Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Madcity Expat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: mill-e-wah-que..."the good land"
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Madcity Expat » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:22 pm

Meade wrote:But the 13th Amendment is also in the constitution. Who passed the 13th Amendment? Not the Democrat Party.

And Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3 of the constitution time-limited the importation of slaves. As soon as the date arrived, January 1, 1808 - as per the constitution - Congress passed a law outlawing the slave trade.

Of course, it was members of the Democrat Party, in 1850, who moved, with all deliberate speed, to pass the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring non slave states to capture, jail, and return escaped slaves to their slave state owners. Thanks to Wisconsin's newly formed political party, the GOP, in 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional - to the dismay of many in the Wisconsin Democrat Party.


This is all quite true, as far as it goes. It does contain the interesting phrase "with all deliberate speed" which I assume is a reference to 1954 Brown v Board which contains the same phrase. Besides being an anachronism I'm not sure the point unless some sort of awkwardly implied criticism of the Brown ruling.

But repeating the point from my last post, Meade is apparently suggesting that these events - the GOP's role passing the 13th (not to mention 14th and 15th) Amendment, and the Dem's opposition to the same - is somehow relevant in relation to the US party system as it exist in 2012.

Perhaps it does, to a degree. There's nothing wrong with an institution claiming credit for notable accomplishments in the past - even if the passage of time has transpired to change that institution. So, it's fair for the GOP to claim some credit in advancing the issue of abolition and civil rights in the early years of emancipation.

But, of course, some historical water has passed under the bridge since then. US political parties realign every so often. Sometimes these realignments are quite considerable - such as in the 1960s after LBJ supported the Civil Rights Act 1964 and began enforcing desegregation in the South. The result was a major geographic realignment - with the South largely abandoning the Democrats and by the 1970s (for sure by 1980) squarely at home in the GOP.

So - I repeat - both the GOP (in the 1860s) and the Democrats (in the 1960s) in turns supported civil rights and both the GOP (in the 1960s) and the Democrats (in the 1850s-1930s) in turns supported segregation. The only consistency here is that the seat of slavery, segregation, etc, was, geographically, the South (although not exclusively).

So, BOTH parties can justifiably claim a portion of the legacy of civil rights - and both have to live down their turns opposing civil rights.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10151
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:26 pm

Meade wrote:But the 13th Amendment is also in the constitution.
Sure, but who says it should be? Whaddya think I mean by take back my country? Furthermore, the 13th amendment doesn't outlaw slavery, it merely says it can only exist as punishment for a crime. Plenty of folks already in jail who've been "duly convicted"... and plenty more to be found if needed.
Meade wrote:Who passed the 13th Amendment?
Not the Founding Fathers, that's for damn sure!
Meade wrote:And Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3 of the constitution time-limited the importation of slaves.
What Constitution are you reading? (Try Section 9, Clause 1.) Regardless. It just says no more importation. And that's a problem how?
Meade wrote:Of course, it was members of the Democrat Party, in 1850, who moved, with all deliberate speed, to pass the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring non slave states to capture, jail, and return escaped slaves to their slave state owners.
There should have been no reason to implement such a law, as The Constitution already addressed this issue in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.

Galoot
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Galoot » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:50 pm

And the trolls were fed plentifully, and they were exceedingly happy.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14099
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:07 pm

I like constitutional discussions as much as the next person, but regarding the topic brought up by the OP:

Democrat Party has no historical meaning at all simply because its target audience's knowledge and comprehension of history is so skimpy as to be totally lacking. Any historical excuse for this term today was pasted on after the fact, a way of sneering "hey, what are you leftists so upset about? (guffaw)."

Democrat Party is an illiterate version of Democratic Party that belongs in the same file as "leftists" and "libruls." As everyone here knows, it's nothing but a taunt or perhaps code discernible by certain talk radio believers.

Of course, to the rest of us, voting for the Democratic Party, taking a leftist viewpoint, or being a liberal is perfectly legitimate and even a point of pride. All those terms are perfectly appropriate in polite, literate conversation. There's no reason for the talk-radio crowd to think they own those words, because it's not going to happen.

Tammy Baldwin tried to turn the whole thing aside by calling herself a progressive, which immediately got turned into prog. Any other name or word will get the same treatment by the noise machine, so trying to counter it is worse than a waste of time -- it legitimizes its illegitimate source.

Instead think of the history of the word Negro, which was replaced by black in the 1960s because it had been bastardized into the odious N-word. (Unfortunate how all these little verbal treats descend from white Southern speech, isn't it?) Now that n-word been reclaimed by rappers and other poets in the form nigga, and soon enough -- maybe as soon as one more generation -- it'll be neutralized except as another sign of illiteracy.

Same with the rest of this garbage.

thebookpolice
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8674
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby thebookpolice » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:48 pm

From the New Yorker (ca. 2006), "The 'Ic' Factor".

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:05 pm

snoqueen wrote:Any other name or word will get the same treatment by the noise machine, so trying to counter it is worse than a waste of time -- it legitimizes its illegitimate source.

So why waste your precious progressive time getting all worked up about it?

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:08 pm

So why waste your precious progressive time getting all worked up about it?


Are you illiterate or just living in fantasy land. Nothing about sno's post was "getting worked up". It was thoughtful, well reasoned commentary on the subject of the thread. You should try it sometime.

Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Mean Scenester » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:12 pm

Meade wrote:So why waste your precious progressive time getting all worked up about it?

Seems to me the only ones worked up about it are guys like you beating-off at the mouth repeating the term ad nauseam like you're expecting a pat on the back from your conservative ass masters.

The rest of us are just expressing bemusement at what a passel of dinks y'all are.

Dink.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:17 pm

TheBookPolice wrote:From the New Yorker (ca. 2006), "The 'Ic' Factor".


Hertzberg: "A Google search for “Democratic Party” yields around forty million hits. “Democrat Party” fetches fewer than two million."


That was 2006. I just did the same Google searches. “Democratic Party” yields 18,200,000 hits. “Democrat Party” fetches 54,200,000.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby massimo » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:24 pm

You gotta search with the quotes.

"Democratic party" = 37.3M
"Democrat party" = 3.3M

Not that it matters. At all.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:33 pm

massimo wrote:You gotta search with the quotes.

"Democratic party" = 37.3M
"Democrat party" = 3.3M

Not that it matters. At all.


I see. Okay, that does make it apples to apples, doesn't it?
And not that it matters at all, but I notice the usage trend, over the last six years, has been away from "Democratic Party" and towards "Democrat Party".

Hope that doesn't hurt anyone's sensitive progressive feelings.

Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Mean Scenester » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:37 pm

Meade wrote:And not that it matters at all, but I notice the usage trend, over the last six years, has been away from "Democratic Party" and towards "Democrat Party".

You're right. What you notice doesn't matter at all.

Hope that doesn't hurt your little conservative yes-man dink feelings.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby massimo » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:40 pm

Meade wrote:... I notice the usage trend, over the last six years, has been away from "Democratic Party" and towards "Democrat Party".

Hope that doesn't hurt anyone's sensitive progressive feelings.


I have no doubt that you've noticed this trend in your circles.

I think it's been made abundantly clear that few people's feelings are hurt by this, much to the chagrin of those who use this term as a supposed taunt. It's more a reflection on the user.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby wack wack » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:05 pm

Meade wrote:
massimo wrote:You gotta search with the quotes.

"Democratic party" = 37.3M
"Democrat party" = 3.3M

Not that it matters. At all.


I see. Okay, that does make it apples to apples, doesn't it?
And not that it matters at all, but I notice the usage trend, over the last six years, has been away from "Democratic Party" and towards "Democrat Party".

Hope that doesn't hurt anyone's sensitive progressive feelings.


Hmmm, started right about the time the Republican party became completely unhinged. Imagine that.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Question for Cornbread, Ned, etc.

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:08 pm

I have no doubt that you've noticed this trend in your circles.

I think it's been made abundantly clear that few people's feelings are hurt by this, much to the chagrin of those who use this term as a supposed taunt. It's more a reflection on the user.


I agree - it is not a taunt. It's a mildly mocking reflection on the mockery that humorless Democrats have, themselves, made of the "Democrat(ic) Party".


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests