Your brain has turned to mush.
Seek medical attention.

The Southern Strategy was in response to Kennedy's civil rights act, which passed after his assassination....a strategy implemented largely after it's passing.

Although the phrase "Southern Strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[15] but popularized it.[16] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats".[1]

So, if by "sensible Democrats" you mean the racist ones angry that non whites now have rights, you're partially correct, except that it did work, he did peel them off and won the presidency because of their support.
*facepalm

@enoch

You have to admit though, its fun to listen to bob already start to backslide. Last week it was a great start without any of the equivocation. Just the fact that he is acknowledging the mistake(S) in his short time in office means Bob has begun his long slow and very rough ride back to reality... ish.

Works for me! Please, step into the deprogramming chamber you nubile, young backsliders!

@choggie

We are great at throwing tomatoes from the mezzanine, but what would we do if we found ourselves on stage when the lights come up. Who knows? Who cares? Let's throw more tomatoes! ....and I say this as one who has thrown many a tomato at Bush, Hillary, McCain and Mitt Romney.

If the way we do national security is a problem, then it's systemic, because the NSA pretty much done nothing else but collect intelligence 24-7 for the last 60 years.. They've used the system as it was intended to be used, yes, but they've also abused the system.

I'm sure there will be much caterwauling in 2016 about invasion of privacy, but once the dust settles, the crown will still weigh heavy with the burden of national security, and President Hillary, or Ryan, or Rubio, or Paul will find themselves backsliding into old way out of sheer necessity.

Same as it ever was.

If there is a problem with the way we do national security, we aren't going to fix it by calling people cunts and dramatically intoning high school level literary allusions. If we are going to fix it, it will require thought, discussion and hard choices.

Let the rest of them throw tomatoes while you and I fix this fucking system. What do you say, old sport?

President Choggie, how would you restructure the NSA in such a way that it can remain effective at it's job whilst minimizing potential for abuse?

It's amusing that you're trying to dismiss me like I was bothering you, when in fact you are the one who started this conversation. So you're an ex-christian, huh? Surely you know this verse:

2 Peter 2:22

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning

It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

You're much worse than any backslider. You're saying you left Christianity because you observed hypocrisy amongst Christians? What a joke that is. You left Christianity because you love the things of the world more than you love God.

You should fear God, and only a fool wouldn't, but I don't think you're a fool. You know He is real, but you suppress the truth because you don't want to stop living the way you do. You have been brainwashed, by the enemy, to think little of God and much of yourself. Jesus Christ ransomed you with His blood, paid the price for your sins with His life..but sold yourself back into slavery for empty pleasures. Now you mock God, when you're the one at fault, when you're the real hypocrite.

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Save your breath pal. I don't need or want to hear any sermons from you. Been there done that, chose to stop when I wised up and figured out that brain washing, mind control, and fanatical cults are not for me. Believe me, I don't fear you nor do I fear your imaginary god. If I did, then I'd be just like you wouldn't I?

Oh, and by the way I don't need any clues. Your brethren have clued me in on what kind of hypocrites they are time and time again. Every "Christian" I know, or have ever known is a back sliding hypocrite. They judge others while secretly behind closed doors they do the same things they just got through condemning others for in the public eye. Now please go pester someone else. This conversation is over.

Is the idea that the government can limit the time place and manner in which you express yourself news to all these people? It's not a recent statist backslide. It's 200 year old jurisprudence. So yes, if you have an unpopular idea you'd like to express, then the government can't and shouldn't stop you. But if you want to express it in a way that has been established by our representatives with the consent of the majority as incompatible with the standards of our society, then you will need to modify your approach.

Freedom of expression means that you get to share your ideas with the public so that they have the opportunity to be influenced to choose representatives who will advance your agenda. It isn't free license to do it however and wherever you want. Judges spend a lot of time thinking very hard about where the line should be drawn between way the majority (and the government they elect) would like society to function and how an individual would prefer to express his ideas.

People can argue that they draw this line incorrectly, but there is no perfect ideal balance. Even if there were, it's unlikely that someone on videosift has stumbled upon it and can enlighten us.

People can also argue that the entire doctrine of time place and manner is inappropriate, but they can't wrap themselves in the constitution. The doctrine was decided and accepted by the same group of statesmen who produced the constitution itself.

I do feel pretty silly that there is a specific law on the books to ban dancing in certain places. I'm not sure why they couldn't prosecute this under disturbing the peace. The whole point of "expression" though is getting your message out to others. I don't go to memorials to listen to other people's messages. I'm glad it's a place that has been set aside for quiet reflection. There are plenty of nearby places where my fellow citizens can harass me to their heart's content. Most of it is bullshit that I'd rather not hear, but I accept it as the price of a free society.

>> ^Sagemind:

Um, wouldn't that "Ass-hole-ery make them Sith - not Jedi?


Depends on what denomination of Jedi you are. I believe that backsliding Jedi never truly become Sith and are forgiven when they die.

Amen to that. The war initially caused Canada's civilians to remember they actually have a military, but I think they may be backsliding into forgetfulness.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
It deserved it. After nine years, it's all too easy for people to stop caring about the fact that our nations are indeed at war.
In reply to this comment by calvados:
Thanks for the promo MG!

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
*promote

Post calling the kettle black?
But seriously, I don't understand what is pretentious about Mahr's comment about the American people. It seems clear that popular opinion is not always a reasonable reflection of a given issue. Instead, it seems public opinion is formed simply by association and inference of appearances, which is obviously not the most well-informed way to form an opinion, especially a political one. Hence the American people responding negatively to what is perceived as backsliding. However, it seems this is the case more often than not simply because such a move in the political realm leaves the impression of the admittance of a mistake.

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
I imagine an evangelical atheist is excited to share his views because of what he perceives as freedom of rejecting the notion of God (or attesting that he sees no evidence for God), and the shedding of the shackles that organized religion seems to entail.
I also imagine the stereotypical view of what drives an evangelical Christian is one (or more) of three things:

• Fear that if he does not share his faith, he'll be punished or not make it to heaven.


• Brainwashing from his mother and father since childhood.


• Some twisted pleasure from telling you that you're going to hell while "I'm not."

What I don't have to imagine is the ACTUAL reason I'm thankful for my Christianity. I've led a very satisfying life with very tangible blessings stemming from my relationship with Jesus Christ. I've found His teaching to be profound and reliable, I've found indescribable freedom, and I've found layers of comfort that surpass all understanding. If you wish to maintain a dim view of all Christians in some stereotypical way, you do so with a focus of poor examples of some individuals who share my faith, or from a lack of exeprience that your scientific analysis can't quantify.
I could fill this page with research and references of why I think "Christ was special and unique," which would no doubt be fodder for whatever counter-arguments you're eager to provide. What I'll tell you is: living is believing. Hate or disrespect me all you like, but it won't change me. I'm just as entitled to my excitement as you are yours.


Rant

I think a lot of agnostics, backsliders and atheists just want Christians to stop worrying about their well being. We're doing fine. Obviously there are many types of non-believers, just like there are many types of believers, so I can't speak for everyone; and when I speak about Christians I pull it from my personal experience. I am against the aggressive atheists almost as much as I am against the aggressive Christians; the only difference for me being that atheists are concerned with scientific truth/intellectual honesty, and Christians are concerned with saving souls from the possiblity (or the certainty, if it pleases you) of hell/faithtellectual honesty. I personally feel that if someone wants to be intellectually dishonest, that's their problem.

One of my biggest issues with "enthusiatic" Christians is that their belief comes from their personal faith, yet many Christians that I know/grew up with can't fathom that I've never had this faith. It's called faith for a reason, and cannot truly be intellectualized into a logical, non-circular argument. On that note, Christian buzz phrases like "it's a free gift" are semantically obtrusive. Did the church that started this buzz word campaign ever hear the saying, "Talk is cheap"? Of course it's a free gift. Could you imagine if you had to pay a dollar every time someone shared their religion with you? "Right then, I covered Isiah 1:18, John 3:16 and Romans 5:9 -- that will be $5.50." I mean, aside from tithe.. which technically makes it not a free gift if you become a proper worshipper of Yahweh. Every time a Christian tells me this I feel like I'm a five year old retarded child. Oh, it's soo easy; it's free; it's the best thing ever. Awesome for you. Not awesome for me. I grew up in a fundamental Christian family and never once felt anything other than an emotional connection with my peers. I tried it and you know what? I didn't care for it much. It didn't provide tangible results. What provided tangible results was my rejection of the gift. It's freedom like breaking up with a needy girlfriend. My heart rests easy now. (I was happy to read that you recognize this.)

Many of my Christian relatives suffer from depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, and diabetes. I don't, yet I don't believe in Jesus' gift. What type of tangible result is that? (I'm being rhetorical.) I was involved in our family prayer circles (I'm not kidding) for years and almost every single request for divine assistance has gone unanswered. I learned growing up with Christians that tangible results are either products of their imagination or, like gambling, the luck of the draw -- If you pray about every single bad thing in your life, chances are some of those prayers will be "anwered". I have no doubt you derive all sorts of enjoyment and fulfillment from your faith. (Positive reinforcement works, obviously.) The human brain is a capable chemical production factory. One of my roommates is a microbilogist and the other is just beginning his career in psychology. Currently they both work with mentally challenged and disturbed children -- 3 year old gang rape victims, retarded children and sociopaths. Many of these kids could never begin to comprehend the message nor the gift of Christ, but there are many other avenues to fulfillment for them with the aid of a needle or a pill. (Then again, God works in mysterious ways, so maybe His essence is inside every chemical reaction.)

I am the only non-Christian in my family and it gets tiring when I am constantly bombarded by invites to church after stating I'd rather sleep in on Sundays and am not a believer, nor do I have a Jesus sized hole in my heart that needs to be filled. I love my family, but some day I'd like to spend the holidays with them unconditionally, without the current conditional, slightly uncomfortable, tension-filled and concerned invitations to "candle light services" on Christmas Eve and other similar events that occur throughout the year. (I recently started dating a Christian, and when my relatives found out it's like a shooting gallery for Christian-centric pressure, and comments like, "We prayed that you'd meet a nice Christian girl -- and it WORKED". Another tangible result!!! Luckily my girlfriend understands my perspective and, like the good Calvinist, realizes I was not predestined to believe. Now THAT I can deal with. )

Jesus is the reason for the season? No, that would be God The Father, who quote-on-quote created the seasons.

End Rant

>> ^imstellar28:
You are saying that corporate boycotts are too difficult. You think changing governmental policy is less so?

Actually yes. I also think it can be more fine grained. Boycotting car companies that charge extra for seat belts won't make them standard equipment, ever. Ask lots of people "should seat belts be required equipment on cars?", and you'll get an overwhelming vote in the affirmative.

Also, since it's law, there's no backsliding. No making them optional in bad economic times, no new companies who have some unproven alternative that's cheaper, etc. If a superior safety device comes along, there's a whole series of regulatory agencies who can test it, review it, and approve it.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made saying seat belts and airbags shouldn't be specifically required, but instead earning a 4+ star rating from an IIHS crash test, but I don't see operating only by boycott as being a superior method for improving car safety.

Cultural changes don't happen overnight, they happen over years, decades or even centuries. Unfortunate for those living during that time period, but thats the reality of societal evolution.
However, when the government is in the way, cultural evolution grinds to a halt. How can you evolve if you are jailed for doing so?

I agree that it takes time, and that government can be in the way. On social issues, I'm already essentially a libertarian though. I'm a touch different in that I'd rather have government give positive affirmation of rights (gay marriage recognized nationally as legal, as opposed to government not recognizing marriage at all, just civil unions), but that's essentially just a semantic difference.

When it comes to more economic matters, I'm happy to call myself conservative in the sense that I'm okay with evolution being slowed down a bit. Not that I'm afraid of progress generically, but I think we should be careful about what we do, and make sure we've tested things thoroughly, and thought through all the implications before we go wild with a new technology.

For example, I'm in favor of bans on human cloning...for now. However, my reason for a ban would be so we have time to prepare a legal and ethical framework for the people created through such a process. I think the people who pushed that kind of a ban through had religion on their brains, and intend for it to last forever though. I doubt we'll see many bioethicists pushing for legislation covering guardianship, clone creation consent, etc. anytime soon.

I also hope someone is paying close attention to robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc. I'd hate for the first big breakthrough in self-replicating machines result in an unstoppable mechanical pest or virus.

Turns out I was looking too far ahead, I should've been worried about Credit Default Swaps to the same degree.

I'm not saying people only deserve they rights they can defend, I'm saying all people deserve the same rights. Start there, and let the culture catch up.
Governmental policy does not drive culture, nor has it ever - its the other way around. Why do you think I'm talking to you instead of my state representative?

On this we agree completely. I think we just disagree on where people's equal rights end.

Remember this video? I got to the end without disagreeing with anything they said. You're right that they left off the right to life, though that can be situationally controversial (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.) and it was supposed to be a happy feel good sort of presentation.

I think a right to life also includes the right to medical care, and access to preventative medicine, affordable healthy food, etc. I think paying for that is an issue, but I think we have a moral imperative to find a way to pay for it, in the same way we had a moral imperative to find a way to pay for manual labor once slavery was abolished.

For anyone who doesn't remember. Michael Sweet is the lead singer for the old 80's "Christian" hair metal band Stryper. The band who also backslid once they became famous (if you can call it that) and forgot all about the fact they were a "Christian" band. LOL

Drug peddler to lawyer, huh? That's what I call backsliding.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Yo La Tengo, Sugarcube, Satire, Comedy, Rock, School, Corporate, BackSliders' to 'Yo La Tengo, Sugarcube, david, cross, bob, odenkirk, Rock, School, Corporate, BackSliders' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday