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.
One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.
The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.
The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.
You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.
Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?
Where do you get this shit?
Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,
so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?
Does he fit your description?
The OP was not about Harry Truman. The OP was not about Lyndon Johnson. The OP was not about the current controversy over immigration.
But then I have long said that it is the rare leftwinger who is able to discuss a concept without benefit of personalities to exalt or discredit. Leftwingers are so very rarely able to separate and discuss a concept separate from their prejudices and assigned talking points. You gave me a Truman campaign speech. I gave you a non partisan history of the era courtesy of PBS lest you accuse me of using only partisan rightwing sources.
I happen to be an admirer of Harry Truman and am fully aware of his policies, his accomplishments, and their place in history. But I am also enough of a historian to not try to make HIM the post child of the culture and dynamics of that time. And I am not going to divert the point the OP was making by allowing you to divert me to a different topic.
One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.
The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.
The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.
You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.
Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?
Where do you get this shit?
Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,
so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?
Does he fit your description?
The OP was not about Harry Truman. The OP was not about Lyndon Johnson. The OP was not about the current controversy over immigration.
But then I have long said that it is the rare leftwinger who is able to discuss a concept without benefit of personalities to exalt or discredit. Leftwingers are so very rarely able to separate and discuss a concept separate from their prejudices and assigned talking points. You gave me a Truman campaign speech. I gave you a non partisan history of the era courtesy of PBS lest you accuse me of using only partisan rightwing sources.
I happen to be an admirer of Harry Truman and am fully aware of his policies, his accomplishments, and their place in history. But I am also enough of a historian to not try to make HIM the post child of the culture and dynamics of that time. And I am not going to divert the point the OP was making by allowing you to divert me to a different topic.
One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.
The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.
The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.
You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.
Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?
Where do you get this shit?
Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,
so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?
Does he fit your description?
Old give 'em hell Harry had these right wing turds pegged way back in 1948...
"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a ....
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a method to make itself supreme: don the mantle of civil rights. But not via an apology and admission of its dark past, but, controlling the schools and the media allowed it to blow smoke, and pretend that it had always been such.....
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a ....
Seriously, how much time do you spend maintaining this level of crazy?
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a method to make itself supreme: don the mantle of civil rights. But not via an apology and admission of its dark past, but, controlling the schools and the media allowed it to blow smoke, and pretend that it had always been such.....
PC could be taught in schools as an example of poor thinking and biased historical cherry picking among other reasoning errors. It is ironic that the person who criticizes public education is so poorly educated in history. Taking just the beginning of her agitprop consider only the title. What was it that happened? She already knows, why bother with the unhistorical baloney. And democrat is a noun - why do right wingnuts feel they must change the word as if their point of view was not enough explanation?
Was the democratic party really considered the party of slavery? Of course not, nothing is so simple as PC's off the wall history. "In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina." *
Then they saw the light? They did, history must have missed that for it took Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the twentieth century to make progress. And to this day the battle continues as the last election demonstrated at the voting booth.
And media allowed it? Another wingnut fantasy, this complacent media. How can a person constantly write what amounts to total nonsense? It must fit a personal narrative that brings comfort in a world in which good and evil are not so easily understood nor so easily applied to one group. Think of that for a moment, the all encompassing hatred of one group, hm.... For anyone interested in the real history of a complex world. You won't find it in PC's mindless rants.
*The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS
A few off topic pieces for the interested student of racial history
The National Memo » Bigoted Heritage: At Right-Wing Think Tanks, Racism As Usual
"As a graduate student in economics, I have used Google search data to quantify the cost of racism on President Barack Obama's vote total. I compared the rate at which areas made racist searches on Google to Obamas vote share, controlling for the vote share of the previous Democratic candidate, John Kerry in 2004. After a large set of robustness checks, I estimated that Obama lost about 4 percentage points of the popular vote (more than 4 million total votes) from racism in both 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, he only gained about 1 percentage point from increased black turnout, and I found little evidence that he gained additional white voters due to his race." Author of Obama Racism Study Responds to Nate Cohn Criticism | New Republic
'Change They Can't Believe In' authors: Christopher S. Parker, Matt A. Barreto
'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander
"I believe in brotherhood .of all men before the law .if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety .The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." Harry Truman and Civil Rights
Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?
Where do you get this shit?
Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,
so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?
Does he fit your description?
The OP was not about Harry Truman. The OP was not about Lyndon Johnson. The OP was not about the current controversy over immigration.
But then I have long said that it is the rare leftwinger who is able to discuss a concept without benefit of personalities to exalt or discredit. Leftwingers are so very rarely able to separate and discuss a concept separate from their prejudices and assigned talking points. You gave me a Truman campaign speech. I gave you a non partisan history of the era courtesy of PBS lest you accuse me of using only partisan rightwing sources.
I happen to be an admirer of Harry Truman and am fully aware of his policies, his accomplishments, and their place in history. But I am also enough of a historian to not try to make HIM the post child of the culture and dynamics of that time. And I am not going to divert the point the OP was making by allowing you to divert me to a different topic.
You take a haughty attitude defending PC. Here is a fact for you...EVERY single thread PC starts has ONE constant overriding theme...ALL our problems are caused by liberals and Democrats, and ALL our solution come from conservatives. If you are too stupid to be able to glean that fact, then have an adult present when you cross the street.
Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?
Where do you get this shit?
Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,
so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?
Does he fit your description?
Old give 'em hell Harry had these right wing turds pegged way back in 1948...
"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman
Modern day Conservatives love to love Harry Truman, but what modern day conservatives can't seem to get or won't acknowledge is that back in the Truman era,
the conservatives of those days hated Truman just as much as modern day conservatives hate Obama.
The Truman legacy is just one more example that over time, in almost every case, liberalism wins. Truman liberalism integrated the military over the outrage of his conservative contemporaries, but today, conservatives are all but unanimous on supporting the integration of the military.
Generation by generation, liberals win, and what were once just liberal causes vehemently opposed by conservatives become mainstream realities accepted without a second thought by left, right, and center.
Conservatives were wrong in Truman's day, and conservatives will some day be seen as wrong in Obama's day.
Conservatives are nothing more than bumps in the road to a better America.
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a ....
Seriously, how much time do you spend maintaining this level of crazy?
You know that everything I post is correct.
Otherwise,you would have specified any errors.....an endeavor beyond possibility.
.
1. For a full century after the Civil War, the Democrat Party was correctly identified as the party of slavery and segregation. In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats.
Then, the party saw the light...or at least saw a method to make itself supreme: don the mantle of civil rights. But not via an apology and admission of its dark past, but, controlling the schools and the media allowed it to blow smoke, and pretend that it had always been such.....
PC could be taught in schools as an example of poor thinking and biased historical cherry picking among other reasoning errors. It is ironic that the person who criticizes public education is so poorly educated in history. Taking just the beginning of her agitprop consider only the title. What was it that happened? She already knows, why bother with the unhistorical baloney. And democrat is a noun - why do right wingnuts feel they must change the word as if their point of view was not enough explanation?
Was the democratic party really considered the party of slavery? Of course not, nothing is so simple as PC's off the wall history. "In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina." *
Then they saw the light? They did, history must have missed that for it took Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the twentieth century to make progress. And to this day the battle continues as the last election demonstrated at the voting booth.
And media allowed it? Another wingnut fantasy, this complacent media. How can a person constantly write what amounts to total nonsense? It must fit a personal narrative that brings comfort in a world in which good and evil are not so easily understood nor so easily applied to one group. Think of that for a moment, the all encompassing hatred of one group, hm.... For anyone interested in the real history of a complex world. You won't find it in PC's mindless rants.
*The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS
A few off topic pieces for the interested student of racial history
The National Memo » Bigoted Heritage: At Right-Wing Think Tanks, Racism As Usual
"As a graduate student in economics, I have used Google search data to quantify the cost of racism on President Barack Obama's vote total. I compared the rate at which areas made racist searches on Google to Obamas vote share, controlling for the vote share of the previous Democratic candidate, John Kerry in 2004. After a large set of robustness checks, I estimated that Obama lost about 4 percentage points of the popular vote (more than 4 million total votes) from racism in both 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, he only gained about 1 percentage point from increased black turnout, and I found little evidence that he gained additional white voters due to his race." Author of Obama Racism Study Responds to Nate Cohn Criticism | New Republic
'Change They Can't Believe In' authors: Christopher S. Parker, Matt A. Barreto
'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander
"I believe in brotherhood .of all men before the law .if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety .The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." Harry Truman and Civil Rights
"In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats."
Old give 'em hell Harry had these right wing turds pegged way back in 1948...
"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman
Modern day Conservatives love to love Harry Truman, but what modern day conservatives can't seem to get or won't acknowledge is that back in the Truman era,
the conservatives of those days hated Truman just as much as modern day conservatives hate Obama.
The Truman legacy is just one more example that over time, in almost every case, liberalism wins. Truman liberalism integrated the military over the outrage of his conservative contemporaries, but today, conservatives are all but unanimous on supporting the integration of the military.
Generation by generation, liberals win, and what were once just liberal causes vehemently opposed by conservatives become mainstream realities accepted without a second thought by left, right, and center.
Conservatives were wrong in Truman's day, and conservatives will some day be seen as wrong in Obama's day.
Conservatives are nothing more than bumps in the road to a better America.
There are a number of things I appreciate about Truman.
His attitude about integration of the forces, support of Israel as a nation, sacking Henry Wallace.....
But he allowed Soviet spies to influence him, and he gave China to Mao.
Imagine how different the world would be if China had not been allowed to become communist....and how many millions of Chinese would not have succumbed to the greatest mass killer in history.
And, the same theme repeated by yet another Democrat President.
Carter created modern Iran.....
Thank him for the rise of Islamofascism.
Both Democrats.....probably just a coincidence.
Modern day Conservatives love to love Harry Truman, but what modern day conservatives can't seem to get or won't acknowledge is that back in the Truman era,
the conservatives of those days hated Truman just as much as modern day conservatives hate Obama.
The Truman legacy is just one more example that over time, in almost every case, liberalism wins. Truman liberalism integrated the military over the outrage of his conservative contemporaries, but today, conservatives are all but unanimous on supporting the integration of the military.
Generation by generation, liberals win, and what were once just liberal causes vehemently opposed by conservatives become mainstream realities accepted without a second thought by left, right, and center.
Conservatives were wrong in Truman's day, and conservatives will some day be seen as wrong in Obama's day.
Conservatives are nothing more than bumps in the road to a better America.
There are a number of things I appreciate about Truman.
His attitude about integration of the forces, support of Israel as a nation, sacking Henry Wallace.....
But he allowed Soviet spies to influence him, and he gave China to Mao.
Imagine how different the world would be if China had not been allowed to become communist....and how many millions of Chinese would not have succumbed to the greatest mass killer in history.
And, the same theme repeated by yet another Democrat President.
Carter created modern Iran.....
Thank him for the rise of Islamofascism.
Both Democrats.....probably just a coincidence.
Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Ajax? WOW, you learn something new every day! That would mean FDR has to take a back seat as far as presidential terms in office.
Jimmy Carter US President
In office
January 20, 1953 - January 20, 1981
PC could be taught in schools as an example of poor thinking and biased historical cherry picking among other reasoning errors. It is ironic that the person who criticizes public education is so poorly educated in history. Taking just the beginning of her agitprop consider only the title. What was it that happened? She already knows, why bother with the unhistorical baloney. And democrat is a noun - why do right wingnuts feel they must change the word as if their point of view was not enough explanation?
Was the democratic party really considered the party of slavery? Of course not, nothing is so simple as PC's off the wall history. "In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina." *
Then they saw the light? They did, history must have missed that for it took Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the twentieth century to make progress. And to this day the battle continues as the last election demonstrated at the voting booth.
And media allowed it? Another wingnut fantasy, this complacent media. How can a person constantly write what amounts to total nonsense? It must fit a personal narrative that brings comfort in a world in which good and evil are not so easily understood nor so easily applied to one group. Think of that for a moment, the all encompassing hatred of one group, hm.... For anyone interested in the real history of a complex world. You won't find it in PC's mindless rants.
*The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS
A few off topic pieces for the interested student of racial history
The National Memo » Bigoted Heritage: At Right-Wing Think Tanks, Racism As Usual
"As a graduate student in economics, I have used Google search data to quantify the cost of racism on President Barack Obama's vote total. I compared the rate at which areas made racist searches on Google to Obamas vote share, controlling for the vote share of the previous Democratic candidate, John Kerry in 2004. After a large set of robustness checks, I estimated that Obama lost about 4 percentage points of the popular vote (more than 4 million total votes) from racism in both 2008 and 2012. Furthermore, he only gained about 1 percentage point from increased black turnout, and I found little evidence that he gained additional white voters due to his race." Author of Obama Racism Study Responds to Nate Cohn Criticism | New Republic
'Change They Can't Believe In' authors: Christopher S. Parker, Matt A. Barreto
'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander
"I believe in brotherhood .of all men before the law .if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety .The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." Harry Truman and Civil Rights
"In fact.....they killed every anti-lynching bill that made its way to the Senate. Democrats."
No PC, the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill (1922) was ultimately defeated by a Southern Democratic filibuster.
Those Southern Democrats were conservative, not liberal. And there was no support from Southern Republicans for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill.
Seriously, how much time do you spend maintaining this level of crazy?
You know that everything I post is correct.
Otherwise,you would have specified any errors.....an endeavor beyond possibility.
.
No, it's just that trying to go through your OCD mutterings point by point is sort of a futile excercise, and frankly, I just don't have the patience for it anymore.
Everyone else is wrong and you are right.
It's tedious.
There are a number of things I appreciate about Truman.
His attitude about integration of the forces, support of Israel as a nation, sacking Henry Wallace.....
But he allowed Soviet spies to influence him, and he gave China to Mao.
Imagine how different the world would be if China had not been allowed to become communist....and how many millions of Chinese would not have succumbed to the greatest mass killer in history.
And, the same theme repeated by yet another Democrat President.
Carter created modern Iran.....
Thank him for the rise of Islamofascism.
Both Democrats.....probably just a coincidence.
Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Ajax? WOW, you learn something new every day! That would mean FDR has to take a back seat as far as presidential terms in office.
Jimmy Carter US President
In office
January 20, 1953 - January 20, 1981
You didn't know that Jimmy Carter brought Khomeini back to Iran from exile?
And this unleashed the Islamofascist terrorism that the world faces today.
Good think you came here.... you learn something new every day!
The truth was that it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats hold on the South in 1952. Want to know was appealing to bigots? Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes. Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years,1954-1963, p. 360. Oh, yes, and Stevenson chose John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist, as his running mate. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/152564/playing-defense/mark-r-levin
Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Ajax? WOW, you learn something new every day! That would mean FDR has to take a back seat as far as presidential terms in office.
Jimmy Carter US President
In office
January 20, 1953 - January 20, 1981
You didn't know that Jimmy Carter brought Khomeini back to Iran from exile?
And this unleashed the Islamofascist terrorism that the world faces today.
Good think you came here.... you learn something new every day!
"Jimmy Carter brought Khomeini back to Iran from exile"...??? What number is that in the right wing revision of history?
Gee, one of the hostage takers told an outraged American embassy staffer: “You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.”
