Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[PoliticalChic]

States rights are not lost. The 10th Amendment is not repealed.

Slavery was abolished and civil rights were enforced in spite of the Democrats, not because of them.

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism.

In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.

Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?

The CONservatives old bait and switch.

Hint IDEOLOGY:

CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.


UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?


"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."


lol

Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?

See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism.

Being the liberal that you are, what do you know of true conservatism?

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of 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

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism.

In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.

Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?

The CONservatives old bait and switch.

Hint IDEOLOGY:

CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.


UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?


"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."


lol

Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?

See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats

The richest cities in America are also run by Democrats.

 

[nuhuh]

The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism.

Being the liberal that you are, what do you know of true conservatism?

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of 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

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So where is the value of increasing wealth when you are handed a bill you cannot pay?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks to me like conservatism is winning all over the globe.

The Soviet Union collapsed. China and India are moving away from centrally planned economies toward freer and freer market economies.

Those are huge victories for conservatism.

So when states rights in the US lost out to 'central planning' and slavery was abolished, that was a tragic defeat?

You are sick.

States rights are not lost. The 10th Amendment is not repealed.

Slavery was abolished and civil rights were enforced in spite of the Democrats, not because of them.

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

Yes, those Conservative Democrats did try to block every civil right's initiative those Liberal Republicans tried to pass. How in the world did the Democrats become Liberal and the Republicans Conservative considering their respective histories? HUH?

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when states rights in the US lost out to 'central planning' and slavery was abolished, that was a tragic defeat?

You are sick.

States rights are not lost. The 10th Amendment is not repealed.

Slavery was abolished and civil rights were enforced in spite of the Democrats, not because of them.

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

Yes, those Conservative Democrats did try to block every civil right's initiative those Liberal Republicans tried to pass. How in the world did the Democrats become Liberal and the Republicans Conservative considering their respective histories? HUH?

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

The South started voting Republican in 1964, and votes Republican to this day. Those weren't different people,

those were conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican party.

 

[g5000]

The Deep South Democrats who opposed segregation were far right wing conservatives. They were a faction of the Democratic Party, not the whole Democratic Party. In fact, the reason JFK was visiting Dallas on that fateful day was to try to mend fences with the right wing faction of the Party so they would support his re-election. Fat chance!

The clues are all there:

Big advocates for states rights.

Hated commies.

Loved their guns.

Hated the federal government.

Aaaaaaaand...hated darkies, homos, and non-Christians.


Right wing. Conservative. Extremist.

This in no way describes the Democrat of today, and only a retard would attempt to make some kind of linkage.

Unfortunately, we are plagued with such retards around here.


The old time Southern Democrat bigot is the same guy as the right wing Southern bigot infecting the GOP of today. Same bullshit, different decade. Only the party affiliation has changed.


Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

These assholes the GOP courted and won are completely destroying the Republican brand. Instead of living in denial, retards, you should be rooting them out. You are aiding and abetting the destruction of the party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts on USMB have lost this argument for the hundredth time, and yet they come back for more.

 

[Ame®icano]

The richest cities in America are also run by Democrats.

They were all rich before Democrats took over. Give them some time...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

And TODAY, the political descendants of those Southern right wing conservatives stand in the way of every civil rights bill for gays as Republicans.

The Democrats have always been the party of racism.

In fact, the most popular elected Democrat, former President Clinton, has an unmitigated history of racism.

Bet you love Clinton, huh, Fakey II?

The CONservatives old bait and switch.

Hint IDEOLOGY:

CONservatives of the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa WERE Democrats who fought PROGRESSIVE ABE and the Repubs, it was PROGRESSIVES who gave US civil rights, while the CONservatives (almost exclusively from the Southern CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKa who fought it.


UNLESS YOU THINK MLK JR WOULD NE A GOPer today?


"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."


lol

Hmmm.....so you're opposed to poverty?

See if you can glean the cause of same, in this list:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected
a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952;

Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.

Top 10 Poorest Cities run by Democrats

The richest cities in America are also run by Democrats.

"Going For Broke: Is Los Angeles Headed in the Same Direction as Detroit? California Pension Reform President Dan Pellissier thinks our pension liabilities could have us filing for chapter eleven in two to three years.


....blames L.A.’s pension predicament on California's overly magnanimous policies. “We’re too generous,” he says, “and therein lies the problem: After 9/11, many fire and policemen got their bump in the pension formula, taking them from a 2% pension plan to a 3% pension plan, which is a 50% increase. By not putting any money away to cover all of those 50% increases, [the government] automatically created an underfunded pension liability.” - See more at: Going For Broke: Is Los Angeles Headed in the Same Direction as Detroit? - Los Angeles Magazine


"Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin"
Know what that means?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being the liberal that you are, what do you know of true conservatism?

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of 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

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So where is the value of increasing wealth when you are handed a bill you cannot pay?

Ya' mean sorta like this?

After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015

 

[nuhuh]

The Southern Strategy doesn't disappear because you want it to. Neither does the Council of Conservative Citizens or David Duke and all the other recent KKK guys who have run for office as Republicans. The Dixiecrats of yesterday are the Republican base of today. Deal with it. Bob Jones University's no interracial dating policy did not come about because the school is a hotbed of Liberalism. Tony Perkins did not buy the KKK mailing list because he's a Democrat. NARTH's Schoenwolf scandal was not the work of a liberal. The people who used to show up at Tea Party rallies with pictures of Obama as an African witch doctor or slogan's reading "Let's put the WHITE back in White House" are not Democrats. Voter suppression laws aimed at minorities are not sponsored by Democrats. The billboards about voter fraud have gone up in minority neighborhoods in several swing states were not put up by Democrats.Worldnetdaily's birther books and conspiracy theories are not the work of Democrats. Don't forget Reagan's Welfare Queen or George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ads or Jesse Helms minority quota sthick. You know, when Pat Buchanan is called the leader of the Democratic Party I'll start to believe you until then, you're chasing rainbows and looking for your magic pony.

 

[g5000]

It's pretty obvious who these bible waving bigots are in common with today:

 

[PoliticalChic]

States rights are not lost. The 10th Amendment is not repealed.

Slavery was abolished and civil rights were enforced in spite of the Democrats, not because of them.

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

Yes, those Conservative Democrats did try to block every civil right's initiative those Liberal Republicans tried to pass. How in the world did the Democrats become Liberal and the Republicans Conservative considering their respective histories? HUH?

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

The South started voting Republican in 1964, and votes Republican to this day. Those weren't different people,

those were conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican party.

The racists never changed.....they're known as Democrats.

Here is the change:

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter,"Mugged"

 

[nuhuh]

Social conservatives:
"Social conservatives may believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering."
If you want to talk about conservatives like reagan who tripled the national debt, go for it.

Reagan brought in more money through his tax cuts....and the democrat controlled congress spent all of it an more.....they lied to him....

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of 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

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So where is the value of increasing wealth when you are handed a bill you cannot pay?

Ya' mean sorta like this?

After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015

Exactly. Reagan couldn't balance the books and because he couldn't, no successive president could either. Now we are stuck with debt we can't pay and even if there were a plan we are looking at 398,000 years to pay it off. Basic accounting is not a tic it's a skill that is necessary to a successful economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Southern Strategy doesn't disappear because you want it to. Neither does the Council of Conservative Citizens or David Duke and all the other recent KKK guys who have run for office as Republicans. The Dixiecrats of yesterday are the Republican base of today. Deal with it. Bob Jones University's no interracial dating policy did not come about because the school is a hotbed of Liberalism. Tony Perkins did not buy the KKK mailing list because he's a Democrat. NARTH's Schoenwolf scandal was not the work of a liberal. The people who used to show up at Tea Party rallies with pictures of Obama as an African witch doctor or slogan's reading "Let's put the WHITE back in White House" are not Democrats. Voter suppression laws aimed at minorities are not sponsored by Democrats. The billboards about voter fraud have gone up in minority neighborhoods in several swing states were not put up by Democrats.Worldnetdaily's birther books and conspiracy theories are not the work of Democrats. Don't forget Reagan's Welfare Queen or George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ads or Jesse Helms minority quota sthick. You know, when Pat Buchanan is called the leader of the Democratic Party I'll start to believe you until then, you're chasing rainbows and looking for your magic pony.

1. Duke first ran for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There was no 'Southern Strategy'

1. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.
2. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. "GOP Poised to Reap Redistricting Rewards" by Michael Barone on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!
b. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?


c.".Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party

 

[g5000]

There was no 'Southern Strategy'

Denial is no way to go through life. I showed you the hard evidence of the Southern Strategy. Blindly repeating, "But 1964!" just makes you look retarded.

 

[g5000]

"RACE MIXING IS COMMUNISM"

"STOP THE RACE MIXING MARCH OF THE ANTI-CHRIST"

I am serious when I say you have to have seven pounds of brain damage to believe that has any connection to the modern day Democrat.

You have to be living in EXTREME denial. Pathological denial. Willful stupidity.


It has far more in common with this:

Same BULLSHIT, different decade.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Southern Strategy doesn't disappear because you want it to. Neither does the Council of Conservative Citizens or David Duke and all the other recent KKK guys who have run for office as Republicans. The Dixiecrats of yesterday are the Republican base of today. Deal with it. Bob Jones University's no interracial dating policy did not come about because the school is a hotbed of Liberalism. Tony Perkins did not buy the KKK mailing list because he's a Democrat. NARTH's Schoenwolf scandal was not the work of a liberal. The people who used to show up at Tea Party rallies with pictures of Obama as an African witch doctor or slogan's reading "Let's put the WHITE back in White House" are not Democrats. Voter suppression laws aimed at minorities are not sponsored by Democrats. The billboards about voter fraud have gone up in minority neighborhoods in several swing states were not put up by Democrats.Worldnetdaily's birther books and conspiracy theories are not the work of Democrats. Don't forget Reagan's Welfare Queen or George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ads or Jesse Helms minority quota sthick. You know, when Pat Buchanan is called the leader of the Democratic Party I'll start to believe you until then, you're chasing rainbows and looking for your magic pony.

"....George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad..."


Bogus......just like most of your posts.

1. Having no defense to blunt the truth of events, what could Liberals so?….Of course! Democrats screamed ‘racism.’ Well, one may claim such, except that the Bush commercial never mentioned race, or even showed Willie Horton.

Here it is:





On the other hand….Bush supporters produced this commercial…. the National Security PAC, not directly by the Bush/Quayle campaign.




2. “But when Bush supporters ran an anti-Dukakis TV commercial playing on fears of black criminals, it took three weeks for the campaign to disapprove.” George Bush and Willie Horton


3. To this day, academics, i.e., Liberals, use it as an example of how race is used in an ugly way in American politics.

a. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the same one that OK’d gay marriage, ruled that prison furloughs had to be extended to first-degree murderers. This, due to Governor Michael Dukakis eliminating the death penalty.

b. Furloughs: outside visits to prepare convicts who would be released back into the community. Certainly not those with a life sentence.

c. Wait….don’t Liberals say that life in prison without the possibility of parole is just as good as capital punishment? Anyway….

d. Even the Massachusetts legislature realized the ruling was insane…and passed a law prohibiting the furloughs. But, with the support of the usual suspects, the ACLU, the Democrat Governor Dukakis vetoed the bill. Off goes a savage murderer, Willie Horton.

e. Horton was in prison because he “robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17-year-old gas station attendant, and then fatally stabbed him 19 times after he had cooperated by handing over all of the money in the cash register. His body was dumped in a trash can. Fournier died from blood loss…. But Willie Horton did not care if you gave it to him or not. As he would demonstrate at least twice, giving him what he asked for would not make any difference. … He did it for pleasure… Michael Dukakis opened up the prison doors in Massachusetts…

[Horton] went to Maryland and broke into a home and tied a man to a joist in the basement, slashed his chest and stomach with a knife, then beat and raped his fiancée while she screamed and screamed and screamed. Willie Horton was a killer, a rapist, a torturer, a kidnapper, a brute.”
Cengage Learning



4. When Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller, the couple that Horton attacked, recovered, they flew to Boston to request a meeting with Democrat Dukakis, hoping for an apology, perhaps some explanation. Dukakis refused to admit that furloughing remorseless murderers was a mistake…and hid from the couple. He issued a statement reaffirming his strong support for furloughing first-degree murderers.


a. Yet the Horton ad had gone down in Liberal history as the most beastly, monstrous act of racist demagoguery in campaign history. That’s the take-away from the incident.

 

[nuhuh]

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Democrats stood in the way of every civil rights bill, including every anti-lynching bill in the Senate.

Yes, those Conservative Democrats did try to block every civil right's initiative those Liberal Republicans tried to pass. How in the world did the Democrats become Liberal and the Republicans Conservative considering their respective histories? HUH?

Formerly I was surprised at the abysmal stupidity evinced by you Democrat/Liberal/Progressive serfs....

....who actually believe that segregationists suddenly changed to love their darker brethren in 1964.

Nothing changed accept the degree to which you are willing to suspend your judgment and insight.


"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas calledignorantia affectata.

An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

The South started voting Republican in 1964, and votes Republican to this day. Those weren't different people,

those were conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican party.

The racists never changed.....they're known as Democrats.

Here is the change:

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter,"Mugged"

I'm sure you can explain for all of us why Tony Perkins bought the KKK mailing list if it was full of liberals, and why its called the Council of Conservative Citizens instead of the Council of Liberal Citizens, and why John Derbyshire and his VDARE pals aren't considered leftists, and why everyone in Europe recognizes their neo-fascist parties as belonging to the extreme right, and why the judge's initial ruling in Loving v Virginia doesn't sound like anything that ever came out of a Libera;'s mouth, and KKK members who have run for office are doing so as Republicans. You simply don't get to rewrite history or political science, but you do have to live with it.