Final Army Base Naming Commission Report

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

It was the same sort of division that split the Democratic Party 100 years into the future. 

The issue at hand in the 1850s was slavery rather than segregation, as it would be when the extremely conservative “solid south” swapped allegiance to the Republicans. 

What Coffee said is true. The resistance to abolition and desegregation were very much conservative stances, and both of them divided the Democratic Parties of their era. 

To the point of conservatism being resistance to radical change I can see the argument.  I’m not sure the statement was a shot at conservatives or making excuses for the Democratic Party.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And the Lincoln was what? A radical? lmao

 

No? But he was a socially liberal American for his time

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

13 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Lincoln was the FIRST Republican President.  One heck of a spin, but nice try.

Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency. 

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abraham-lincoln-elected-president

Trying to change history again?

 

 

I never said that. Abraham Lincoln was 100% a Republican...he was also an socially liberal abolitionist for his time in America and was opposed by the Conservative Southern Democrats 

 

The Republican and Democrat parties change in accordance to their members and belief systems. You've got to stop viewing Republican and Democrat as unchanging "teams" like in football that you support no matter what. They are parties of people and those people and ideas change over time 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

I never said that. Abraham Lincoln was 100% a Republican...he was also an socially liberal abolitionist for his time in America and was opposed by the Conservative Southern Democrats 

 

The Republican and Democrat parties change in accordance to their members and belief systems. You've got to stop viewing Republican and Democrat as unchanging "teams" like in football that you support no matter what. They are parties of people and those people and ideas change over time 

 

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the point of conservatism being resistance to radical change I can see the argument.  I’m not sure the statement was a shot at conservatives or making excuses for the Democratic Party.

 

[AUDub 11,182]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

No? But he was a socially liberal American for his time

He governed more or less as a centrist while in office, but if you go read through things like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the idea that he had some radical ideas bleeds off the page.

It was the exact angle of attack Douglas went with. 

[AUDub 11,182]

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the point of conservatism being resistance to radical change I can see the argument.  I’m not sure the statement was a shot at conservatives or making excuses for the Democratic Party.

It was a statement of fact. The staunch opposition was conservative, whatever party they voted for at the time. 

[AUDub 11,182]

Just now, AUDub said:

It was a statement of fact. The staunch opposition was conservative, whatever party they voted for at the time. 

And the party wasn't necessarily a monolith. One of the main reasons Lincoln won the 1860 election was because he forced Douglas to articulate the Freeport Doctrine during the 1858 senate debates I mentioned earlier. This had the effect of the southern Democrats walking out of the Democratic National Convention and of splitting the vote. Douglas was the Democratic nominee, but the south threw their support behind John C. Breckinridge, a fire-breathing supporters of the expansion of slavery.

[Didba 5,256]

Guys, let's not debate this again smh, Lincoln would be a Democrat by today's standard. The Republican party was, for their time, the liberal progressive party while Democrats were the conservative party.  The Civil War era Republican party became the modern Democratic party and the Civil War era Democratic party became the modern Republican party.

Just look at the campaign platforms from back then and see where they align now.

[homersapien 11,440]

5 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I think kids just liked the idea of being rebels. 

The civil war was romanticized to young boys in the 50's and 60's.  And I can distinctly remember being taught in school that it was not about slavery, it was about "state's rights".  

(They never mentioned anything about "states rights for what purpose?" - why, to perpetuate slavery of course.)

As I got older and got into my teens, the civil war was all about the south's military prowess compared to the north.  We took pride in that. The period of the centennial was one big propaganda fest.

As I got older, it became clear that no one really learns history in schools.  Schools just provide a generalized temporal framework.  You actually learn and appreciate actual history through private (personal) research.

Edited January 12, 2023 by homersapien

[AU9377 5,035]

Thankfully, we all agree that the institution of slavery was abhorrent and had no place in any society. 

Now if we could also only agree that this country is great enough to ensure basic health care to its citizens.....

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Now if we could also only agree that this country is great enough to ensure basic health care to its citizens.....

I know, right.  Look at Canada, what a great system, it even will pay for MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) so the government can save on medical costs as we get older and/or prey on the mentally ill and save even more money.  

The devil is in the details on this.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

One of my personal convictions is that no one really learns history in schools.  Schools just provide a generalized temporal framework.  You actually learn and appreciate actual history through private (personal) research.

Yes. However, I still believe education is a reflection of political control and economic power.  How much of what we learn is actually education?  How much is training/conditioning.  Even religion is tainted in the same way.

Power looks to every institution to reinforce and legitimize itself. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know, right.  Look at Canada, what a great system, it even will pay for MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) so the government can save on medical costs as we get older and/or prey on the mentally ill and save even more money.  

The devil is in the details on this.

 

Yeah, in America you're expected to just buy a gun and take care of that yourself in the privacy of your own home. Better not mess up and survive the attempt though or the medical bills will drive you and your family into medical bankruptcy. 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

40 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Yeah, in America you're expected to just buy a gun and take care of that yourself in the privacy of your own home. Better not mess up and survive the attempt though or the medical bills will drive you and your family into medical bankruptcy. 

What?  Dying is a traumatic event, no matter how it is accomplished.  MAID’s commercials (yes commercials) seem to present it as peaceful and serine, it is not, not at the end.

If you are terminally ill, that’s one thing, but if your mentally ill you could actually be talked into it.  What is better for society.  I know what is better for government funded healthcare.  It is a slippery slope and if we go with M4A I would like to see a provision that would address this.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The civil war was romanticized to young boys in the 50's and 60's.  And I can distinctly remember being taught in school that it was not about slavery, it was about "state's rights".  

(They never mentioned anything about "states rights for what purpose?" - why, to perpetuate slavery of course.)

As I got older and got into my teens, the civil war was all about the south's military prowess compared to the north.  We were taught to take proud in that. The period of the centennial was one big propaganda fest.

As I got older, it became clear that no one really learns history in schools.  Schools just provide a generalized temporal framework.  You actually learn and appreciate actual history through private (personal) research.

Could not agree more. We were also taught that the majority of slaves were treated well and actually content. In my case through history 101 which I took at small community college. 
 

The average age baseball mentality in men is that of a 12 to 14 YO. The age most quit playing. Same probably holds true with history. Have found that I have lived most of my life in ignorance.

[AU9377 5,035]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What?  Dying is a traumatic event, no matter how it is accomplished.  MAID’s commercials (yes commercials) seem to present it as peaceful and serine, it is not, not at the end.

If you are terminally ill, that’s one thing, but if your mentally ill you could actually be talked into it.  What is better for society.  I know what is better for government funded healthcare.  It is a slippery slope and if we go with M4A I would like to see a provision that would address this.

I realize that some of what ur saying is in jest, but it isn't as though they are marketing to the general population.  If you aren't terminal, you don't have the option.  This is what so many people do to almost any issue now.  We focus on one small and relatively unimportant talking point and ignore the overall benefit of what is being done.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What?  Dying is a traumatic event, no matter how it is accomplished.  MAID’s commercials (yes commercials) seem to present it as peaceful and serine, it is not, not at the end.

If you are terminally ill, that’s one thing, but if your mentally ill you could actually be talked into it.  What is better for society.  I know what is better for government funded healthcare.  It is a slippery slope and if we go with M4A I would like to see a provision that would address this.

It most certainly can be peaceful and serene if one wants it to be - and the appropriate hospice care is available.

Such a death is an argument for universal healthcare, not against.  If used for the latter, it's just a scare tactic.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I realize that some of what ur saying is in jest, but it isn't as though they are marketing to the general population.  If you aren't terminal, you don't have the option.  This is what so many people do to almost any issue now.  We focus on one small and relatively unimportant talking point and ignore the overall benefit of what is being done.

 

Who is ignoring the overall benefit?  I said I would like a provision the would address it.  Also, in Canada:

Canada has allowed terminally ill patients to end their lives with medical assistance since 2016. And eventually, even as early as next March, Canadians living with severe mental illness could also be eligible under the law known as medical assistance in dying, or MAID. But as you might imagine, that has raised many difficult ethical and moral questions, both about the motivations of health care workers who might offer the option and also about the competence of patients who might request it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/11/1142141146/canada-is-expanding-categories-for-medically-assisted-death

In connection with the above:

In 2021, 10,064 Canadians died by MAID, a 32.4 per cent increase over the previous year’s 7,603. And that, in turn, was a 34.3 per cent increase over the 5,661 Canadians who died by MAID in 2019.

MAID rates have been particularly high on Vancouver Island, where the All Is Beauty film was shot.

About 7.5 per cent of deaths on the island are now due to medically assisted death.

This is more than three times higher than the national average, and a massive surge from just three years prior. In 2018, MAID deaths constituted only 3.6 per cent of total Vancouver Island mortality.

At the same time, there has been a reliable stream of controversial cases in which Canadians have either sought – or been offered – MAID on issues for which non-lethal treatment was feasible. This included at least five Canadian combat veterans who were offered MAID by a Veterans Affairs caseworker after seeking help for issues ranging from depression to PTSD.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-retailer-commercial-assisted-suicide

I’m not necessarily against M4A but there are unintentional consequences as in all policies.

[DKW 86 7,440]

20 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I never said that. Abraham Lincoln was 100% a Republican...he was also an socially liberal abolitionist for his time in America and was opposed by the Conservative Southern Democrats 

The Republican and Democrat parties change in accordance to their members and belief systems. You've got to stop viewing Republican and Democrat as unchanging "teams" like in football that you support no matter what. They are parties of people and those people and ideas change over time 

I got to ask, Who said otherwise. You seem to be having a fight with yourself on this. It is historical fact that the Democrat Party was where the most egregious things done in America came from? Jim Crowe, Lynchings, the KKK, all came from the Democrats. The Republicans were Conservative North & Northeastern people that fought the Dems to free the slaves and to give the Black Man Civil Freedoms. These White Bread Northern Conservatives were no more radical then anyone else, they were just decent.

Now? All is almost completely flipped. The Republicans have turned almost suicidal in their trumpism. The Democrats? They are now the old Republicans, fending for Big Business and Wall Street. If ever there was a need for a third party, it is right now. 

[AUDub 11,182]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The Republicans were Conservative North & Northeastern people that fought the Dems to free the slaves and to give the Black Man Civil Freedoms. These White Bread Northern Conservatives were no more radical then anyone else, they were just decent.

Objectively wrong. The Republican Party was composed of wings and coalitions, having a socially progressive wing best exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt and eventually the Rockefellers, as well as a socially conservative one best exemplified by Taft.

Lincoln himself was a social progressive and a fiscal moderate. Grant was the first one to institute what could be considered conservative fiscal policy.

The Republican Party was not distilled into a movement conservativism party until the Dixiecrats flipped and the last vestiges of the progressive wing were purged in the Reagan era. 

[homersapien 11,440]

17 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I got to ask, Who said otherwise. You seem to be having a fight with yourself on this. It is historical fact that the Democrat Party was where the most egregious things done in America came from? Jim Crowe, Lynchings, the KKK, all came from the Democrats. The Republicans were Conservative North & Northeastern people that fought the Dems to free the slaves and to give the Black Man Civil Freedoms. These White Bread Northern Conservatives were no more radical then anyone else, they were just decent.

Now? All is almost completely flipped. The Republicans have turned almost suicidal in their trumpism. The Democrats? They are now the old Republicans, fending for Big Business and Wall Street. If ever there was a need for a third party, it is right now. 

That would all be fine if you said Democrats at the time....  You are simply adding to the confusion without making that qualification.

Political parties are not static anymore than history is. 

People trying to imply they are, is the problem.  That is what Coffee is addressing. 

You're not helping.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

20 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

I’m not necessarily against M4A but there are unintentional consequences as in all policies.

There are plenty of countries with M4A that don't allow medically assisted death like Canada. They are 2 completely separate issues, and shouldn't really be bundled together in the same discussion. 

and part of this argument just feels like fearmongering similar to the "Government Death Squads/death panels" that Republicans were claiming Obamacare would lead to to get people off government subsidized healthcare. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

52 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

There are plenty of countries with M4A that don't allow medically assisted death like Canada. They are 2 completely separate issues, and shouldn't really be bundled together in the same discussion. 

and part of this argument just feels like fearmongering similar to the "Government Death Squads/death panels" that Republicans were claiming Obamacare would lead to to get people off government subsidized healthcare. 

 

 

Canada originally didn’t have this policy, did they?  It grew out of what is perceived as an economic necessity.  If not; why have TV commercials about it?  All I am saying is be cognizant of it when writing the law.

Oh, by the way, does it get people off of government subsidies?

[DKW 86 7,440]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

That would all be fine if you said Democrats at the time....  You are simply adding to the confusion without making that qualification.

Political parties are not static anymore than history is. 

People trying to imply they are, is the problem.  That is what Coffee is addressing.  You're not helping.

What part of:

Now? All is almost completely flipped. The Republicans have turned almost suicidal in their trumpism. The Democrats? They are now the old Republicans, fending for Big Business and Wall Street. If ever there was a need for a third party, it is right now. 

Do you not get?  I am 100% Correct on Facts. No one is arguing that the Dems didnt give us Jim Crowe, Lynchings, and the KKK. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

 

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. As the online Wall Street Journal so aptly subtitled Mr. Steele's article, "Trent Lott jeopardizes the very productive ideas his party stands for."

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

What part of:

Now? All is almost completely flipped. The Republicans have turned almost suicidal in their trumpism. The Democrats? They are now the old Republicans, fending for Big Business and Wall Street. If ever there was a need for a third party, it is right now. 

Do you not get?  I am 100% Correct on Facts. No one is arguing that the Dems didnt give us Jim Crowe, Lynchings, and the KKK. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

 

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats. Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without the leadership of Republicans such as Everett Dirksen and the votes of Republicans. As the online Wall Street Journal so aptly subtitled Mr. Steele's article, "Trent Lott jeopardizes the very

productive ideas his party stands for."

And your point is.....?