Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bird is dead.
your party is still trying to cheat black voters out of their votes
Bird is dead.
your party is still trying to cheat black voters out of their votes
Is there a problem with one vote per person ?
Is there a problem with insistence that only American Citizens can vote ?
In California Mexican Nationals / Illegal Aliens vote in US elections virtually unchallenged - But the socio facist Democrats like it that way they don't see them as "illegal Aliens" they see them as undocumented democrats
Illegal Aliens Voter Fraud Ignored by vile Obama Justice Department
A "shitload"? Name 3 of them.Ah, there it is.Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession .
Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Southern strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation
This thread is all I need to understand that the words "Lumpy" and "research" don't even belong on the same website.
"A tad off"...Somebody tell him what "tad" means...
I love when they do this... I shall demonstrate exactly why. Watch this:
- - - - Link to me kissing any of those asses??
He won't be back. Safe trip home now.
Lumpy research. QED.
Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..
Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.
You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..
btw. I'm just about out of pity for you..
..
Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
So those umm links... were they in white font then? Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
Maybe it's my eyes?
Yeah that must be it. I'll try the USMB Braille version.
, well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery PartyA "shitload"? Name 3 of them.Ah, there it is.
Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.
1. Ron
2. Paul
3. Larry
4. Moe
5. Curley
Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..
Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.
You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..
btw. I'm just about out of pity for you..
..
Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
So those umm links... were they in white font then? Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
Maybe it's my eyes?
Yeah that must be it. I'll try the USMB Braille version.
...
Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
---------------
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
So those umm links... were they in white font then? Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
Maybe it's my eyes?
Yeah that must be it. I'll try the USMB Braille version.
...
Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
---------------
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
Thanks for playin'. Do your homework next time. You're not gonna snow me on history, dood. Especially the history of my posts. Looks like you found out what happens with the word assume. Again.
And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century. There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party. The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short. It was not related to either today's D or R party. What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago. Catch up on your reading.
Oh the density...
...
Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
---------------
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
Thanks for playin'. Do your homework next time. You're not gonna snow me on history, dood. Especially the history of my posts. Looks like you found out what happens with the word assume. Again.
And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century. There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party. The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short. It was not related to either today's D or R party. What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago. Catch up on your reading.
Oh the density...
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
Excerpt from an interesting link...
---
While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, heres an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws
October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever; Douglas became Democratic Partys 1860 presidential nominee
April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy shall be forever free
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting black codes, which institutionalized racial discrimination
February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement 40 acres and a mule relief by distributing land to former slaves
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnsons veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnsons veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnsons veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men
September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Partys national campaign theme: This is a white mans country: Let white men rule
October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any Americans civil rights
June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after womens suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for the Republican ticket, straight
January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for womens suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Partys refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
...and it goes on..visit the link
The Democrat Race Lie » Black & Right
...
Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
---------------
The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
Thanks for playin'. Do your homework next time. You're not gonna snow me on history, dood. Especially the history of my posts. Looks like you found out what happens with the word assume. Again.
And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century. There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party. The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short. It was not related to either today's D or R party. What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago. Catch up on your reading.
Oh the density...
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
Thanks for playin'. Do your homework next time. You're not gonna snow me on history, dood. Especially the history of my posts. Looks like you found out what happens with the word assume. Again.
And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century. There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party. The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short. It was not related to either today's D or R party. What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago. Catch up on your reading.
Oh the density...
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
I got your history lesson right here.
Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves. Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans. Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats". Nor did they invent slavery. Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet. Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even less of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally. The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s. Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all. Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people were interested in politics or in voting. Most everyday people simply had no party.
Republicans didn't do slaves. Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: they're not old enough. You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either. Again -- linear time.
Read you some history, son. When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate). That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary. All those other parties I just mentioned? They're all dead, exactly because they didn't adjust with the changing times.
Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base. Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated). The times change, you flex. If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up. Why? Because at that time that same station was the classical music station. It changed with the times. But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit. Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom. Maybe you should lift a finger to preserve it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state. That what you want?
Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
.
"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
Thanks for playin'. Do your homework next time. You're not gonna snow me on history, dood. Especially the history of my posts. Looks like you found out what happens with the word assume. Again.
And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century. There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party. The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short. It was not related to either today's D or R party. What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago. Catch up on your reading.
Oh the density...
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
You are the one being anal.
And the whole country including you has it's roots in slavery. Stop starting stupid discussions. All you have proven is the US once allowed slavery.
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
I got your history lesson right here.
Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves. Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans. Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats". Nor did they invent slavery. Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet. Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even less of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally. The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s. Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all. Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people were interested in politics or in voting. Most everyday people simply had no party.
Republicans didn't do slaves. Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: they're not old enough. You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either. Again -- linear time.
Read you some history, son. When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate). That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary. All those other parties I just mentioned? They're all dead, exactly because they didn't adjust with the changing times.
Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base. Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated). The times change, you flex. If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up. Why? Because at that time that same station was the classical music station. It changed with the times. But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit. Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom. Maybe you should lift a finger to preserve it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state. That what you want?
Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post..
I got your history lesson right here.
Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves. Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans. Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats". Nor did they invent slavery. Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet. Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even less of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally. The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s. Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all. Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people were interested in politics or in voting. Most everyday people simply had no party.
Republicans didn't do slaves. Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: they're not old enough. You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either. Again -- linear time.
Read you some history, son. When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate). That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary. All those other parties I just mentioned? They're all dead, exactly because they didn't adjust with the changing times.
Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base. Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated). The times change, you flex. If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up. Why? Because at that time that same station was the classical music station. It changed with the times. But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit. Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom. Maybe you should lift a finger to preserve it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state. That what you want?
Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post..
Meaning it's too much ponderation for you? Or meaning you just don't want to face it, just as you couldn't face my challenge to link my "ass licking"? That never happened, yanno... it's what happens when you make stuff up.
I'm sure you'd rather get the premasticated Lush Rimjob sound bites. I can tell that's where you're getting it from -- he's the only guy who uses that malaprop "Democrat Party". The thing is, historical context is a fuck of a lot more complex than that. It cannot be reduced to bite-size morsels tailored not so much to educate but to keep you riveted with cloak and dagger stories so he can sell ads at "confiscatory rates" (his term). Limblob of course is limited to three hours broken up into smaller segments, and since his goal is making money off you he doesn't think he has the requirement to be accurate. But you don't have that limitation.
Oh well, you can lead a Lump to water...
I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post..
Meaning it's too much ponderation for you? Or meaning you just don't want to face it, just as you couldn't face my challenge to link my "ass licking"? That never happened, yanno... it's what happens when you make stuff up.
I'm sure you'd rather get the premasticated Lush Rimjob sound bites. I can tell that's where you're getting it from -- he's the only guy who uses that malaprop "Democrat Party". The thing is, historical context is a fuck of a lot more complex than that. It cannot be reduced to bite-size morsels tailored not so much to educate but to keep you riveted with cloak and dagger stories so he can sell ads at "confiscatory rates" (his term). Limblob of course is limited to three hours broken up into smaller segments, and since his goal is making money off you he doesn't think he has the requirement to be accurate. But you don't have that limitation.
Oh well, you can lead a Lump to water...
I said I was bored..
I hardly ever listen to Limbaugh but you seem intimately involved, much like a jilted lover.
Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
Your childish distractions are boring.
Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
You are the one being anal.
And the whole country including you has it's roots in slavery. Stop starting stupid discussions. All you have proven is the US once allowed slavery.
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Democrats like everyone to join in when their hand is found in the cookie jar, I suppose you didn't have time to read my previous link also..and no wonder.
Nothing can be proven to you, you refuse to learn.
