Playing to the reptilian brain...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Jun 18, 2010.

  1. Goldwater had been an opponent of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. He also had a strong dislike of Harry S. Truman and his progressive social policies. Goldwater joined the Republican Party and in 1952 was elected to the Senate. He immediately became a loyal supporter of Joe McCarthy and was one of only 22 senators who voted against his censure in December, 1954.

    On the extreme right of the Republican Party, Goldwater often criticised the policies of Dwight Eisenhower. He described his social policies as "dime-store New Deal" and strongly opposed the President's decision to use federal troops at Little Rock. Goldwater also believed that Eisenhower was too soft on trade unions and complained that his failure to balance the budget.

    Goldwater expressed his conservative views in a syndicated newspaper column. A collection of these articles were published as The Conscience of the Conservative in 1960. Considered to be too right-wing to be a presidential candidate, Goldwater loyally supported Richard Nixon against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

    As an opponent of federal civil rights laws Goldwater was highly critical of the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. He also favoured a more aggressive approach to the Vietnam War. Nominated as the Republican Party as its presidential candidate in 1964, he upset many of his potential supporters by voting against Johnson's Anti-Poverty Act (1964).

    His extreme anti-Communist views also frightened the American public. In one television interview Goldwalter explained that he would be willing to use nuclear weapons against communist forces in Vietnam. Although his views on civil rights made him popular in the Deep South, was easily defeated by Johnson by 42,328,350 votes to 26,640,178. Goldwater received 38.8 per cent of the vote and won only six states.

    #21     Jun 19, 2010
  2. In 1961, Goldwater told an audience of Atlanta Republicans that "we're not going to get the negro vote as a block in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are".[12] In 1964, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that emphasized "states' rights."[13] Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964[14]. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.[15]

    All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction.
    #22     Jun 19, 2010

  3. Thats much to complicated for his pea sized brain to understand,he thinks that The KKK would have voted for Obama because they were Democrats
    #23     Jun 19, 2010
  4. Well, they do both favor similar policies. Although now blacks are no longer the acceptable PC opresee du jour democrats have now moved on to hating other groups instead.. However, they both favored the same redistribution, anti corporation, socialist ideology.

    So yes, it's ironic that the political legacy of the KKK has nominated and elected Obama.

    But hey, let's face it it's not like you guys have actually had any morals in the last few centuries... LOL!!!! Whatever will get the votes!!

    #24     Jun 19, 2010
  5. Political policy has necessarily nothing to do with a particular party that one is registered with...Lieberman is an example of someone who acts apart from their political party, Zell Miller is another is Ron Paul who does not vote with his registered party in many occasions. They are members of a party, but do not agree with the politics of their own party....

    Just as a player's play on the field is not a consequence of the uniform they wear, the team they play for, or to which conference they are a member of.

    You are terribly confused...even the common man understands when a sports team changes from one conference to refuse to admit that the policy of the democrats in the south in the 60's has been rejected by the current democratic party...and embraced by the right wing of the current republican party...

    Your lunatic comments remind me of the ridiculousness of the ignorant "Compassionate Conservative" claim...

    #25     Jun 19, 2010
  6. LOL!!! And here is a perfect example of what is wrong with America.
    Too many idiots like this guy who think that politics is like a sporting event, and believe that politics is about winning as opposed to the virtues and beliefs which unite a party.

    To people like this guy politics are about power, not about principals... LOL!! He just said it political parties are like sports teams, and political parties have nothing to do with actual policies and beliefs... Talk about morally bankrupt... LOL!!! People like this guy get into power (with the token wierd sexual issues to boot), and then we wonder why this country has problems!!

    #26     Jun 19, 2010

    "To people like this guy politics are about power, not about principals...

    Political policy has necessarily nothing to do with a particular party that one is registered with...Lieberman is an example of someone who acts apart from their political party, Zell Miller is another is Ron Paul who does not vote with his registered party in many occasions.

    ...and yes, politics is everything about power. The acquisition of power, the exercising of power, the abuse of power. Politics is 100% about power of another person, or group of people.

    Office politics, religious politics, corporate politics, business politics, union politics, government politics, sports team politics, family politics, everything that has to do with power over an another or a group is the field of politics.

    Politics is not limited in scope to government...

    The reptilian brain might see the politics as being limited to government...but that's a reptilian brain...

    #27     Jun 19, 2010
  8. You might want to learn the history of the Klan as well

    "In reaction to social changes, the Klan adopted anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist and anti-immigrant slants."

    Labor and anti-unionism

    The social unrest of the postwar period included labor strikes in response to low wages and poor working conditions in many industrial cities, often led by immigrants, who also organized unions. Klan members worried about labor organizers and the socialist leanings of some of the immigrants, which added to the tensions. They also resented upwardly mobile ethnic Catholics.[68] At the same time, in cities Klan members were themselves working in industrial environments and often struggled with working conditions.

    In southern cities such as Birmingham, Alabama, Klan members kept control of access to the better-paying industrial jobs but opposed unions.


    I know you wont understand that,but it simply means the Klan was against socialism and anti Union
    #28     Jun 19, 2010
  9. LOL, "ethnic catholic"? Let me guess, you got that off wikipedia??? LOL!!!!

    #29     Jun 19, 2010
  10. So, if you feel that politics is 100% about power, then we can deduce that to you it is 0% about principal and ethics. NOW your stances are starting to make a lot more sense. You have the positions you do because it's your belief that it has 100% to do with power and 0% to do with principals...

    #30     Jun 19, 2010