| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Women's suffrage movement
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Women's suffrage movement

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Women's suffrage movement
    Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 04:21
Discuss the history of the Women's movement, per the locale. For starters, the women's suffrage movement in the UK at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century and through the Great War, in this case:The militant wing of the suffragettes movement.

Ex. The suffragettes had gained a lot of ground around the time of the 1890's, rightfully claiming to have many supporters and sympathizers within parliament and amongst other politicians. But by the time 1910 came around they had lost almost all of that official support when they had adopted militant tactics when they had perceived the progress for their movement at a standstill. How and why did they come to that conclusion if they had such strong support amongst the governing class?

Also...

By the time the Great War was drawing to a conclusion, many political rights enjoyed by men were extended to women as well for their manufacturing contributions in helping to win the war effort for the allied cause. So it's seems the suffrage movement had finally succeeded in one part only, and one small stretch of road in the long march towards equality. But what about those who adopted militant tactics. It seems by their actions having only caused the view of men to become even further entrenched until the great war came along.  So what part, if any, did the militant play in securing rights for women in the UK? Was it fundamentally important to the cause, was it limited in achievement or did it have virtually no positive impact at all?


Edited by Panther - 02 Sep 2012 at 08:32
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 08:37
Things regarding women's rights have changed a lot in the past few hundred years. Look at old records, for instance. In the 1790s, women weren't even counted in the census as people. And now they are equal to everyone! Sometimes it is better to change for the better of equality, not division among race, gender, or any barrier.
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 16:41
I hate to always bring it back to this, but for every small and major social movement where minorities and oppressed groups assert and demand their rights, there have always been liberals defending them and conservatives attacking them. It is the one constant of modern democratic history. Its one of the reasons why I find ideological conservatism so baffling, there is so much to be ashamed of in their history. And for those conservatives who think that those totemical battles are now over, one need only look at the Republican national convention where two black journalists faced racial abuse (Very few non white faces in that crowd, but thats another story) and where gays are generally made out to be dangerous and subversive. An advisor to Romney (GAY) was forced to resign because of the instinctive bigotry of the ideological conservative movement. We see it all the time, and good people are constantly in a battle to protect, serve and defend liberty from the reactionary nutjobs who want to bring us back to the very dawn of modernity, as if the past hundred years never happened. Women's suffrage is an important chapter of this eternal battle between light and dark, reason and unreason, sanity and insanity, and conservatism and liberalism.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 18:28
Such black and white thinking Parnell. I'm a little surprised. Objectively speaking, i wouldn't trust a conservative or liberal "by name only" to look after the rights and interests of their countrymen, the minority groups or the oppressed. If given the chance, both C & L's of the world would oppress the hell out of each other and anyone else in between, me thinks. Thugs exist on both sides. And as for this...

Quote
And for those conservatives who think that those totemical battles are now over, one need only look at the Republican national convention where two black journalists faced racial abuse (Very few non white faces in that crowd, but thats another story)


Not that it is a question of believability for what they had experienced, but i do have a hard time trusting any journalists, no mater who they are and most especially during an election cycle, trying to paint a stark picture of opposites, sort of a reversed yellow journalism. Especially after NBC's got caught trying to fabricate and sensationalize a story, via NBC Dateline Nascar race baiting fiasco.


Edited by Panther - 02 Sep 2012 at 18:30
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 19:06
By definition conservatives are people who want to keep things as they are or were, or at least how they perceive them to have been. In the 1990s Russian conservatives wanted the Soviet Union back. In the 1920s Russian conservatives wanted the Tsar back.

There's nothing in the least 'conservative' about, for instance, privatising US social security, which would be a radical move, not a conservative one.

However once you start talking about parties labelled 'Conservative' the logical position goes by the board. It's true that in the 19th century in the UK pressure for some voting rights for women came from the Liberal party, the chief spokesman being John Stuart Mill [1], but the first act to grant women votes was passed by a Conservative/Liberal coalition government in 1918, and the act that finally gave the same rights to women was passed by a Conservative government in 1928.

It's an interesting sidelight that it wasn't until 1832 (under a Liberal government) that women were formally made ineligible to vote, the act restricting the franchise to 'male persons'. Essentially this appears to have been a slip, there being no real concept of women voting in Britain. However if it had not been included the legal position when the women's franchise movement started later in the century would have been rather different. 

[1] His father was against it. 



Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Sep 2012 at 19:08
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 19:46
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

By definition conservatives are people who want to keep things as they are or were, or at least how they perceive them to have been. In the 1990s Russian conservatives wanted the Soviet Union back. In the 1920s Russian conservatives wanted the Tsar back.

There's nothing in the least 'conservative' about, for instance, privatising US social security, which would be a radical move, not a conservative one.

However once you start talking about parties labelled 'Conservative' the logical position goes by the board. It's true that in the 19th century in the UK pressure for some voting rights for women came from the Liberal party, the chief spokesman being John Stuart Mill [1], but the first act to grant women votes was passed by a Conservative/Liberal coalition government in 1918, and the act that finally gave the same rights to women was passed by a Conservative government in 1928.

It's an interesting sidelight that it wasn't until 1832 (under a Liberal government) that women were formally made ineligible to vote, the act restricting the franchise to 'male persons'. Essentially this appears to have been a slip, there being no real concept of women voting in Britain. However if it had not been included the legal position when the women's franchise movement started later in the century would have been rather different. 

[1] His father was against it. 



I was speaking essentially about social and political rights, not economic issues (Which I agree, there is nothing conservative about modern Republican economic orthodoxy, its an extreme right wing position)
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 19:50
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Such black and white thinking Parnell. I'm a little surprised. Objectively speaking, i wouldn't trust a conservative or liberal "by name only" to look after the rights and interests of their countrymen, the minority groups or the oppressed. If given the chance, both C & L's of the world would oppress the hell out of each other and anyone else in between, me thinks. Thugs exist on both sides. And as for this...


Its not so much that liberals = good, conservatives = bad, but rather an acknowledgement that conservatism is essentially fighting against history itself. Sometimes conservatism can be well placed and rather prescient - I'd rather, for example, have been a conservative in late Wiemar Germany (As in, keeping the democratic Republic and rejecting National Socialism) but generally speaking in the field of civil and social rights, every single meaningful reform that has improved people's lives has come in spite of conservative intransigence. There is no denying this historical fact.

Quote
Not that it is a question of believability for what they had experienced, but i do have a hard time trusting any journalists, no mater who they are and most especially during an election cycle, trying to paint a stark picture of opposites, sort of a reversed yellow journalism. Especially after NBC's got caught trying to fabricate and sensationalize a story, via NBC Dateline Nascar race baiting fiasco.


Come on Panther. Every visible Republican condemned the racist jibes at the CNN journalists, you can't blame the Republicans repugnant international image amongst civilised people on the 'liberal media'. They do that very well by themselves without any help. If anything, there is a bias to fairness in the American media which is completely maddening to any sane outsider looking in. You need a Jeremy Paxman, big time.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 20:05
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Such black and white thinking Parnell. I'm a little surprised.


Thought I should expand on this thought. Over the past decade, the level of militancy in politics has become more and more distressing. Paradoxically and distressingly, apathy is also at an all time high. Globally, the militancy comes from Islamic extremists, aggressive and militant ultra orthodox Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the modern American conservative movement in the shape of the tea party - the 'American Taliban' if you will. There are many more but these groups in my mind are the ones most likely to bring history as we know it to an end. The level of hysteria and cognitive dissonance and outright denial of reality in the modern ideological conservative movement is very dangerous and verges on the Orwellian. Its like they have created their own 'truths' and 'untruths', oblivious to what is real and what is delusional. Its genuinely frightening and I can see this kind of thinking leading to the demise of the great American republic.

I think our generation (early to mid 20s) are going to live through a terrifying period, were we will at various times be at the brink of annihilation. In some ways the Cold War was a safer time to live through, at least huge nation states were in control, the nukes were in the possession of all powerful military infrastructures, and neither superpower would ever really launch a nuclear war as it would lead to mutual annihilation. Nowadays the threat won't be sparked by an obscure maritime incident or some American tank accidentally rolling into East Germany, its going to come from a lone far right nutjob dropping a suitcase of smallpox in the middle of Cairo, or an extreme Islamist nutter getting his hands on a nuke and blowing the hell out of London. We have reason to be fearful, and the direct cause of that is political extremism.

For this reason I view history through a Whiggish lense - history as a series of civilisational advances, tempered by reactionary setbacks. In this narrative, the good guys are the visionaries who encourage greater liberty, individual freedom and a stronger more cohesive society. The bad guys are those who rebel against the same - the bigots with their placards against the blacks in the 60s and the gays in the noughties. History will judge them with the contempt they so richly deserve. History is black and white, sometimes there are simple and straightforward cases of right and wrong, and it is our job as civilised peoples to be thoroughly ashamed of those dark chapters of our past.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 04:25
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:


Its not so much that liberals = good, conservatives = bad


That is exactly what people are arguing and what i took away from your post.

Quote
but rather an acknowledgement that conservatism is essentially fighting against history itself.


Conservatism isn't fighting against history, it is a part of human history and there is no need to separate the two and qualify one as worthy of moral support and the other to public censure. It isn't really fair to the human values that change over time. Or in other words, today's radical liberal is tomorrows strict conservative.

In a sense, social moderation as opposed to social libertines, as it is currently being argued. Personally, i don't give a damn one way or another about fighting for the right and wrongs of social issues,  but i am interested in it's effects. You see these two as ideological forces fighting for truth, social justice and the American way... Oops, couldn't resist. Embarrassed My approach is rather different, i see these two as natural counter-balance in any society; Complimentary to one another in any society that tempts it's fate by being open and tolerant of different view points. e.g. Yin and Yang, action versus a reaction, cause and effect.

Quote
Sometimes conservatism can be well placed and rather prescient - I'd rather, for example, have been a conservative in late Wiemar Germany (As in, keeping the democratic Republic and rejecting National Socialism) but generally speaking in the field of civil and social rights, every single meaningful reform that has improved people's lives has come in spite of conservative intransigence. There is no denying this historical fact.



A conservative in the Wiemar republic of Germany didn't give a darn about the republic, rather they were mostly Prussian Junkers or their allies being more interested in restoring the monarchy then in extending the life of something that they saw as an aberration to Germans and Germany and in fact, it was a conservative German who was instrumental in naively helping Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship, Franz von Papen. I think what you had meant is that you would have fit in more with the Social democrats as in being more in line with liberal republican values, law and order and a written constitution. Then again, i dunno, would you have felt more at home in the Spartacus League? Whose to say.

Quote
Come on Panther. Every visible Republican condemned the racist jibes at the CNN journalists, you can't blame the Republicans repugnant international image amongst civilised people on the 'liberal media'. They do that very well by themselves without any help. If anything, there is a bias to fairness in the American media which is completely maddening to any sane outsider looking in. You need a Jeremy Paxman, big time.


No doubt, sometimes it is human nature to shoot oneself in the foot or to be misinterpreted while trying to be controversial. However..... When 90% of the world has a horrendously inadequate highly negative grasp of US American Republicans, conservatives, moderates, Libertarians, liberal Republicans, gay conservatives, black conservatives, Latino conservatives, Asian conservatives and so on and so forth... as the party of intolerance and bigotry, then you can damn well bet i am gonna to be looking for the cause of the misinformation!!! Angry  And for the record, objectively speaking, more than half the time, it isn't how a conservative expresses himself, but it is how it is naively interpreted in the mainstream press.

Black and white? Don't give me that crap!



Edited by Panther - 03 Sep 2012 at 04:33
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 04:47
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Such black and white thinking Parnell. I'm a little surprised.


Thought I should expand on this thought. Over the past decade, the level of militancy in politics has become more and more distressing. Paradoxically and distressingly, apathy is also at an all time high. Globally, the militancy comes from Islamic extremists, aggressive and militant ultra orthodox Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the modern American conservative movement in the shape of the tea party - the 'American Taliban' if you will. There are many more but these groups in my mind are the ones most likely to bring history as we know it to an end. The level of hysteria and cognitive dissonance and outright denial of reality in the modern ideological conservative movement is very dangerous and verges on the Orwellian. Its like they have created their own 'truths' and 'untruths', oblivious to what is real and what is delusional. Its genuinely frightening and I can see this kind of thinking leading to the demise of the great American republic.

I think our generation (early to mid 20s) are going to live through a terrifying period, were we will at various times be at the brink of annihilation. In some ways the Cold War was a safer time to live through, at least huge nation states were in control, the nukes were in the possession of all powerful military infrastructures, and neither superpower would ever really launch a nuclear war as it would lead to mutual annihilation. Nowadays the threat won't be sparked by an obscure maritime incident or some American tank accidentally rolling into East Germany, its going to come from a lone far right nutjob dropping a suitcase of smallpox in the middle of Cairo, or an extreme Islamist nutter getting his hands on a nuke and blowing the hell out of London. We have reason to be fearful, and the direct cause of that is political extremism.

For this reason I view history through a Whiggish lense - history as a series of civilisational advances, tempered by reactionary setbacks. In this narrative, the good guys are the visionaries who encourage greater liberty, individual freedom and a stronger more cohesive society. The bad guys are those who rebel against the same - the bigots with their placards against the blacks in the 60s and the gays in the noughties. History will judge them with the contempt they so richly deserve. History is black and white, sometimes there are simple and straightforward cases of right and wrong, and it is our job as civilised peoples to be thoroughly ashamed of those dark chapters of our past.


Well, that is your view and i do respect it. Just needed to get the obvious out of the way first. Now it is an extremely grim pessimistic view lacking in objective reasoning.

Is the US going to matter to future generations 500 hundred years from now? Don't know, but my guess is that half to most of the world isn't going to care about US history by that point. No, actually, that is the reality today, so no change there.

Are tea pary or Occupy groups going to hold their imaginations like they currently are with us? Doubtful.

How are they going to interpret it? with a more clear view than either of us hold now or can imagine then.

Are they going to be laughing at our naive interpretation of events, or in case you are right, slap their heads in amazement because half of the population was fighting against it's own interests? Do we even have a decent grasp in the events that surround us? It's a toss up.

Let's try to keep some perspective without getting carried away.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 15:42
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


A conservative in the Wiemar republic of Germany didn't give a darn about the republic, rather they were mostly Prussian Junkers or their allies being more interested in restoring the monarchy then in extending the life of something that they saw as an aberration to Germans and Germany and in fact, it was a conservative German who was instrumental in naively helping Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship, Franz von Papen. I think what you had meant is that you would have fit in more with the Social democrats as in being more in line with liberal republican values, law and order and a written constitution. Then again, i dunno, would you have felt more at home in the Spartacus League? Whose to say.


Ah! A too literal reading of my post. My 'conservative' in this instance was someone who wanted to keep the status quo, rather than engage in risky and extreme behaviour (The natural Burkean definition of conservatism, not the rabid hyper Randian vision of the US Republican party, steeped as it is in quasi libertarian economic orthodoxy and barely concealed bigotry)

Quote
No doubt, sometimes it is human nature to shoot oneself in the foot or to be misinterpreted while trying to be controversial. However..... When 90% of the world has a horrendously inadequate highly negative grasp of US American Republicans, conservatives, moderates, Libertarians, liberal Republicans, gay conservatives, black conservatives, Latino conservatives, Asian conservatives and so on and so forth... as the party of intolerance and bigotry, then you can damn well bet i am gonna to be looking for the cause of the misinformation!!! Angry


You can blame the 'liberal media' all you want, but the reason that US Republicans, or at least the tea party element (Which is literally indistinguishable from the party nowadays) are held in such low esteem is because they are rightly viewed as being a few penny's short of a pound. No conservative movement in Europe would even vaguely resemble the US Republican party nowadays, you'd have to go the extreme, far right wing to find anything comparable (The kind of wing that basically wants to force all the Muslims out of Europe) In short, your party is like it was in 1964 - against history, against sanity, and led by fools.

[/quote]
And for the record, objectively speaking, more than half the time, it isn't how a conservative expresses himself, but it is how it is naively interpreted in the mainstream press.

Black and white? Don't give me that crap!

[/QUOTE]

Panther, that is just a joke. I suppose Akin was pursued by the 'liberal media' because he was republican and conservative and not because he is a moron? Your media isn't liberal, its corporatist with a (VERY) slight bias towards sanity, which sometimes means that conservatives who think that 'genuine' rape doesn't cause pregnancy will rightfully be challenged for such offensive idiocy.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 15:45
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Such black and white thinking Parnell. I'm a little surprised.


Thought I should expand on this thought. Over the past decade, the level of militancy in politics has become more and more distressing. Paradoxically and distressingly, apathy is also at an all time high. Globally, the militancy comes from Islamic extremists, aggressive and militant ultra orthodox Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the modern American conservative movement in the shape of the tea party - the 'American Taliban' if you will. There are many more but these groups in my mind are the ones most likely to bring history as we know it to an end. The level of hysteria and cognitive dissonance and outright denial of reality in the modern ideological conservative movement is very dangerous and verges on the Orwellian. Its like they have created their own 'truths' and 'untruths', oblivious to what is real and what is delusional. Its genuinely frightening and I can see this kind of thinking leading to the demise of the great American republic.

I think our generation (early to mid 20s) are going to live through a terrifying period, were we will at various times be at the brink of annihilation. In some ways the Cold War was a safer time to live through, at least huge nation states were in control, the nukes were in the possession of all powerful military infrastructures, and neither superpower would ever really launch a nuclear war as it would lead to mutual annihilation. Nowadays the threat won't be sparked by an obscure maritime incident or some American tank accidentally rolling into East Germany, its going to come from a lone far right nutjob dropping a suitcase of smallpox in the middle of Cairo, or an extreme Islamist nutter getting his hands on a nuke and blowing the hell out of London. We have reason to be fearful, and the direct cause of that is political extremism.

For this reason I view history through a Whiggish lense - history as a series of civilisational advances, tempered by reactionary setbacks. In this narrative, the good guys are the visionaries who encourage greater liberty, individual freedom and a stronger more cohesive society. The bad guys are those who rebel against the same - the bigots with their placards against the blacks in the 60s and the gays in the noughties. History will judge them with the contempt they so richly deserve. History is black and white, sometimes there are simple and straightforward cases of right and wrong, and it is our job as civilised peoples to be thoroughly ashamed of those dark chapters of our past.


Well, that is your view and i do respect it. Just needed to get the obvious out of the way first. Now it is an extremely grim pessimistic view lacking in objective reasoning.

Is the US going to matter to future generations 500 hundred years from now? Don't know, but my guess is that half to most of the world isn't going to care about US history by that point. No, actually, that is the reality today, so no change there.

Are tea pary or Occupy groups going to hold their imaginations like they currently are with us? Doubtful.

How are they going to interpret it? with a more clear view than either of us hold now or can imagine then.

Are they going to be laughing at our naive interpretation of events, or in case you are right, slap their heads in amazement because half of the population was fighting against it's own interests? Do we even have a decent grasp in the events that surround us? It's a toss up.

Let's try to keep some perspective without getting carried away.


Maybe I've been reading too much Orwell, but the tea partiers terrify me and lead me to think that a man made apocalypse will happen in my lifetime. The lack of reason ('The assault on reason', if you will), the hatred, the loathing, the BLATANT manipulation (which reveals a disturbing lack of intelligence which really makes me despair at the human condition) etc. It scares me, it really does.


Edited by Parnell - 03 Sep 2012 at 15:47
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2012 at 05:58
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:


Ah! A too literal reading of my post. My 'conservative' in this instance was someone who wanted to keep the status quo, rather than engage in risky and extreme behaviour (The natural Burkean definition of conservatism, not the rabid hyper Randian vision of the US Republican party, steeped as it is in quasi libertarian economic orthodoxy and barely concealed bigotry)


Like i mentioned earlier, didn't you mean the German social democrats? Anyways, your analysis of the US republicans seems to stop short of calling them outright racists fascists. Don't know why you stopped short, hardly anyone else is bothering to restrain themselves now a days. But in small way, i am rather grateful  for even so small a concession.

Well Parnell,  I don't know. "I used to" think years ago that the Democrats and their international supporters were a bunch of hyper collectivist communists, steeped in quasi-socialist  Marxist economic backwardness who did not even bother in concealing their lies, slanders, character assassinations  and misinformation with the help in spreading it by their media allies. (Well, okay... the last one i haven't abandoned yet because the media hasn't given me a reason too.) But then i gave up on the venom, hostile false  characterizations and embraced them as countrymen (And their international supporters as my allies), because deep down, though the beliefs may defer the desires are the same. In essence... i grew up and started thinking more for myself rather than follow the herd.

Anyhow, yes i still hold my basic political beliefs, but i do feel extremely free in not worrying if i am to be disowned by liked minded family members and excommunicated from friends if i happen to dare agree with my political opposites anytime i wish and even when i think they happen to be right.

This is a phenomenon i first heard with regularity as happening on the left in American politics shortly after the 2000 elections and one that is now increasingly starting too happen on the right as well. Modesty should prevent us from predicting anything from this other than to say with a degree of objectivity, that some type of foundation has been laid for the future. Whether it is cataclysmic or leads to a revolutionary change of thought in how we approach and do business with politics is at the sole discretion of time itself in completing the picture. What more can be said, i know not what?

Quote

You can blame the 'liberal media' all you want, but the reason that US Republicans, or at least the tea party element (Which is literally indistinguishable from the party nowadays) are held in such low esteem is because they are rightly viewed as being a few penny's short of a pound. No conservative movement in Europe would even vaguely resemble the US Republican party nowadays, you'd have to go the extreme, far right wing to find anything comparable (The kind of wing that basically wants to force all the Muslims out of Europe) In short, your party is like it was in 1964 - against history, against sanity, and led by fools.


Blame the the media? No, my dear Parnell, I just simply don't trust them to "report the news". I do however, trust the media to "create the news stories".

Incidentally, i am not a bit surprised that Europeans have such a sour view of the tea party and republicans. A lot of them didn't like Regan after all then, but quite a few do now from what i am reading. I suspect the reality has finally caught up with the false narratives as painted by the media reports in the international press? I dunno... maybe in time the realities of Obama and his administration will catch up with the rest of us in the opposition with the realization that he isn't as bad as a person as he is feared to be. Never close your mind to the possibilities!

Anyways... Most everything said about them in the European press is horribly slanted in painting a false picture of the events that had surrounded their existence. For the republicans,it's been  several decades now, and the tea party groups for the past five years. Pretty much because they are "ASSUMED" to be conservative and native born, i guess? So yeah... that automatically equates to them being neo-nazi's racists.  Rolling eyes Even though they aren't against legal immigration, accepting of ethnically different people (90% of black Americans vote democrat, so obviously...) from differing parties, orientations  (and believe it or not gays are more welcomed  than is currently let on, but that doesn't fit a narrative, so....), who happen to be made up of mostly middle class citizens whose views had been pretty well unrepresented by the politics at large and ignored by the media, leaving them with no choice other than to do something about it.

 Coincidentally, the Occupy movement, aside form an obvious media bias in this country towards the occupy movement, it may come as surprise to you but i feel no hostility towards to them, as i view them as having their own legitimate grievances as well, in a similar fashion as the tea party group. In fact, i feel a certain amount of sympathy for both.

Anyhow, i say all of this with as objective an eye as i can possibly can sift throw all this rhetorical warfare to the best of my ability. 


[/quote]
Panther, that is just a joke. I suppose Akin was pursued by the 'liberal media' because he was republican and conservative and not because he is a moron? Your media isn't liberal, its corporatist with a (VERY) slight bias towards sanity, which sometimes means that conservatives who think that 'genuine' rape doesn't cause pregnancy will rightfully be challenged for such offensive idiocy.
[/QUOTE]

Todd Akin is a anti-abortionists, so yes that puts him at extreme odds within the media establishment, but most especially the liberal part of it,  and the timing of his tactless remarks at odds with those of his own party and is a precious gift to the Democrat party. I am sure you have heard this expression before: "High profile name here, the gift that keeps on giving." Is equally true of any high profile figure that utters something at complete odds with the stances of other high profile figures.

Anyways, any politician that distance themselves from the extreme divisive utterances and the factually challenged from within their own party ought to be acknowledged and commended, even if it is only done so for the sake of their career, but in my case, i like to put aside my cynicism from time to time. So, Kudos to the President. Not that it may increase the objectivity and reciprocity here, but i thought a little recognition of common sense is worth my while and sanity.


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2012 at 06:22
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:



Maybe I've been reading too much Orwell, but the tea partiers terrify me and lead me to think that a man made apocalypse will happen in my lifetime. The lack of reason ('The assault on reason', if you will), the hatred, the loathing, the BLATANT manipulation (which reveals a disturbing lack of intelligence which really makes me despair at the human condition) etc. It scares me, it really does.


What i am going to tell you is what i would say (And have, but not here on this forum) to any conservative moderate right leaning person expressing  a view that echoes yours, except with it being directed at the occupy movement: Oh good lord people. Get a damn grip once in a while!

Advice that i sometimes forget and have to remind myself of on my own.

Anyways, wouldn't you agree, life is to damn short to be living in unreasonable perpetual terror in a representative democracy?

Cheers Beer


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.