Democrat Party: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

[PoliticalChic]

Why doesn't your mommie wash your filthy mouth out with soap and water? Nice people don't call another person not one but two taboo names, one a Stage I Freudian indecent name and the second, a Stage II Freudian foul name.

IOW, madam, you have zero moral authority to say that pair. That'd get you kicked out of the CDZ, and it should get you kicked out of USMB for good.

There's nothing at all decent about calling people taboo names. Bad girl.

becki....

....when I see that kind of language, the vitriolic attacks, it is just the boilerplate that we've come to expect. It is based on their view, that is the Left's view that

a) they are on a so much higher moral plane, that any ad hominem attack is justified

b) that it is so very shocking that anyone could possibly have an alternative view, that the loss of control shown by the precipitous drop in civility is understandable

c) and that the anger shown by said language is proof of how very deeply their concern runs.


Dennis Prager discusses how important emotion, as opposed to rational thought, is to the Leftist. He writes:

Because the Left relies on feelings and intentions, wisdom and the existing moral value system don’t count for much. The comparison with conservatives would be the reliance on data and experience, and tradition. Recall the Left-wing baby boomer war-cry: “Never trust anyone over thirty!” Consider the meaning: There is nothing to be learned from anyone older than thirty…hence, the ‘…old dead white men…” theme.

Note how this morphs into the adulation of youth. Therein lies the choice: youth, or wisdom. And the result is what our universities have become, no longer the repository of knowledge, instead, support for Marxist ideas, nuclear disarmament, beliefs that America was no different from the Soviet Union, sympathetic views toward Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and support for a whole host of Left-wing memes.

That's all well and good, but there is a cure: A good old-fashioned spanking.

Unfortunately, the Board of Education applied to the Seat of Knowledge has been trashed as useless by the NEA. Since that time, America has lost its cutting edge on the frontier of excellent academic performance on tests administered worldwide.

The NEA has made itself into a comfortable set of cud-chewers who pat themselves on the back nine times a day for cushy raises while other countries' education systems fly by them.

We can spread the grief around....there's Dr. Spock, and "It Takes a Village' Hillary, for starters.....

 

[editec]

You libertarians ought to LOVE Burr given that he shot the man most responsible for the FEDERALIST government that you all seem to hate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You libertarians ought to LOVE Burr given that he shot the man most responsible for the FEDERALIST government that you all seem to hate.

C'mon, techie...


You know very well that violence has Liberalism as sole proprietor.


Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.


Currently?

UPDATE: More inspiration (hat tip when in the course)
* Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Who said that? - Atlas Shrugs

 

[PoliticalChic]

September 1st, 1807
Former US Vice President Aaron Burr is acquitted of treason.

 

[mamooth]

Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

Absurd historical revisionism.

Booth was as conservative as one can get. Confederate sympathizers and pro-slavery fanatics are by definition the ultimate conservatives, the proof being how almost all conservatives now proudly claim the mantle of the Confederacy.

And currently, it's only the conservative thug-wannabees here who spend their days dreaming about all the violence they should be allowed to do. They like to project that on to liberals, the obvious sexual thrill they get when they think about doing violence. It's not the liberals here demanding to bomb Libya and all brown people.

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community, the liberals, not your touchy-feely hyperemotional conservative manchildren. While "making crap up" is a good enough evidentary standard for any conservative, liberals are going to require actual evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Historic review: every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

Absurd historical revisionism.

Booth was as conservative as one can get. Confederate sympathizers and pro-slavery fanatics are by definition the ultimate conservatives, the proof being how almost all conservatives now proudly claim the mantle of the Confederacy.

And currently, it's only the conservative thug-wannabees here who spend their days dreaming about all the violence they should be allowed to do. They like to project that on to liberals, the obvious sexual thrill they get when they think about doing violence. It's not the liberals here demanding to bomb Libya and all brown people.

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community, the liberals, not your touchy-feely hyperemotional conservative manchildren. While "making crap up" is a good enough evidentary standard for any conservative, liberals are going to require actual evidence.

There are so very many errors in your post, one hardly knows where to begin.

1. So...let's start your remedial here:



a. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South!
THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN. - Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correct

Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia




And continue, here:

b. Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was part of a utopian commune, the Oneida Community, where free love was practiced.
Ackerman, “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield,” p.135

c. Leon Czolgosz, who killed President McKinley, was a socialist and anarchist, whose act was instigated by a speech he heard by socialist Emma Goldman. American Experience | Emma Goldman | Transcript | PBS

d. John Schrank, who shot and wounded Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, seemed to have no affiliation other than opposition to a third term. Theodore Roosevelt shot in Milwaukee — History.com This Day in History — 10/14/1912




e. Giuseppe Zangara, who came close to killing President Roosevelt in 1933, (he killed Mayor Cermak) hated the rich and sought to “make even with the capitalists.” Outside of shooting elected officials, he would have made an ideal pick for Obama’s cabinet.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Assassination Attempt - FBI Freedom of Information Act Files - Miami Public Pages

f. Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot JFK, had been a communist ever since he read a communist pamphlet about the Rosenbergs. As soon as he was arrested, he called John Abt, lawyer for the American Communist Party.

g. Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy, was a Palestinian who hated Kennedy’s support of Israel. How do you think he would have voted at the Democrat Convention?




h. Arthur Bremer shot George Wallace in 1972, due to Wallace’s support for segregation.
Arthur Bremer Biography from Basic Famous People - Biographies of Celebrities and other Famous People
Upon his release, Bremer showed no remorse: “ ‘shooting segregationist dinosaurs’ is not like shooting people because ‘they are extinct by act of God.’ This mention of God was the only blemish on Bremer’s otherwise impeccable liberal credentials.”
Coulter, “Guilty,” p. 260.

i. Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme, tried to shoot President Ford because she was incensed about the plight of the California redwoods.
Gerald Ford Oultived His Obituary Writer

j. Sara Jane Moore also tried to kill President Ford because “the government had declared war on the left.”
Interview: Woman Who Tried To Assassinate Ford 1/03/07 | abc7news.com

k. John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress a girl. The jury found him “not guilty by reason of insanity.” “…which is as good a definition of liberalism as I’ve heard.” Coulter, “Guilty.” P. 260.



Facts!

I challenge you to refute 'em.

Or...slink away....


2. And, for good measure...
Assassination of nonpresidential political figures

a. MLK was killed by a ‘right winger,’ true…

b. Malcolm X killed by (left wingers) Black Muslims.

c. Political violence on a massive scale in the US- not rhetorical, but real violence,- was committed by the Weathermen. And not only were they embraced by the establishment, cheered on by the media, but would be welcomed at any Democrat gathering. The current President launched his career at the home of two of them.

d. Black Panthers

e. Black Liberation Army…

f. Waverly Brown, killed by liberal ‘revolutionaries’ in the Brinks robbery, 1981

g. Robert Fassnacht, was a physics post-doctoral researcher who was killed by the bombing of Sterling Hall on August 24, 1970 on the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus… As a protest against the Vietnam War....wadda ya' think....Liberals or conservatives?
Robert Fassnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

h. Throughout our history, only two senators and two congressmen have been assassinated. The first and last were killed by Democrats for political reasons. (The other two, for nonpolitical reasons.) Republican James Hinds of Arkansas was killed in 1868 by secretary of the Democratic Committee for Monroe County and KKK member, George A. Clark. Democrat representative Leo Ryan was shot in 1978 by Jim Jones left-wing cult in Guyana. The other two were Senator Huey Long, and Senator Robert Kennedy (for supporting aid to Israel). CRS Congress Deaths


So, QED...it is Liberals/Progressives on whom one can count for violence. Why?
Because they believe they answer to a higher calling, and therefore laws and rules don't
apply to them.

Antinomianism, pure and simple.

Do you feel sufficiently educated, and, also, put in your place?


You're welcome.


Oh...and welcome to the board!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You libertarians ought to LOVE Burr given that he shot the man most responsible for the FEDERALIST government that you all seem to hate.

It is the Left that resorts to shooting folks.....I, for one, have never endorsed that.

Ballots, not bullets.

Further...it is the loss of federalism that I bemoan.
Under the imperial Obama, e.g., ObamaCare, the states are merely agencies of the federal government.


Are you in favor of this change in the Founder's blueprint?

 

[regent]

The present Republican party is the third conservative party to take the stage. The first, the Federalist, died out after the conservatives passed laws that citizens could not criticize the conservative president. This period with no conservative president on the horizon was labeled by people and some historians as the Era of Good Feelings. The second attempt by a conservatives died out with the death of the Whig party. Now the third conservative party the present Repubican party is trying to stay afloat with Romney. Meanwhile the liberal party of Jefferson just keeps rolling along.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The present Republican party is the third conservative party to take the stage. The first, the Federalist, died out after the conservatives passed laws that citizens could not criticize the conservative president. This period with no conservative president on the horizon was labeled by people and some historians as the Era of Good Feelings. The second attempt by a conservatives died out with the death of the Whig party. Now the third conservative party the present Repubican party is trying to stay afloat with Romney. Meanwhile the liberal party of Jefferson just keeps rolling along.

So...reggie....you've decided to join in....

...but are unable to find even one teensy-weensy error in the OP, which is pretty damning of the provenance of the Democrat Party?


Nor of the above post which proves how dangerous the Liberal philosophy is, turning out numerous murderers and assassins?


Well....good to see you, anyway.

 

[regent]

I don't think historians, political scientists, or even posters have tried to judge political parties or political philosphies by assassination attempts. Perhaps a better method of judging would be to use the twenty criteria the latest Sienna College Research institute used in their latest presidential rankings.
I know Republicans would like to use ear size, veggie consumption or overseas saving accounts for judging but....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think historians, political scientists, or even posters have tried to judge political parties or political philosphies by assassination attempts. Perhaps a better method of judging would be to use the twenty criteria the latest Sienna College Research institute used in their latest presidential rankings.
I know Republicans would like to use ear size, veggie consumption or overseas saving accounts for judging but....

"Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good",..."
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sadly, reggie....in human nature, the aphorism also applies.....


Character is not purchased easily nor cheaply.


Which makes the OP even more poignant.


You understand that, don't you?

 

[regent]

I don't think historians, political scientists, or even posters have tried to judge political parties or political philosphies by assassination attempts. Perhaps a better method of judging would be to use the twenty criteria the latest Sienna College Research institute used in their latest presidential rankings.
I know Republicans would like to use ear size, veggie consumption or overseas saving accounts for judging but....

"Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good",..."
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sadly, reggie....in human nature, the aphorism also applies.....


Character is not purchased easily nor cheaply.

Which makes the OP even more poignant.


You understand that, don't you?

I always try to understand your posts. And this time I think you are saying that if we don't judge presidents by assinations then bad money will drive out good, but money saved in the Cayman Islands will buy character.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think historians, political scientists, or even posters have tried to judge political parties or political philosphies by assassination attempts. Perhaps a better method of judging would be to use the twenty criteria the latest Sienna College Research institute used in their latest presidential rankings.
I know Republicans would like to use ear size, veggie consumption or overseas saving accounts for judging but....

"Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good",..."
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sadly, reggie....in human nature, the aphorism also applies.....


Character is not purchased easily nor cheaply.

Which makes the OP even more poignant.


You understand that, don't you?

I always try to understand your posts. And this time I think you are saying that if we don't judge presidents by assinations then bad money will drive out good, but money saved in the Cayman Islands will buy character.

Now....see, reggie.....

You have inadvertently revealed that you are simply an apparatchik of the Obama folks....
...


The claim that the Republican candidate hides funds in the Cayman Islands assumes that there is any way to hide from the IRS.

There is not.

Another fabrication of the Left.

That would be you, too, huh?

Obama supporter, and purveyor of false gossip?



"The Agreement between the countries provides a ridiculous amount of access into the private finances of individuals and companies using the Cayman Islands. Specifically, the U.S. need only make a request for information on persons or companies that it believes may be evading taxes illegally. The U.S. is not required to make any showing that the belief is valid or even remotely credible. Upon receiving such a request, the government of the Cayman Islands has agreed to supply information regarding all filings in the country regarding offshore trusts, international business companies and other business entities."
Death of A Tax Haven: Cayman Islands Share Information With IRS - Article by Business Tax Recovery


Romney is not dishonest.

But you are.

 

[Greenbeard]

The present Republican party is the third conservative party to take the stage. The first, the Federalist, died out after the conservatives passed laws that citizens could not criticize the conservative president. This period with no conservative president on the horizon was labeled by people and some historians as the Era of Good Feelings. The second attempt by a conservatives died out with the death of the Whig party. Now the third conservative party the present Repubican party is trying to stay afloat with Romney. Meanwhile the liberal party of Jefferson just keeps rolling along.

I'm not sure I get what your meaning of conservative here is. Obviously the contemporary understanding of liberal vs. conservative doesn't completely map to every other era of American history. But I think there's general agreement that the more liberal party tends to view the government as having an active and important role to play in promoting a well-functioning economy.

So if you go all the way back to the First Party System, the Federalist party of Hamilton and Washington would likely be considered the more liberal (exemplified in their successful fight for a National Bank). On the other hand, the original Democratic Party, the Democratic-Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, was much more conservative, as exemplified by Madison's veto of a public works bill on the grounds that the federal government had no authority to pay for the building of roads.

The Democrats more or less remained the conservative party through the rest of the 19th century. Though of course it's never entirely clear cut: Jackson fought national bankers and proto-secessionists who challenged federal authority. But the Democrats' opponents in the Second Party System, the Whigs, were "liberal" in the sense that they were very eager to use the levers of the federal government to undertake the series of "internal improvements" needed to foster their push for large-scale and rapid industrialization (i.e. Clay's American System). The Whigs were in many respects picking up the mantle of Hamilton's defunct Federalists.

After the Whigs dissolved and were largely absorbed into the nascent Republican Party, that party took on the role of the liberal party, not just economically but now socially (ultimately resulting in the 13th-15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and Grant's aggressive efforts to use federal power to stomp out the KKK in the 1870s). The Democrats remained largely conservative on economic and social issues at the time, retaining their role of defenders of the "states' rights" mantra--particularly on social issues (see their shameful record on civil rights during this era). However, they began to shift economically a bit during the Gilded Age as it became clear what a raw deal working folks, particularly farmers, were getting at the hands of the robber barons.

It wasn't until the Fourth Party system of the early 20th century, when the Democrats absorbed the remnants of the Populist and Progressive movements, that they began to assert themselves as the liberal party in American politics. And then during the Fifth Party System, with the rise of FDR and the assembly of the New Deal coalition (leading to the Fair Deal of Truman, the New Frontier of JFK, and the Great Society of LBJ), they became firmly entrenched in that position on the political spectrum. Arguably they weren't consolidated as the party of economic and social liberalism until the Great Society and the end of the Southern Democrat not too long after. The tensions were always there (see the Dixiecrat walkout of the Dem convention in 1948) but it took decades to finally resolve.

So I don't think I'd agree with your picture of history. The Democrats are the oldest political party in the U.S. and they've evolved through a number of iterations through their years as they leadership has changed; the agrarian (political) egalitarianism of the Jeffersonian Democrats was different from the populist machinery of the Jacksonian Democrats filtered through the Van Buren machine which was different from the prairie populism of William Jennings Bryan which was different from the technocratic progressivism of Wilson which was different from the reinterpretation of the federal government that characterized FDR and everyone who came after. What I'd say, with some risk of overgeneralization, is that the Democrats were the face of conservatism for a century or so, and the face of liberalism for a century or so.

 

[gallantwarrior]

No were sick of your fucking lying and cheating to the extent that you are not even willing to say the name of our party correctly.

Your the most dishonest people I have ever spoken to

Just a suggestion, but before you get all hiney-hurt about what your party is called, you might drag your drawers out of your ass-crack and learn the English language. It's we're (contracted form of 'we are'), not 'were'.

 

[regent]

"Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good",..."
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sadly, reggie....in human nature, the aphorism also applies.....


Character is not purchased easily nor cheaply.

Which makes the OP even more poignant.


You understand that, don't you?

I always try to understand your posts. And this time I think you are saying that if we don't judge presidents by assinations then bad money will drive out good, but money saved in the Cayman Islands will buy character.

Now....see, reggie.....

You have inadvertently revealed that you are simply an apparatchik of the Obama folks....
...


The claim that the Republican candidate hides funds in the Cayman Islands assumes that there is any way to hide from the IRS.

There is not.

Another fabrication of the Left.

That would be you, too, huh?

Obama supporter, and purveyor of false gossip?



"The Agreement between the countries provides a ridiculous amount of access into the private finances of individuals and companies using the Cayman Islands. Specifically, the U.S. need only make a request for information on persons or companies that it believes may be evading taxes illegally. The U.S. is not required to make any showing that the belief is valid or even remotely credible. Upon receiving such a request, the government of the Cayman Islands has agreed to supply information regarding all filings in the country regarding offshore trusts, international business companies and other business entities."
Death of A Tax Haven: Cayman Islands Share Information With IRS - Article by Business Tax Recovery


Romney is not dishonest.

But you are.

I didn't say one word about Romney being dishonest nor of saving his money in the Cayman Islands an attempt to hide his money from the IRS, yet you call me dishonest. tsk. tsk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I always try to understand your posts. And this time I think you are saying that if we don't judge presidents by assinations then bad money will drive out good, but money saved in the Cayman Islands will buy character.

Now....see, reggie.....

You have inadvertently revealed that you are simply an apparatchik of the Obama folks....
...


The claim that the Republican candidate hides funds in the Cayman Islands assumes that there is any way to hide from the IRS.

There is not.

Another fabrication of the Left.

That would be you, too, huh?

Obama supporter, and purveyor of false gossip?



"The Agreement between the countries provides a ridiculous amount of access into the private finances of individuals and companies using the Cayman Islands. Specifically, the U.S. need only make a request for information on persons or companies that it believes may be evading taxes illegally. The U.S. is not required to make any showing that the belief is valid or even remotely credible. Upon receiving such a request, the government of the Cayman Islands has agreed to supply information regarding all filings in the country regarding offshore trusts, international business companies and other business entities."
Death of A Tax Haven: Cayman Islands Share Information With IRS - Article by Business Tax Recovery


Romney is not dishonest.

But you are.

I didn't say one word about Romney being dishonest nor of saving his money in the Cayman Islands an attempt to hide his money from the IRS, yet you call me dishonest. tsk. tsk.

"...judge presidents by ...money saved in the Cayman Islands will buy character."


Just an accident putting together 'presidents' and money in 'the Cayman Islands'?


Really?


Accident?


"CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Mitt Romney's Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island investments were hot topics on the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, with several leading Democrats hammering the Republican presidential candidate about them in their speeches."
Mitt Romney's Swiss Bank Account Hammered By Democratic Convention Speakers



You'll forgive me if I say that's implausible.

 

[regent]

The present Republican party is the third conservative party to take the stage. The first, the Federalist, died out after the conservatives passed laws that citizens could not criticize the conservative president. This period with no conservative president on the horizon was labeled by people and some historians as the Era of Good Feelings. The second attempt by a conservatives died out with the death of the Whig party. Now the third conservative party the present Repubican party is trying to stay afloat with Romney. Meanwhile the liberal party of Jefferson just keeps rolling along.

I'm not sure I get what your meaning of conservative here is. Obviously the contemporary understanding of liberal vs. conservative doesn't completely map to every other era of American history. But I think there's general agreement that the more liberal party tends to view the government as having an active and important role to play in promoting a well-functioning economy.

So if you go all the way back to the First Party System, the Federalist party of Hamilton and Washington would likely be considered the more liberal (exemplified in their successful fight for a National Bank). On the other hand, the original Democratic Party, the Democratic-Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, was much more conservative, as exemplified by Madison's veto of a public works bill on the grounds that the federal government had no authority to pay for the building of roads.

The Democrats more or less remained the conservative party through the rest of the 19th century. Though of course it's never entirely clear cut: Jackson fought national bankers and proto-secessionists who challenged federal authority. But the Democrats' opponents in the Second Party System, the Whigs, were "liberal" in the sense that they were very eager to use the levers of the federal government to undertake the series of "internal improvements" needed to foster their push for large-scale and rapid industrialization (i.e. Clay's American System). The Whigs were in many respects picking up the mantle of Hamilton's defunct Federalists.

After the Whigs dissolved and were largely absorbed into the nascent Republican Party, that party took on the role of the liberal party, not just economically but now socially (ultimately resulting in the 13th-15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and Grant's aggressive efforts to use federal power to stomp out the KKK in the 1870s). The Democrats remained largely conservative on economic and social issues at the time, retaining their role of defenders of the "states' rights" mantra--particularly on social issues (see their shameful record on civil rights during this era). However, they began to shift economically a bit during the Gilded Age as it became clear what a raw deal working folks, particularly farmers, were getting at the hands of the robber barons.

It wasn't until the Fourth Party system of the early 20th century, when the Democrats absorbed the remnants of the Populist and Progressive movements, that they began to assert themselves as the liberal party in American politics. And then during the Fifth Party System, with the rise of FDR and the assembly of the New Deal coalition (leading to the Fair Deal of Truman, the New Frontier of JFK, and the Great Society of LBJ), they became firmly entrenched in that position on the political spectrum. Arguably they weren't consolidated as the party of economic and social liberalism until the Great Society and the end of the Southern Democrat not too long after. The tensions were always there (see the Dixiecrat walkout of the Dem convention in 1948) but it took decades to finally resolve.

So I don't think I'd agree with your picture of history. The Democrats are the oldest political party in the U.S. and they've evolved through a number of iterations through their years as they leadership has changed; the agrarian (political) egalitarianism of the Jeffersonian Democrats was different from the populist machinery of the Jacksonian Democrats filtered through the Van Buren machine which was different from the prairie populism of William Jennings Bryan which was different from the technocratic progressivism of Wilson which was different from the reinterpretation of the federal government that characterized FDR and everyone who came after. What I'd say, with some risk of overgeneralization, is that the Democrats were the face of conservatism for a century or so, and the face of liberalism for a century or so.

The core values of liberalism and conservatism do no change much, the world about changes but not the core values. Political parties realign, people change, events require new approaches but liberalism remains liberalism. The problem with some definitions is that as the world changes, ideologies and philosophy adapt to the changes amd we assume the adaptations are part of the ideology. Can we differentiate between adaptations and core values in our definitions?

 

[mamooth]

There are so very many errors in your post, one hardly knows where to begin.

No one cares about your revisionist history and evasions. Stick to the topic. Which group _currently_ glorifies the Confederacy, conservatives or liberals? Confederate sympathizing is currently a 100% conservative trait. Your hero Booth was a Confederate sympathizer, therefore, by modern standards, Booth is a conservative. And no, conveniently forgetting that all the southern Democrats turned into Republicans isn't helping your credibility either.

And continue, here:

Why can't you just act like a liberal, and look at the real world right now? Oh, that's right, reality has too strong of a liberal bias.

In the past twenty years, how many liberals have bombed or assassinated people, compared to conservatives? The liberal scoreboard is a couple ELF bombings. The conservative scorecard is a lot longer.

Right now, which group is demanding that the USA bomb some brown people all across the world, just to show how tough we are? Why yes, that would also be the conservatives.

Right now, on this board, which group tends towards those vague threats of what will be done to the other side once society breaks down and the guns come out? Again, the conservatives.

Right now, conservatives are more accepting of violence. Please don't continue to embarrass yourself by doing everything conceivable to deflect away from what's happening right now, using that unibomber-type manifesto of bizarre reinterpretations of centuries-old events.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are so very many errors in your post, one hardly knows where to begin.

No one cares about your revisionist history and evasions. Stick to the topic. Which group _currently_ glorifies the Confederacy, conservatives or liberals? Confederate sympathizing is currently a 100% conservative trait. Your hero Booth was a Confederate sympathizer, therefore, by modern standards, Booth is a conservative. And no, conveniently forgetting that all the southern Democrats turned into Republicans isn't helping your credibility either.

And continue, here:

Why can't you just act like a liberal, and look at the real world right now? Oh, that's right, reality has too strong of a liberal bias.

In the past twenty years, how many liberals have bombed or assassinated people, compared to conservatives? The liberal scoreboard is a couple ELF bombings. The conservative scorecard is a lot longer.

Right now, which group is demanding that the USA bomb some brown people all across the world, just to show how tough we are? Why yes, that would also be the conservatives.

Right now, on this board, which group tends towards those vague threats of what will be done to the other side once society breaks down and the guns come out? Again, the conservatives.

Right now, conservatives are more accepting of violence. Please don't continue to embarrass yourself by doing everything conceivable to deflect away from what's happening right now, using that unibomber-type manifesto of bizarre reinterpretations of centuries-old events.

1. I'll decide how to answer your fabrications....

....and I ripped you a new one, didn't I?


2. This was your fallacious statement:

" Booth was as conservative as one can get. Confederate sympathizers and pro-slavery fanatics are by definition the ultimate conservatives, the proof being how almost all conservatives now proudly claim the mantle of the Confederacy."

So...you earned the spanking you received.


3. "No one cares about your revisionist history and evasions."

There was neither revision of history, nor any evasions.

My post was, as always, linked, sourced, documented.

You, being a fool, use words of whose meaning you are unaware.

But...on the bright side,...you've come to the right place to be educated.



4. "In the past twenty years, how many liberals have bombed or assassinated people, compared to conservatives? The liberal scoreboard is a couple ELF bombings. The conservative scorecard is a lot longer."


Guess which political group both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI consider the most dangerous in America? Environmentalists. Yep. Some $43 million in damage by the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front in the past two decades. \

a. “Extremists within the environmental and animal rights movements have committed literally thousands of violent criminal acts in recent decades — arguably more than those from any other radical sector, left or right.” Eco-Violence: The Record | Southern Poverty Law Center


b. “A leader of the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist organization the FBI described as America's most dangerous domestic terrorist group, refused to answer questions Tuesday before a congressional hearing on ecoterrorism.” Head of Radical Environmentalist Group Stays Silent at Hearing on Ecoterrorism. - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News | HighBeam Research

So, what have we learned? Conservatives, we are endlessly told, create “an atmosphere of hatred and fear.” This, as opposed to liberals, who go around shooting elected officials. Welcome to the real world.


c. . WASHINGTON (AP) -- An armed man walked into the Washington headquarters of a conservative Christian lobbying group Wednesday morning and was confronted by a security guard, whom he shot in the arm before being wrestled to the ground, authorities said.
It wasn't immediately known whether the confrontation was related to the work of the Family Research Council, which strongly opposes gay marriage and abortion.
The Family Research Council advocates conservative positions on social issues and strongly opposes gay marriage and abortion. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-15-14-42-22


Friendly advice? Next time, check the shelf life date before you try to use that argument.