I actually proposed this to a Ms congressman in the 90's with no mention of any state in particular as a destination. Keeping poor people in a poor state is just going to assure they'll always be poor. I say let's fix it or drop it.
Jackson's Boil Water Notice lifted...
- Thread starter Maroon Eagle
- Start date
- Status
I feel sorry for anyone who has to listen to your ignorant horseshit daily. The foolishness you believe and continue to regurgitate here is astounding
WTF? Am I missing some sarcasm?
Are you suggesting Mississippi should build low income housing in another state and ship it's impoverished citizens to that state in order to take advantage of the other state's schools and employment opportunities? How about, I don't know, creating jobs and better education in Mississippi?
Your suggestion would lead to surrounding states building a damn border wall around Mississippi.
https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
- [FONT="]The realignment of black voters from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party that began in the late 1920s proliferated during this era. This process involved a “push and pull”: the refusal by Republicans to pursue civil rights alienated many black voters,
while efforts—shallow though they were—by northern Democrats to open opportunities for African Americans gave black voters reasons to switch parties.
[/FONT]- [FONT="]As late as the mid-1930s, African American Republican [/FONT]John R. Lynch[FONT="], who had represented Mississippi in the House during and after Reconstruction, summed up the sentiments of older black voters and upper middle-class professionals: “The colored voters cannot help but feel that in voting the Democratic ticket in national elections they will be voting to give their indorsement [sic] and their approval to every wrong of which they are victims, every right of which they are deprived, and every injustice of which they suffer.”[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Additionally, black voters nationwide began leaving the Republican Party because of the growing perception that local Democratic organizations better represented their interests. Local patronage positions and nationally administered emergency relief programs in Depression-era Chicago and other cities, for instance, proved crucial in attracting African-American support.[/FONT][FONT="] While the New Deal failed to extend as much economic relief to black Americans as to whites, the tangible assistance they provided conferred a sense that the system was at least addressing a few issues that were important to African Americans. For those who had been marginalized or ignored for so long, even the largely symbolic efforts of the Roosevelt administration inspired hope and renewed interest in the political process.[/FONT]
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html -
[FONT="]- During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power...The Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.
- After the United States triumphed over the Confederate States at the end of the [/FONT]Civil War[FONT="], and under [/FONT]President Abraham Lincoln[FONT="], Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice (for example the [/FONT]Civil Rights Act of 1866[FONT="](opens in new tab)[/FONT][FONT="] though this failed to end slavery). Again Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.
[/FONT]- Eric Rauchway[FONT="](opens in new tab)[/FONT][FONT="], professor of American history at the [/FONT]University of California[FONT="](opens in new tab)[/FONT][FONT="], Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [/FONT]
The Democrat and Republican parties of today are nothing like 100 years ago or 150 years ago. It is foolish to try and argue otherwise, given the vast documentation showing what actually happened.
But to get back to the actual claim I refuted that started this tangent, Mississippi is not barely a red state. It is a solidly red state at the state and national levels. It is not blue and it is not even purple. There is no handwringing on election night while we all wait to see how the state of Mississippi will vote. Its clearly red and clearly conservative.
I am once again shocked to see what needs to be clarified on SPS. TIL there are actually people who think Mississippi is barely a red state.
No I am simply saying that the federal gov't should use some discretion in where they allocate funds for public housing. Housing people in terribly depressed areas like the Mississippi delta is a no win proposition for everyone. If the gov't truly wants to help these folks the way to do it is relocate then house them.
@mstateglfr, the truth is that the switch that you are so confident about is related to how each party viewed the role of the Federal government. The Republican Party has always been a party that supports business and as Big businesses were developing they needed Big government so early on the Republican Party actually supported a big centralized federal government role (gasp!). As businesses continued to develop they wanted less government involvement and the "switch" happened.
What didn't switch was that the Republican Party has always supported real social justice more than the other party. You know the one that starts with a D.....the one that hung on to slavery, started the Klan, implemented Jim Crow, created the welfare state and thinks that 74 million Americans are fascist.
So there was somewhat of a "switch" but not as broad as their narrative leads you to believe.
What didn't switch was that the Republican Party has always supported real social justice more than the other party. You know the one that starts with a D.....the one that hung on to slavery, started the Klan, implemented Jim Crow, created the welfare state and thinks that 74 million Americans are fascist.
So there was somewhat of a "switch" but not as broad as their narrative leads you to believe.
" I feel sorry for anyone who has to listen to your ignorant horseshit daily."
Uh, that would be SPS **
Uh, that would be SPS **
Last edited:
Except for all those old people that get SS and Medicare dollars. But who needs accuracy when you're Goat?
Ah yes, I had forgotten about all those modern liberals who run the KKK or all those modern conservatives who pushed for voting rights. And who can forget all the conservatives who were actually progressive and championed for integration?***
Again, the current Democratic and Republican parties are nothing like 100 or 150 years ago.
Come on man, did you actually study history in the South? Do you really not understand what Southern Democrats were all about? One party has a lot of stains and sins to wash away. If only there was a way to make it all disappear or better yet make it look like it was someone else.
Just check your own President's voting record and who he was great friends with. I guess he switched parties too?
Settle down, no need to get big mad and start the name-calling.
I thought for a while that you actually knew how to have a discussion. Turns out you're just like the rest of the outraged downvoting brigade.
Just so you know, snowflake is a term primarily used to describe your left-leaning kind. Just kind of a 'I know you are but what am I' type of move.
Jackson would also still be a capital city, no matter who was there. You have a totally flawed premise, and are out of your element here.
Now you can tell me how Tupelo and Gulfport are somehow affected by Jackson.
Not name calling, I'm mocking you
(Edited because I got my threads mixed up. Im and dubmass.)
And the term "snowflake" can be used for any person that's being a....snowflake. of any political persuasion. Snowflake.
EDIT2: I don't really have an issue with much of what you've said in this thread, even if I disagree with it. You're debating just fine. I just called out the line about your claim that he's trying to disqualify your opinion. Again, your words do that.
Last edited:
I agree with you, but the "government" itself doesn't have an agenda. It's reactive in nature. So to me it's more about the agenda of the people with power (whether in the government or lobbying), and like you say, they are much more interested in keeping people down and keeping the vote in many of these depressed areas.
I understand that they want to help develop and grow their areas, but they should be focused on economic development, not subsidizing the current situation. That would give the incentive to both the powerful people (attract business or people will leave) AND their constituency (stay and be poor, or leave and find a better economy).
Did they or did they not earn those things from working their whole lives? Are those things available in every state or are they not? (Checkmate)
There are also plenty of poor old people who fall into the same category as poor young and middle age people.
You know you're wrong here. Your attempted insults prove that.
Last edited:
This is what the man said:
He (and you) make an assumption, based on my POV. Very tried and true liberal tactic. Just like all Trump supporters were racist, right?
It's boring. Just say that you think I'm a meanie or something.
Way to totally miss the argument. Or am I not allowed to point out your stupid mistake? Is that trying to silence your conservative beliefs?
Guntown would be Ackerman without Tupelo. See how that works?
And Gulfport is Jackson writ small. Not as familiar with Tupelo.
Jackson's leadership has made mistakes, for dang sure. But not all of its problems are of its own making. It didn't cause white flight affecting its tax base (though it didn't respond well to mitigate it). It didn't design the Mississippi political system that gives outsized power to less populated areas than its own. It didn't create the system that allows high earners tax monies to flow to other political entities. It didn't decide at the state level to not correct this imbalance. It's leaders didn't create the problems that led to inner city poverty and broken families.
For comparison sake, I live in a suburbish area within the state, that can't figure out how to drain frigging water. They are all Republicans, and they can't run shite. Starkville was no better under Republicans, and the current ones on the city council are complete ignorant jackasses. Blaming "Democrats" for Jackson's problems is just idiocy. None of their leaders are good, but I've yet to see any state Republican that would have made a difference if handed that overflowing shitbag of problems. The only thing that will help is state assistance (and yes that should come with major strings/control).
He said your view is dumb because it can't possibly mesh with reality, as he's lived it, and therefore he concludes you have not. That view of his is just as valid an any other. It's not in any way comparable to calling all Trump supporters as racist. Deal with it, snowflake.
I don't think I'm the one who missed this argument. You aren't even talking about the argument. It was about federal money keeping MS afloat. And no, federal money didn't keep MS afloat, it simply bloated parts of it. Without federal money, MS would likely have a smaller populations, per per capita, would not be as "poor".
YOU took it to a Jackson metro deal, which literally made no sense at all.
So, in other words, his opinion vs. my opinion. But mine is dumb because reasons (well, not reasons, it's because it's conservative).
You da man, lefty. Carry on.
Biden's history is full of stuff I disagree with. Ive known that since he ran in '08 and I first learned in detail about his voting record and positions thru the years, which was also the election year when I voted for that crazy kook Ron Paul.
Once again, the start of this tangent was because it was claimed that Mississippi is barely a red state. That is completely wrong. It is socially conservative, religious, the executive and legislative branches of state government are dominantly red, and federal legislators are dominantly red. It has been this was for the entire century and longer.
This is simply an analysis of reality and without opinion.
Some did, some didn't. You said 100%. That's clearly wrong. The only question is if you can admit it. I'm kidding, we all know you can't.
That's the type of argumentative ******** that disallows any type of decent debate. You've just gotten to a point where you're trying to 'win'.
Of course it's opinion vs opinion. YOU are the one who tried to play the victim and claim he was trying to "disqualify" your opinion. You got called out on it. You whined some more. And here are whining more again. All because you don't want to admit that there is a possibility that your opinion is skewed by your circumstances (ie, not arguing in good faith by readily admitting a point made by the other side). If you won't debate in good faith, you deserve to be mocked IMO, not treated with respect (which conflicts with current conservative teaching that all bad faith ******** artists deserve to be treated with utmost respect [because the conservative movement almost entirely consists of bad faith ******** artists]). If you don't like that, I don't care.
Carry on, crying con.
If you don't understand that removing the 30% of total state income that comes from federal taxes would be pretty bad for the MS economy......then I don't know how to proceed. Carry on. If you want to concede that (this is clearly the part you have trouble with) and then argue that many decades of alternative history would have led to a vastly different MS that doesn't need Fed dollars.....um ok. Sure, its possible. But what does that prove?
That was all addressed right here:
The good faith stuff ended when you showed up.
So you're good with taking down confederate monuments and everything named to honor confederates, of course?
- Status
Latest posts
-
Did I just get trolled? Kirby Smart to become NY Jets HC!
- Latest: Howiefeltersnstch
Get unlimited access today.