PeterS

Did he mention that the democratic party once contained a bunch of southern conservatives bigots? I'll bet not because then he would have to mention how those same southern conservatives moved to the republican party and now comprise the majority of the teaparty.

The only scholarly action a conservative ever takes is to try to figure out a way to blame their on actions on someone else. I think it is called individual responsibility conservative style...

Anigav6969

News flash update !.....it's 2015 !

This message has been sponsored by cureAlzheimers.com

Artemis

It was a great post wasn't it, kinda like check'n the barrel of a gun by the wrong end. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

Firehouse

Yea it's 2015
But it matters that democrats founded the KKK
Wanted s***ery to continue
Democratic policies have kept the black community down
Teachers unions won't fire bad teachers, won't give kids choices on schools,
Won't discipline black students
WTF???

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Exactly. Nice metaphor. Either some of these conservatives don't know their history or they just don't care about it in an effort to score cheap (and untrue) political points.

One problem they have is thinking those old time southern Democrats were liberals. If that were the case, then they would have supported the old time Republicans....those 'conservatives' whose policies they claim led to the war.

One can make all kinds of pretzels out of conservative 'logic' about the Civil War.

Artemis

It would be constructive if they would do a little research on history before shooting off their mouths. Yes they are the twisted pretzels for sure. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Artemis

Welcome aboard Firehouse. You are correct it is 2015 and what matters most is what we do today to insure a brighter future for our country. I implore you to do a little research on our country's party history it is interesting and informative.

As our country has gone through changes so have our party system.

We have been unfolding into a two party system, which could only be surpassed by such a negative impact as a one party system, as it polarizes us. We need to have a mixture of party's or none at all and all go by an independent v**e, which is the way I support as I find party's only divide us as a people. Party's pin Americans against Americans and is a tool used to manipulate the masses. As what is happening today big time.

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

Some suggested reading:

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and R****m

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose s***ery, and Republicans eventually abolished s***ery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand s***ery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing s***ery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about s***ery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported s***ery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end s***ery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end s***ery but also to endow the freed s***es with full citizenship, e******y, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-s***ery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed s***es, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed s***es, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed s***es the right to v**e, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed s***es and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had v**ed the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats v**ed in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats v**ed for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on r****m. The Democrats just switched from overt r****m to a subversive strategy of getting b****s as dependent as possible on government to secure their v**es. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy r****ts.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by r****m. While it is certainly true that many Southern r****ts abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial e******y and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most r****t Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently t***sfers all the past sins of the Democrats (s***ery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending s***ery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some r****t Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a r****t -- at least not an overt r****t like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial e******y, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 P**********l e******n to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as r****t, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more r****t than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress v**e for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's v**e on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its r****ts, but the notion that Republicans are more r****t than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by L*****ts, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for a******n, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized b****s, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those n****rs v****g Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with r****m.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely v**e well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "r****t" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in k*****g a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively k*****g hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is r****t. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse r****m," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of w***e s*******y, albeit "benevolent" w***e s*******y rather than the openly hostile w***e s*******y of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are r****t and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

Firehouse

Beautiful!!!

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Oh so this is why, they switched to the party that overwhelming v**ed FOR the Civil Rights Act. You might want to brush up of you history!

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

Hey where did the lying libs go....

fullsailale Loc: washington

I am s**k of this finger pointing s**t!!!

this is the problem right here, they, them, those. instead of we, us. WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AND DISCUSS HOW WE CAN FIX THINGS!!!

QUIT!!!!!! THIS DAMN FINGER POINTING!!!!

it will be more productive talking about what WE!! can do for tomorrow instead of who did what in the past. like a bunch of damn kids.

we all have our personnal opinions and we need to keep them to ourselves, i sure have mine, but i also believe that we!! can all get along with each other, work together, so we can all live together.

Artemis

You are missing the point, party's ideologies have changed almost completely over time, therefore what a party did 2oo years ago ,100 years ,or 50 years has little to do with what the present ideologies are now. It is what the party's stand for now that is what matters.

Interesting reading on party changes throughout our history.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jph/summary/v012/12.3speel.html

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

Its a lie whether it's 200 years old or 2 minutes old.

Artemis

Odd coming from someone pointing his middle finger :shock: :?:

I am NOT in disagreement with you here at all, if you read my last post you'll understand that. It is difficult to have a civil conversation with such an offensive avatar. it is like trying to talk with someone who is screaming in your face. Just saying