Georgia State Flag Concept

[AndrewPF]

Bernie Sanders has never represented the mainstream of his party. Bachmann does.

Bachman does not represent the Republican party IMO.

And Sanders isn't even really a Democrat. He's a socialist independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats because there's really nowhere else to put him. Of course, one also has to consider that he represents Vermont, and Vermont's not exactly a textbook example of the political norm in America, dig what I'm sayin'?

[IceCap]

It's also because the Democratic and Republican parties did a switcheroo in the 1960s. Before that, the Democrats were the party of the South, anti-civil rights and pro-"states' rights". The Democratic Party clung to the past out of fear of modernity.

Now the two parties are just the opposite.

It was even more convoluted than that. During FDR's reign up until the 60s, the key divide was North vs. South rather than Democrat vs. Republican. The south still felt animosity towards the Republicans because of reconstruction and thus supported the Democrats mainly by default, but the politics of Northern Democrats such as FDR and Kennedy were much different and far more accepting of change. In fact, the party was pretty much divided along state lines when it came to civil rights legislation.

After the Civil War you had the Democratic Party, which was the political vehicle of southerners looking to "redeem" the south against the Republican reconstruction, but it also became the party of immigrants. The Republicans, who had championed the Union during the Civil War, became the party of loyal Americans, and it wasn't very interested in reaching out to Catholic and Jewish immigrants from Europe. The Democrats, who had been discredited in the north as being the party of southern secession, filled the void and appealed to the immigrant vote as a way to re-establish itself in the north.

So you have a weird situation where the Democrats are the conservative good-old-boy-Jim Crow party in the south, but the party of the minority immigrant vote in the north. FDR's Democratic coalition drew heavily on the political traditions of the Democratic immigrant voting bloc, which tended to be more liberal. So while the Dem/GOP switch didn't occur until the 60s the building blocks for a more progressive Democratic Party were already in place by the 1880s.

[BlueSky]

FWIW, I'm a Republican (Illwauk, Gothamite, you're shocked I'm sure) but a reluctant member of any party given the extremists that exert influence on both. The tail needs to stop wagging the dog...on both sides. Michelle Bachmann is not my candidate and I think the GOP's only shot to unseat Obama is to nominate a moderate with some common sense. I wish them luck.

[Gothamite]

FWIW, I'm a Republican (Illwauk, Gothamite, you're shocked I'm sure) but a reluctant member of any party given the extremists that exert influence on both. The tail needs to stop wagging the dog...on both sides. Michelle Bachmann is not my candidate and I think the GOP's only shot to unseat Obama is to nominate a moderate with some common sense. I wish them luck.

Nothing wrong with being a Republican. I was one myself for a long time, but to paraphrase Reagan, they left me and lurched to the fringe. And since then, they stopped lurching and started running full-out at top speed.

I don't want Bachmann to represent the GOP. Everyone, right left and center alike, needs major parties run by adults and not fringe ideologues.

But what I want obviously doesn't have any impact on the GOP teabagging base, which is calling the tune and which likes Michelle very very much. And the leadership is following, whch is why you see them flirting with putting the United States of America into freaking default to punish Obama, a tactic Reagan himself strongly opposed during the 1980s.

The Dems are now the party of Reagan, and the only adults in the room. I'm not a Democrat, but I still know how Ronnie felt all those many years ago.

[IceCap]

Isn't that the truth. Reagan's downright liberal in comparison to the current GOP "norm."

[illwauk]

FWIW, I'm a Republican (Illwauk, Gothamite, you're shocked I'm sure) but a reluctant member of any party given the extremists that exert influence on both. The tail needs to stop wagging the dog...on both sides. Michelle Bachmann is not my candidate and I think the GOP's only shot to unseat Obama is to nominate a moderate with some common sense. I wish them luck.

Except the tail isn't wagging the dog on the Democrats' side. Being the spineless twats they are, the Democrats have been more than happy to accommodate the Republicans' insistence they they meet "in the middle" despite the GOP continuing to drift further and further right which has turned them (the Dems) into a center-right party leaving actual progressives with no representation in mainstream politics.

[Gothamite]

Very true.

[BlueSky]

FWIW, I'm a Republican (Illwauk, Gothamite, you're shocked I'm sure) but a reluctant member of any party given the extremists that exert influence on both. The tail needs to stop wagging the dog...on both sides. Michelle Bachmann is not my candidate and I think the GOP's only shot to unseat Obama is to nominate a moderate with some common sense. I wish them luck.

Except the tail isn't wagging the dog on the Democrats' side. Being the spineless twats they are, the Democrats have been more than happy to accommodate the Republicans' insistence they they meet "in the middle" despite the GOP continuing to drift further and further right which has turned them (the Dems) into a center-right party leaving actual progressives with no representation in mainstream politics.

Just curious, does "progressive" mean the same thing as "liberal"? If not, what's your definition? Hell, even if so, what's your definition?

[IceCap]

Progressive is probably a more accurate term for the left wing then liberal is. "Liberal," originally, was a very centrist political ideology. In fact a lot of the ideals we associate with the neo-conservative movement are classically liberal ideas, such as free trade and an emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility independent of the state. It's only relatively recently that "liberal" became associated with the left wing.

[Gothamite]

And mostly as an insult, from people who didn't know what the word meant.

Modern Democrats have much more in common with Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party than they ever did with classical liberalism. So "progressives" makes a lot more sense.

[BlueSky]

Okay, let me flip this and give you the definition so you can give me the proper word.

I'm talking about people who believe in the government doing everything for everyone; are for making housing "affordable" by giving loans out like bobbleheads on promotion night; don't think welfare recicipients should be drug-tested, have to work, or have restrictions on what they can spend government benefits on; want to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms and a government check (and teach their kids in Spanish); and think people who choose not to better themselves deserve the same life outcome as those who work their a**es off.

What are those people called?

[IceCap]

Okay, let me flip this and give you the definition so you can give me the proper word.

I'm talking about people who believe in the government doing everything for everyone; are for making housing "affordable" by giving loans out like bobbleheads on promotion night; don't think welfare recicipients should be drug-tested, have to work, or have restrictions on what they can spend government benefits on; want to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms and a government check (and teach their kids in Spanish); and think people who choose not to better themselves deserve the same life outcome as those who work their a**es off.

What are those people called?

Your biased, exaggerated, description aside, the term you're looking for is "progressive," or for the more ideologically driven, social democrats.

[illwauk]

Okay, let me flip this and give you the definition so you can give me the proper word.

I'm talking about people who believe in the government doing everything for everyone; are for making housing "affordable" by giving loans out like bobbleheads on promotion night; don't think welfare recicipients should be drug-tested, have to work, or have restrictions on what they can spend government benefits on; want to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms and a government check (and teach their kids in Spanish); and think people who choose not to better themselves deserve the same life outcome as those who work their a**es off.

What are those people called?

Your biased, exaggerated, description aside, the term you're looking for is "progressive," or for the more ideologically driven, social democrats.

I think a better word here is "strawman." No one actually believes all those things for the reasons being implied here.

[1990hornet]

Then do explain why Liberals, er, "Progressives" do believe that then?

[illwauk]

Then do explain why Liberals, er, "Progressives" do believe that then?

Contrary to popular belief on the right, I know of anyone who identifies as progressive (myself included) who actually thinks "people who choose not to better themselves deserve the same life outcome as those who work their a**es off," so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this.

[-kj]

So... with those provocative questions, I'm going to remind everyone that this is posted in the General Design portion of our forums, and ask everyone to please take general discussion of politics to the Lounge. Thanks.

[IceCap]

Okay, let me flip this and give you the definition so you can give me the proper word.

I'm talking about people who believe in the government doing everything for everyone; are for making housing "affordable" by giving loans out like bobbleheads on promotion night; don't think welfare recicipients should be drug-tested, have to work, or have restrictions on what they can spend government benefits on; want to welcome illegal immigrants with open arms and a government check (and teach their kids in Spanish); and think people who choose not to better themselves deserve the same life outcome as those who work their a**es off.

What are those people called?

Your biased, exaggerated, description aside, the term you're looking for is "progressive," or for the more ideologically driven, social democrats.

I think a better word here is "strawman." No one actually believes all those things for the reasons being implied here.

Well yeah, but I was just trying to move things along

[IceCap]

Then do explain why Liberals, er, "Progressives" do believe that then?

The idea of the "just" society. Of course we don't believe in handing welfare out to able bodied people who choose not to work. Come on now.

So what is this just society?

On welfare (which for the purposes of discussion will stand in for any type of monetary governmental aid):

Society will produce both rich and poor. Many poor people are at a disadvantage due to their economic lot in life, and worse yet many poor people find themselves in that state not because of anything they've done, but because they were simply born into a perpetual underprivileged social-economic class. In order to create a just society we believe that these people should receive a certain level of governmental assistance so that they can go to school and support themselves while they actively look for work.

We also believe that a person should not be penalized financially if they are injured and cannot work while they are recovering. Hence workers' compensation. We also believe that being fired shouldn't be a death sentence, hence unemployment insurance.

On government regulation and taxation:

Contrary to popular conservative belief, progressives are not flag waving, card carrying communists. We support the free market, to a point. Of course an individual should be free to make as much money in the market place as he or she is capable of (so long as the wealth is acquired legally), but we also believe that everyone, rich and poor alike, are part of the same society, the same nation, the same extended community. We believe that people should look beyond their own self interests and consider the needs of the nation as a whole. What's good for you financially at the moment might not be what's good for the nation as a whole. Taken a few levels higher, what's good for your individual state or province at the moment might not be what's good for the nation as a whole. Make as much money as the market will let you, by all means. You still have to pay your fair share for the well being of the nation, however. For the record your founding fathers, Hamilton and Madison especially, advocated this same philosophy. They called it "civic virtue."

As for regulation, a company is free to make as much money as the market will allow, but only as long as their business practices are not harming the nation as a whole. The nation is made up of people, and when a private company's business practices are harming the people as a whole then the government, as the representative of the people, has the responsibility to step in and enact regulations that bar the company from engaging in business practices that are harmful to the nation.

On illegal immigration:

Hell if I know. I can see both sides of the debate almost equally. It's a very tricky situation, and I'm thankful I live in a country that doesn't have this problem. I'm content to let you guys figure it out on your own. Though you get bonus points if a solution that doesn't involve a giant wall can be found.

[-kj]

Really, Ice Cap? I know you feel the need to respond to every post on the boards... but really?

Let's go back to design now.

[IceCap]

Really, Ice Cap? I know you feel the need to respond to every post on the boards... but really?

Let's go back to design now.

Yes. Every post. That's what I do. Wouldn't want to exaggerate.

Anyway he asked a question. I answered. If he wants to be "lol liberals r teh devil" then a well thought out response is the best way to counter that. Give him something to think about anyway.

For better or worse this thing hasn't been about the design since the 2nd page, with illwauk (the op) contributing to it. If illwauk was posting every one of this state flag concepts in the same thread this would be a problem, but seeing as he's posting each one in individual topics, well the topic's bound to go off topic once everyone's said what they have to say about the design. You're rather naive if you think any thread about flags will remain politics free.