The history of left-wing policies

[rightwinger]

Keep telling yourself that junior....

You're the only one I know who directly opposes the entire platform which you claim to support....

You hate small, limited government - yet you claim it is the creation of the Dumbocrat party you support. You hate the right to keep and bear arms - yet you claim it is the creation of the Dumbocrat party which you support. You absolutely loathe and detest the 10th Amendment - yet you claim it is the creation of the Dumbocrat party you support.

So let me ask you chief - if you hate all of these things and the Dumbocrat Party is responsible for them, why in the hell are you a Dumbocrat?

There were two trains of thought in our Revolution

One sided with the rights of man
The other sided with the king

Conservatives sided with the king

Tories were the Loyalists. Whigs were the Patriots. The founders were Patriots (in the end, anyway; Ben Franklin, for one, needed some convincing). The founders established republican governments in the states and in New York.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal

Benedict Arnold was conservative

 

[rightwinger]

Really? That's interesting. I seem to recall that REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln lead the effort to end slavery and the Demcorats vehemently opposed it (as they did again during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's).

Abe Lincoln was a liberal. Liberals authored and passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The following was copied from Wikipedia, pertaining to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If you pay attention to the numbers you will find it (probably to your surprise) that in every category the Democrats were far more reluctant to pass it than the Republicans. (by percentage, since both House and Senate had Democratic majority).

Also you will see the name of a Democrat icon in a place that should be uncomfortable for any democrat with a smidgeon of decency.

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

What do Democrats and Republicans have to do with a discussion about liberals and conservatives?

 

[norwegen]

There were two trains of thought in our Revolution

One sided with the rights of man
The other sided with the king

Conservatives sided with the king

Tories were the Loyalists. Whigs were the Patriots. The founders were Patriots (in the end, anyway; Ben Franklin, for one, needed some convincing). The founders established republican governments in the states and in New York.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal

Benedict Arnold was conservative

Big Bird was a canary.

 

[itfitzme]

You are aware that your anti-abortion religious bullshit cannot become law in the United States, don't you? Because of the 1st Amendment.

You are aware that you're a fuck'n, angry idiot [MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION], aren't you? So far, you've yet to make even a single rational post.

Where was religion even mentioned, you dumb-fuck? Where? You know why "anti-abortion" can and will become law? Because murder is outlawed in this nation, you sad little impotent boy....

Now are you capable of making an even remotely rational post based on the facts? Or do the facts have you in such a tizzy that you're only capable of spewing incoherent anger?

"You are aware that you're a fuck'n, angry idiot "....

Now there is irony.

See, the problem is that you are trying to impose your own incorrect definitions on everything. Abortion is legal in the US and many advanced countries. Murder is, by definition, illegal. Ergo, and very simply, abortion is not muder.

I case you are still confused about the "irony", I'll spell it out. "you're a fuck'n, angry idiot" is a statement that demonstrates you to be an angry idiot. "fuck'n" is the angry part. Your inability to recognize the irony of you're statement is the idiot part.

 

[Iceweasel]

You are obviously illiterate regarding the history of political parties in the United States. It must be a concerted effort on your part to be ignorant.

"During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power"

Yes, Republicans have always been more business friendly, economically sound, that isn't in dispute.

"Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power."

That isn't business, it's social spending.

"Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies"

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms? | Democrats & Republicans | LiveScience[/url

Translation = all goodness comes from the Democrat party. All evil comes from Republicans.

Your source goes on to say:

" From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business."

 

[Bfgrn]

Really? That's interesting. I seem to recall that REPUBLICAN President Abraham Lincoln lead the effort to end slavery and the Demcorats vehemently opposed it (as they did again during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's).

Abe Lincoln was a liberal. Liberals authored and passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Actually, it was the overwhelming yea vote of the Republican minority that pushed that bill through. Fewer than 2/3 of the Democrats voted for it.

You only have one problem...FACTS...LOL

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)[/QUOTE]

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

There was not ONE southern conservative from either party that supported the bill. Fast forward to today, and it is still liberals who support the rights of minorities. Examples, gays, Hispanics and Muslims.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

 

[norwegen]

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Conservative south and liberal north is not a division by region; it's division by ideology.

And you're not injecting the term conservative, are you? Facts, remember?

You may muddle the issue with regions and ideology all you want; I won't stop you. The fact is, that bill passed because the Republicans voted for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Conservative south and liberal north is not a division by region; it's division by ideology.

And you're not injecting the term conservative, are you? Facts, remember?

You may muddle the issue with regions and ideology all you want; I won't stop you. The fact is, that bill passed because the Republicans voted for it.

The bill passed because a Democratic President signed it

 

[norwegen]

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Conservative south and liberal north is not a division by region; it's division by ideology.

And you're not injecting the term conservative, are you? Facts, remember?

You may muddle the issue with regions and ideology all you want; I won't stop you. The fact is, that bill passed because the Republicans voted for it.

The bill passed because a Democratic President signed it

The Congress passes bills.

But then, you seem to think the 1780s was the Progressive Era.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative south and liberal north is not a division by region; it's division by ideology.

And you're not injecting the term conservative, are you? Facts, remember?

You may muddle the issue with regions and ideology all you want; I won't stop you. The fact is, that bill passed because the Republicans voted for it.

The bill passed because a Democratic President signed it

The Congress passes bills.

But then, you seem to think the 1780s was the Progressive Era.

The bill goes nowhere without a Democratic Presidents signature

Haven't you read the Constitution?

 

[norwegen]

The bill passed because a Democratic President signed it

The Congress passes bills.

But then, you seem to think the 1780s was the Progressive Era.

The bill goes nowhere without a Democratic Presidents signature

Haven't you read the Constitution?

Bills can become law without the president's signature (Article I, section 7).

Regardless, the. Congress. passes. bills.

 

[rightwinger]

The Congress passes bills.

But then, you seem to think the 1780s was the Progressive Era.

The bill goes nowhere without a Democratic Presidents signature

Haven't you read the Constitution?

Bills can become law without the president's signature (Article I, section 7).

Regardless, the. Congress. passes. bills.

And?

Tell us now how they become law

 

[Bfgrn]

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Conservative south and liberal north is not a division by region; it's division by ideology.

And you're not injecting the term conservative, are you? Facts, remember?

You may muddle the issue with regions and ideology all you want; I won't stop you. The fact is, that bill passed because the Republicans voted for it.

The Mason-Dixon Line delineates REGIONS.

Liberal/conservative delineates intelligence/stupidity

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals founded this country

Haven't looked back since

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals founded this country

Haven't looked back since

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

You are going to have to explain that one

 

[Mustang]

Liberals founded this country

Haven't looked back since

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

If true, you would think that they would have included capitalism in the Constitution somewhere. Alas, there is no economic system included. Know what that means? It means that socialism isn't unconstitutional.

Why don't you add that to your increasingly long list of Amendments you want to add to the Constitution you love.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals founded this country

Haven't looked back since

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

You are going to have to explain that one

You just explained yourself with that one.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals founded this country

Haven't looked back since

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

Really? Please provide founding documents that even mention 'capitalism' or 'corporations'?


The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)

 

[rightwinger]

Capitalists founded this Country. Capitalism works.

You are going to have to explain that one

You just explained yourself with that one.

Name the capitalists who founded this country

I have already named the liberals who founded it

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur