The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[Dad2three]

Liberal or Conservative?

Wallace was a progressive.
/oops.

Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.

I don't mean to be a bother but I did do a google search and failed to find evidence of what you posted. Would it be too much trouble to ask for your source? BTW did Wallace run with Goldwater?[/QUOTE]
>
The 1964 unpledged elector slate[edit]
In 1964, Alabama Republicans stood to benefit from the unintended consequences of two developments: (1) Governor Wallace vacating the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Johnson, and (2) the designation of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama, in effect removing President Johnson from the general election ballot. Prior to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Wallace and his aides Bill Jones and Seymore Trammell met in the Jefferson Davis Hotel in Montgomery with Alabama Republican leader James D. Martin, who had narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in 1962 to J. Lister Hill. Wallace and his aides sought to determine if Barry M. Goldwater, the forthcoming GOP presidential nominee who as a senator from Arizona had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian and constitutional grounds, would advocate repeal of the law, particularly the public accommodations and equal employment sections. Bill Jones indicated that Wallace agreed with Goldwater's anti-communist stance but opposed the Republican's proposal to make Social Security a voluntary program. Jones stressed that Wallace had sacrificed his own presidential aspirations that year to allow a direct GOP challenge to President Johnson. It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate, a designation later given to U.S. Representative William E. Miller of New York. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overture because of Wallace's lack of strength outside the Deep South.[27]
George Wallace - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

No the Constitution ISN'T there to protect FROM ONLY Gov't power!

If you wife prefers to be examined by a female gynecologist can the government force her to be examined by a male gynecologist in order to prevent her from being a damn,dirty, disgusting sexual discriminator?

Good spin, NOTHING relevant to YOUR argument however. Try again

Entirely relevant. You can't counter it other than by crying "that's different."

Heck...why shouldn't the government choose our spouses for us? Isn't it discriminatory to prefer one person over another?

lol

STRAWMAN

 

[2aguy]

He said, after touting Reagan, who who switched party names in the quest for power....

After a life time of watching government screw up... and realizing the democrats were becoming the party of big government, and anti American beliefs...he switched parties...and fought to reduce the power of the central government, not increase it...


Did you know when he played football they had black players on their team...they went out of town to play and the black players were not allowed to stay in the hotel the team was at....so Reagan drove them back to his families home...they had dinner and stayed for the night...back when the democrats were killing republicans and African Americans...

 

[Dad2three]

JUST ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? LOL

anti abortion, lower taxes, cutting government spending, fighting communists around the world, fighting terrorists around the world, anti slavery, anti klan, anti jim crow, civil rights...

Hmmm...all of those were, and are opposed by the democrat party...yesterday and today...

Good you want to conflate Dems/GOP with conservatives and Liberals, NOPE


Conservatives POLICY. Tax cut isn't a successful policy UNLESS you cut spending. When did conservative do that? lol

Fighting commies was a policy? lol

Fighting terrorists? Oh you mean like the ones Reagan funded?


Anti slavery/Anti klan? lol, IT'S YOUR FUCCCCKING BASE!

 

[OnePercenter]

A typically misleading article that the rubes on the Left eat up.
What does it mean to be "left" or "right" on civil rights issues today? It sure isnt the same thing it meant in 1965. In 1965 those on the "right" presumably were in favor of racial restrictions, in favor of racial quotas. In 2014 those same positions are held by those on the "left".
Racism never left the Democratic Party.

It's not left or right, it's for or against. Democrats are for, Republicans are against. Simple.

Here's your link.

Google

 

[2aguy]

Anti slavery/Anti klan? lol, IT'S YOUR FUCCCCKING BASE!

Yes, modern conservatives are anti slavery and anti klan...we didn't lionize a former kleagle of the ku klux klan, and we don't look to enslave people by getting them hooked on government welfare...

 

[Dad2three]

He said, after touting Reagan, who who switched party names in the quest for power....

After a life time of watching government screw up... and realizing the democrats were becoming the party of big government, and anti American beliefs...he switched parties...and fought to reduce the power of the central government, not increase it...


Did you know when he played football they had black players on their team...they went out of town to play and the black players were not allowed to stay in the hotel the team was at....so Reagan drove them back to his families home...they had dinner and stayed for the night...back when the democrats were killing republicans and African Americans...

Good ANOTHER myth on Ronnie, lol

You meant to say CONSERVATIVES were killing liberals and African/Americans right?

 

[Freewill]

Liberal or Conservative?

Wallace was a progressive.
/oops.

Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.

I don't mean to be a bother but I did do a google search and failed to find evidence of what you posted. Would it be too much trouble to ask for your source? BTW did Wallace run with Goldwater?

>
The 1964 unpledged elector slate[edit]
In 1964, Alabama Republicans stood to benefit from the unintended consequences of two developments: (1) Governor Wallace vacating the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Johnson, and (2) the designation of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama, in effect removing President Johnson from the general election ballot. Prior to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Wallace and his aides Bill Jones and Seymore Trammell met in the Jefferson Davis Hotel in Montgomery with Alabama Republican leader James D. Martin, who had narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in 1962 to J. Lister Hill. Wallace and his aides sought to determine if Barry M. Goldwater, the forthcoming GOP presidential nominee who as a senator from Arizona had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian and constitutional grounds, would advocate repeal of the law, particularly the public accommodations and equal employment sections. Bill Jones indicated that Wallace agreed with Goldwater's anti-communist stance but opposed the Republican's proposal to make Social Security a voluntary program. Jones stressed that Wallace had sacrificed his own presidential aspirations that year to allow a direct GOP challenge to President Johnson. It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate, a designation later given to U.S. Representative William E. Miller of New York. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overture because of Wallace's lack of strength outside the Deep South.[27]
George Wallace - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

"It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate,"


That would have made Wallace a GOPper -- and poor boedicchhheeea wouldn't be able to point to a picture with an arrow that says Wallace ---> "Democrat" and run with scissors and scream hey you history 'avissssionsionists!

Then we wouldn't have this revealing thread.

And what fun would that be?[/QUOTE]

The truth is we think the offer was made. The truth is that it was never taken seriously. The truth is what we know is that Wallace stayed right in the party that bred racists.

 

[2aguy]

Conservatives POLICY. Tax cut isn't a successful policy UNLESS you cut spending. When did conservative do that? lol

And Reagan was betrayed by the democrats...who promised to cut spending...which they lied about...typical liberals...he negotiated one dollar in tax cuts for 2 dollars in spending cuts...and they lied...and kept spending and spending...

 

[Dad2three]

Anti slavery/Anti klan? lol, IT'S YOUR FUCCCCKING BASE!

Yes, modern conservatives are anti slavery and anti klan...we didn't lionize a former kleagle of the ku klux klan, and we don't look to enslave people by getting them hooked on government welfare...

Sure, you supported civil rights for ALL right?

Gov't welfare? Oh you mean Corp subsidies the GOP supports?

SORRY, THE BASE OF THE CURRENT GOP/CONSERVATIVES, ARE THE KKK AND YES, THEY STILL SUPPORT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL BS!

 

[Dad2three]

Liberal or Conservative?

Wallace was a progressive.
/oops.

Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.

I don't mean to be a bother but I did do a google search and failed to find evidence of what you posted. Would it be too much trouble to ask for your source? BTW did Wallace run with Goldwater?[/QUOTE]
>
The 1964 unpledged elector slate[edit]
In 1964, Alabama Republicans stood to benefit from the unintended consequences of two developments: (1) Governor Wallace vacating the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Johnson, and (2) the designation of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama, in effect removing President Johnson from the general election ballot. Prior to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Wallace and his aides Bill Jones and Seymore Trammell met in the Jefferson Davis Hotel in Montgomery with Alabama Republican leader James D. Martin, who had narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in 1962 to J. Lister Hill. Wallace and his aides sought to determine if Barry M. Goldwater, the forthcoming GOP presidential nominee who as a senator from Arizona had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian and constitutional grounds, would advocate repeal of the law, particularly the public accommodations and equal employment sections. Bill Jones indicated that Wallace agreed with Goldwater's anti-communist stance but opposed the Republican's proposal to make Social Security a voluntary program. Jones stressed that Wallace had sacrificed his own presidential aspirations that year to allow a direct GOP challenge to President Johnson. It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate, a designation later given to U.S. Representative William E. Miller of New York. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overture because of Wallace's lack of strength outside the Deep South.[27]
George Wallace - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

No the Constitution ISN'T there to protect FROM ONLY Gov't power!

If you wife prefers to be examined by a female gynecologist can the government force her to be examined by a male gynecologist in order to prevent her from being a damn,dirty, disgusting sexual discriminator?

I love you how you people are taking the side of those the OP meant to attack.

Do you like George Bush? He's a humanitarian giant in Africa for his efforts to fight AIDS on that continent. A stopped clock gives the correct time twice per day.

Principles can be correct no matter who advocates for them. Respect for human rights trumps politics.

Stop fucking oppressing my human rights.

Oh right, Dubya is liked in part of the world where he gave them aid, as long as they didn't counsel for abortions *shaking head*

 

[2aguy]

You meant to say CONSERVATIVES were killing liberals and African/Americans right?

No...it is pretty clear it was democrats killing republicans and African Americans...and then their young ones, obama and the clintons have moved on to taking control of all Americans...from the democrat party...

You may have to read this slowly...the democrat party owned the slaves, wanted to restart the slave trade with Africa, wanted slavery in the newly joining states, and when Republicans forced democrats to free their slaves at gun point ((probably one of the reasons democrats hate guns) they started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and church bombings...and then...when African Americans still went out to vote...the democrats decided they needed to change tactics...and to hide the fact that they were the party of racism...

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives POLICY. Tax cut isn't a successful policy UNLESS you cut spending. When did conservative do that? lol

And Reagan was betrayed by the democrats...who promised to cut spending...which they lied about...typical liberals...he negotiated one dollar in tax cuts for 2 dollars in spending cuts...and they lied...and kept spending and spending...

 

[paperview]

Liberal or Conservative?

Wallace was a progressive.
/oops.

Bull Shit, Wallace was so Conservative he offered to run as VP with Goldwater.

I don't mean to be a bother but I did do a google search and failed to find evidence of what you posted. Would it be too much trouble to ask for your source? BTW did Wallace run with Goldwater?

>
The 1964 unpledged elector slate[edit]
In 1964, Alabama Republicans stood to benefit from the unintended consequences of two developments: (1) Governor Wallace vacating the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against President Johnson, and (2) the designation of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama, in effect removing President Johnson from the general election ballot. Prior to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Wallace and his aides Bill Jones and Seymore Trammell met in the Jefferson Davis Hotel in Montgomery with Alabama Republican leader James D. Martin, who had narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in 1962 to J. Lister Hill. Wallace and his aides sought to determine if Barry M. Goldwater, the forthcoming GOP presidential nominee who as a senator from Arizona had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian and constitutional grounds, would advocate repeal of the law, particularly the public accommodations and equal employment sections. Bill Jones indicated that Wallace agreed with Goldwater's anti-communist stance but opposed the Republican's proposal to make Social Security a voluntary program. Jones stressed that Wallace had sacrificed his own presidential aspirations that year to allow a direct GOP challenge to President Johnson. It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate, a designation later given to U.S. Representative William E. Miller of New York. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overture because of Wallace's lack of strength outside the Deep South.[27]
George Wallace - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate,"


That would have made Wallace a GOPper -- and poor boedicchhheeea wouldn't be able to point to a picture with an arrow that says Wallace ---> "Democrat" and run with scissors and scream hey you history 'avissssionsionists!

Then we wouldn't have this revealing thread.

And what fun would that be?

The truth is we think the offer was made. The truth is that it was never taken seriously. The truth is what we know is that Wallace stayed right in the party that bred racists.

The next presidential election Wallace ran for President.

What party was he a member of?

You know?

 

[Freewill]

Anti slavery/Anti klan? lol, IT'S YOUR FUCCCCKING BASE!

Yes, modern conservatives are anti slavery and anti klan...we didn't lionize a former kleagle of the ku klux klan, and we don't look to enslave people by getting them hooked on government welfare...

Sure, you supported civil rights for ALL right?

Gov't welfare? Oh you mean Corp subsidies the GOP supports?

SORRY, THE BASE OF THE CURRENT GOP/CONSERVATIVES, ARE THE KKK AND YES, THEY STILL SUPPORT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL BS!

What a lying POS. Do you know no shame?

 

[OnePercenter]

JUST ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? LOL

anti abortion, lower taxes, cutting government spending, fighting communists around the world, fighting terrorists around the world, anti slavery, anti klan, anti jim crow, civil rights...

Hmmm...all of those were, and are opposed by the democrat party...yesterday and today...

Good you want to conflate Dems/GOP with conservatives and Liberals, NOPE


Conservatives POLICY. Tax cut isn't a successful policy UNLESS you cut spending. When did conservative do that? lol

Fighting commies was a policy? lol

Fighting terrorists? Oh you mean like the ones Reagan funded?


Anti slavery/Anti klan? lol, IT'S YOUR FUCCCCKING BASE!

It's the fallacy of over-spending. We don't have a spending problem, we have an income problem.

 

[boedicca]

The Constitution is there to protect individuals from government power. It is not there to force individuals to interact with each other. I can just as easily turn your argument back on you by claiming that the Antigay baker is a minority who needs to be protected from the PC majority (which is actually another minority). The the extent The Constitution protects a minority from the majority, it's along the lines of The Right To Be Left Alone.

In the area of rights, the simplest most basic purpose of the Consitution is to protect equal rights, The Constitution was never meant to endorse discrimination.

You clearly have no idea what The Constitution is.

What? Still pining for the 3/5th clause?

You are disgusting. That is not at all what I said...but as usual, you leftwing loons put everything through a Racist Filter.

If you could think logically and consistently about the principles in The Constitution, you'd understand how Slavery is actually a violation of one's freedom of association.

Yeah. It's a violation of a whole lot more than that.

I am thunderstruck by the simplemindedness of your responses. I haven't had much interaction with you before...now I understand the previous comments I've read about you.

Yow.

Did I say that it was only a violation of the right to association? No. I used that as an example.

Learn to read.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives POLICY. Tax cut isn't a successful policy UNLESS you cut spending. When did conservative do that? lol

And Reagan was betrayed by the democrats...who promised to cut spending...which they lied about...typical liberals...he negotiated one dollar in tax cuts for 2 dollars in spending cuts...and they lied...and kept spending and spending...

lol

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts

The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios


The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post


GOP HAD THE SENATE, IT WAS THEIR DEAL!

 

[Lakhota]

Martin Luther King was a Republican - so righties try to claim...

 

[OnePercenter]

The article, btw, is brilliant,

mostly because it elaborates on exactly what people like myself have been trying to explain to you ineducable fools for years.

Here's the truth

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag

The civil rights movement was never a far left wing movement. More revisionist history.

So it was a conservative thang?

 

[The Rabbi]

A typically misleading article that the rubes on the Left eat up.
What does it mean to be "left" or "right" on civil rights issues today? It sure isnt the same thing it meant in 1965. In 1965 those on the "right" presumably were in favor of racial restrictions, in favor of racial quotas. In 2014 those same positions are held by those on the "left".
Racism never left the Democratic Party.

It's not left or right, it's for or against. Democrats are for, Republicans are against. Simple.

Here's your link.

Google

Did you learn that at Columbia?
LOL. What a poseur. You dont know the first thing.