..like so many posts here..it is a "feel-good" post for liberals who can sit around and profess how "caring" and "concerned" they are, and how heartless the conservatives are in comparison.

here is what many conservatives feel about how cruel liberalism is towards the disadvantage, and society in general.
we feel that liberals enslave the poor and minorities with social programs meant to generate dependence upon, and subsequently votes for the Democrat Party.
we feel that liberals are elitists that feel they "know" what is best for the public, regardless of what the public thinks...hence the liberal affinity with totalitarian or communist forms of goverment where an "elite" get to tell everyone else how to live.
we feel that liberals pander to race baiting, rather than bring the races together, and that while the liberals wax on about their support for minorities, our current President has a black Secretary of State, a black woman as his lead National Security Advisor. The previous Administration didn't have a SINGLE cabinet level staffer that was black (excluding the deceased Ron Brown) and none involved in actually Foreign Policy debate or decisions.
we feel that liberals want to incite class warfare...for political gain
we feel that liberals are willing to provide succor to our enemies in time of war and conflict ("deals" with N. Korea (ala Madeline "the dancer" Albright), verbal encouragement of Saddam's hencemen to keep killing American G.I.'s to get us to leave Iraq)
we feel that liberals are morally bankrupt (look no farther than your previous President)
we feel that liberals are BLIND to the personal ambition of their leaders
we feel that liberals want to do "good deeds" with someone else's money, rather than invest the time themselves to actually make a difference.

stick that in your feel good pipe and smoke it you bunch of self-righteous neophytes..
what have you done today to make the world a better place?
probably nothing.
 

TheBoyBlunder

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2003
5,742
1
0
ROFL that link made my day. Left leaning faculty at CU Boulder? NO WAY! What a pack of morons...if you're a Republican, the one place you don't want to go to school is Boulder...sheesh...
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Both sides can be intolerant.
Liberals are just as closed minded when it comes to listening to other viewpoints.

Republicans are certainly more intolerant on what they consider "moral issues".
That is one of my main problems with the Republican party.
Many of them seem to want to legislate their religious views of morality on the one hand, while they claim to be in favor of personal freedom and less government interference on the other.
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
to say that librals are more tolerant is just plain ludicrous. i cant even go into a movie theatre and get REAL butter for my popcorn, only artifical butter topping. i cant go into many restaurants and get REAL sugar for my coffee, only sweet-n-low. i cant drive a freakin tank to work because of its poor gas mileage either, god forbid i drive what i want to drive! and as for rearing your children you cant even raise your hand to your kid anymore! show me the tolerance/open mindedness (sp?)!

on the other hand conservatives are far less tolerant when it comes to gay rights, and the hardcore pro-lifers may very well be the least tolerant of them all.

neither side is perfect
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
conservatives TEND to be less tolerant of people with different opinions
Ya, right...look at the title of the vast majority of the posts in this forum, they are intolerant, personal attacks on Bush or Republicans...by liberals. The liberal left adopts a self-righteous tone when they discuss politics. Don't try and pull this Republicans/Conservatives are "less tolerant" that liberals/democrats crap and not expect a response..that is just B.S. layered on top of B.S.

why don't i just post a topic entitled "Are Democrats Limousine Liberals?, Heartsurgeon says YES!"

i am very tired of these efforts to personally smear and libel and label every Republican or Conservative that posts on this forum...I try very hard to avoid personal ad hominum, i try to stick to issues, use links, i try very hard not to criticise individuals.

give it a rest.....i understand that Liberals are convinced they "feel" the pain of the common man where others don't, and that they are more "compassionate" and just plain "care" more about people.

Bunkum. Hokum. Guff. Hogwash. Balderdash. Baloney. Gibberish. Hooey. Drivel. Twaddle. Poppycock. Tripe. Blather. Tommyrot. Malarky....

Liberals are just less tolerant of intolerance. And a self-righteous tone, when not of hypocrytical nature, is better than a prideful arrogant tone used by conservatives.
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: chess9
Mursilis:

Please don't tell me you believe the current Republican Party bears any resemblance to the Republican Party of Lincoln.

More recently:

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

But you get an A+ for an awesome attempt. :)

-Robert

Thank you.


Please. More of the same half truths you and heartsurgeon continue to try and pull on anyone without a clue as to American history. Dixie dems != democrats.

I challenge you to come up with similiar stats anytime after 64. - you can't.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Liberals are just less tolerant of intolerance
OOOOWWW...I'm getting a head ache trying to figure this statement out....i basically agree with the statement..liberals are intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them
 

Zzzt

Member
Sep 8, 2000
164
0
0
Isn?t anyone here ashamed at the name calling? Where are the simple facts? Quotes from a radio talk show host? Come on. You want the real basic difference between liberals and conservatives? Here it is.

Liberals are good-hearted people. They care tremendously about their fellow humans. They feel good about the idea of giving money to good causes that help other people.
They feel that everyone should be cared for, and feel good that they vote to take care of their fellow man. They have a very altruistic view of things, wanting the best for everyone.

Conservatives feel that they don?t need to be taken care of. They feel that they should be responsible for their selves, and feel bad about the idea of someone else having to pay their way. Personal responsibility is a key phrase for them even though it isn?t spoken enough. Conservatives believe that any government assistance program should focus on helping people through rough periods and then getting those people back on their feet. If any help is offered, it should be offered in a way that enables the helped to be independent as soon as possible.

I think liberals feel that these people need help, and so help. The next step in though is missing! What should we do after they have been helped? By leaving this open-ended, liberals feel that they are giving these unfortunate folks a better shot at having a good life. This allows and in many cases forces people to be dependant on the government. I think liberals would argue that this is fine. We can support people ? we have the money. A conservative would say that these people aren?t infants to be cared for. Get them on their feet and on their own.

Morals? Conservatives have a set moral standard frequently set by the Bible. Now, whether or not you believe in the Christian Bible, the morals that it teaches are solid. You?ll find the same things taught in just about any other book of wisdom for a different religion. I think that liberals feel that there are no solid lines dividing right from wrong.

Killing is wrong.
Baby in womb conceived 8 months ago is alive.
Sucking the live baby?s brain from his skull while he is in the womb is killing the baby.
Therefore, sucking the live baby?s brain from his skull is wrong.

Where is the weakness in this argument? The baby hasn?t been born yet? That doesn?t negate the fact that the kid is alive. It is an argument, though, so maybe we should think about this a while? Is this being sensitive, or so open-minded in thinking that the openness of the liberal mind can allow logic to pass through like a colander with one big hole?


Are liberals bad people? Of course not. They just want to help by making the hole that someone is in be a bit more comfortable. I think they see morals as a dynamic thing that changes generation by generation, and they make laws to reflect that.

Are conservatives bad people? Of course not. They just want to help be providing a hand to get someone out of the hole, and then a pat on the back to get that person on his way. They see morals as a solid enduring thing that is constant through the ages.

Why am I a conservative?

I don?t believe that it is my right to force my desires for any project on others.
Liberals spend money liberally. They fight viscously to put money into causes that they consider important. My problem is that my money is just that. Mine. I worked for it. I should be allowed to decide where my money goes. Nobody should have the right to use it for things that aren?t completely necessary for our nation to run. Is there a good reason for me to pay to help out your cause?

I wouldn?t even consider trying to force people into donating to any cause by making the donation a law. That would be wrong. Immoral. It isn?t right to forcefully take money from anyone for my or anyone else?s benefit unless it is a debt that that person has rung up. I can listen to warm stories about how my money helps the less fortunate, or how my money is helping to but I never will understand why that makes it right for my money to be confiscated to pay for those causes. I think that liberals have a hard time understanding that wrongfully acquiring funds to support a noble cause is not noble. Every cent should be thought of as sacred. It is made of the blood, sweat, and ingenuity of the American people. If someone outworked, or outthought me, why should they have to pay more of their money to taxes than I do?


I don?t believe in tax cuts for the rich. Not because I am rich (I am nowhere near), but because the top 5% of income earners pay just over 55% of the tax burden. I understand that they buy bigger houses, nicer cars, etc., but how does that affect me? Should they be punished for being successful? Their nicer car probably does less damage on the road than mine. It probably helped create more jobs than mine. It wouldn?t bee too hard to argue that in maybe they should pay less. The large amount of money they spend has a better impact on the financial community than the smaller amount that I spend. I just don?t see how they are a greater debt to society than I am.

You want to know what?s fair? A completely flat income tax. Every dollar gets taxed regardless of who earned it. I think that the reason why the rich are taxed so highly is because if they weren?t, I wouldn?t be able to survive. If taxes were spread in such a way that all was fair, I wouldn?t have anything at all. That rich guy is paying a large portion of my ticket. Is that fair? A liberal would say that it was because the rich guy didn?t need his money as much as I need mine because he has more. A moral person would say that it isn?t morally correct to simply force something from someone?s hand simply because that person didn?t need it that bad.

I don?t believe in tax increases. There is no excuse for taxes to increase ? ever. As more people enter the population, those people also pay taxes. Efficiency comes into play, making these taxpayers? dollars stretch even further. Do you need more police/teachers/etc. in your city? That probably has something to do with more people in your city making trouble/children. More people = more taxable income = more money for police/teachers/etc. More money doesn?t need to be raised. It just has to be spent properly.

I?m done.