Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Can we get to the bottom of this one? I keep hearing this used over and over as a way for both sides to lay blame, but can't seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I like PragerU's take, but realize they are conservative. Any historians that would like to chime in?

SeattleGriz wrote:Can we get to the bottom of this one? I keep hearing this used over and over as a way for both sides to lay blame, but can't seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I like PragerU's take, but realize they are conservative. Any historians that would like to chime in?

phpBB [video]

It’s a dumb claim (the Dem Party is the Klan party) and frankly I get tired of hearing it

TECHNICALLY it is true - the antebellum South was Dem, and that party held sway there until the 1960s.

but just as my slave owning ancestors were long dead before I was born (and I am not responsible for them), the same goes for modern day Democrats and Republicans

They are not responsible for histories they have no control over. What matters is what people stand for today, and taking responsibility for YOUR OWN wrongdoing.

Quite frankly I find moot, pointless debates to be the hallmark of children (which is what we largely are today)

CID1990 wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Can we get to the bottom of this one? I keep hearing this used over and over as a way for both sides to lay blame, but can't seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I like PragerU's take, but realize they are conservative. Any historians that would like to chime in?

phpBB [video]

It’s a dumb claim (the Dem Party is the Klan party) and frankly I get tired of hearing it

TECHNICALLY it is true - the antebellum South was Dem, and that party held sway there until the 1960s.

but just as my slave owning ancestors were long dead before I was born (and I am not responsible for them), the same goes for modern day Democrats and Republicans

They are not responsible for histories they have no control over. What matters is what people stand for today, and taking responsibility for YOUR OWN wrongdoing.

Quite frankly I find moot, pointless debates to be the hallmark of children (which is what we largely are today)

True, and good point about finding them moot.

More important than what the segregation party called itself is that it was the party of organized labor and " the little guy" that fought for segregation. I think that's the point of the Prager video.

You need to stay away from that Prager U stuff. It's a bunch of crap. It's not a good place to go for objective information.

JohnStOnge wrote:You need to stay away from that Prager U stuff. It's a bunch of crap. It's not a good place to go for objective information.

I realize it is biased, but where are the other viewpoints, with the same quality of production and presenters?

JohnStOnge wrote:You need to stay away from that Prager U stuff. It's a bunch of crap. It's not a good place to go for objective information.

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I find Prager to be accurate about a lot of things, but frankly I’m disappointed they wasted their time on this topic

CID1990 wrote:I find Prager to be accurate about a lot of things, but frankly I’m disappointed they wasted their time on this topic

Agreed, there are enough present day problems to worry about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jjoey52 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:You need to stay away from that Prager U stuff. It's a bunch of crap. It's not a good place to go for objective information.

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He changed his act as the election got closer. He's an evangelical that likes a veneer of science on his superstition - which he's apparently just smart enough to be embarrassed by. Compared to you he's Stephen Hawking.

Jjoey52 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:You need to stay away from that Prager U stuff. It's a bunch of crap. It's not a good place to go for objective information.

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never claimed to be GOP. I am registered as a Libertarian.

houndawg wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He changed his act as the election got closer. He's an evangelical that likes a veneer of science on his superstition - which he's apparently just smart enough to be embarrassed by. Compared to you he's Stephen Hawking.

Good GRIEF. I have been very open about the fact that I am an agnostic. And I did not change my act as the election got closer. I said from very early on that Trump is an atrocity.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never claimed to be GOP. I am registered as a Libertarian.

True libertarians don't register for sh!t, John

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I never claimed to be GOP. I am registered as a Libertarian.

True libertarians don't register for sh!t, John

plus true libertarians don't give a sh!t about someone else's sexual orientation.

SeattleGriz wrote:Can we get to the bottom of this one? I keep hearing this used over and over as a way for both sides to lay blame, but can't seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I like PragerU's take, but realize they are conservative. Any historians that would like to chime in?

phpBB [video]

Throughout the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the Democratic Party became more progressive, and attracted progressives from the Republican party and alienated the small government socially conservative south. The Republican party got inline with Gilded Age politics in the 20th century, and embraced socially conservative single-issue voter groups and individualism, which attracted the large southern population. The Democrats used to be the dominant force in the South and they were the party of limited Government, and the vice versa for Republicans.

Think of it this way, the quintessential 19th Century Republican was Theodore Roosevelt: a progressive who implemented the Square Deal which was a domestic program that embraced reform of the American workplace, government regulation of industry and consumer protection, with the overall aim of helping all classes of people. Today, that is liberal platform. It's not a perfect switch (for example, he did greatly increase the size of the Navy, typically something we associate with Republicans.) The Roosevelt Corollary is used by both parties, so that policy is a push. His party also championed civil rights (blacks, women, etc..).


It's not a perfect switch, but it is correct to say many of the policies and platforms of a Lincoln Republican are more aligned to a democrat today. Or that a Republican today is more aligned to a Southern Democrat from the 1930s (see Strom Thurmond).

JohnStOnge wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:

I thought you claimed to be GOP, nothing you have ever posted backs that up. Prager puts well produced conservative thought out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never claimed to be GOP. I am registered as a Libertarian.

Yeah - and i'm King Tut.

UNI88 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
True libertarians don't register for sh!t, John

plus true libertarians don't give a sh!t about someone else's sexual orientation.

Kaboooom!