Liberal myth: 20th cent. Southern Democratic Segregationists were "conservative." (accuse, Byrd)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The flag should not be displayed on federal grounds, except in a historical context, which is the Obama administration's current policy on this and also the policy just adopted by South Carolina, who are now placing the flag from their civil war memorial next to the state capitol in a museum.
The Democrat's amendment apparently removed the exception allowing for it to be displayed in a historical context. And of course anyone who suggests that soldiers gravestones should be scrubbed of the flag who happen to have it on their graves are ghoulish, bigoted, anti-social thugs.
Expect to see this resolved in the next few days with some reasonable exceptions added back in, if the Democrats will permit it. If the Democrats are unwilling to go along with that, then let the reasons for that be known, far and wide. The Democrats are trying to re-write history, they are trying to antagonize Southern white people who they hold in open contempt, and they are advocating the disrespecting of the dead, just to name a few.
Are there any more outrageous a-holes in the whole world than these people? OK, the radical Islamic terrorist groups, but the Democrats are not nearly so far behind these people on this score as they should be.
The Democrat's amendments prohibit national cemeteries and national parks from displaying the flag. There has never been any contention to displaying it in museums, so its historical context can and will always be preserved that way, as it should be. But it has no place in any national parks or cemeteries. The amendment that the Republicans tried to add at the last minute was an attempt to reverse the Democratic amendments, amendments which had already been voted on and adopted earlier in the day by the House on a voice vote.
Huh? Social issues are an anathema to the GOP. The GOP would prefer that social issues not be part and parcel of today's politics.....it's liberals who insist on injecting this toxicity into our society with their limp-wristed, perpetually-aggrieved mentality about any- and everything.
You are severely confused. No doubt you voted for numnuts.
That is exactly right. Obama ran almost entirely on a platform of social issues in 2012, as he could not speak about his record, as it would not have helped him. Obamacare was an albatross around his neck, the economy was not an area that he had had been effective. So, it was the "war on women," homosexual "marriage," which he still opposed on his campaign, but everyone including his supporters knew he was lying about that and actually supported it, and so on.
The left is the party that continues to promote this sort of divisiveness and really almost every sort of divisiveness in our society.
You see this meme come up time and time again. In the recent thread by Trace, no less than 3 liberal posters said that the Democratic segregationists were conservatives. This is a myth.
In her excellent book Mugged: racial demagoguery from the seventies to Obama, Ann Coulter ID's 12 segregationist Democratic US senators from the 50's-60's era. Of the 12, only 1 could be fairly called conservative: James Eastland of Mississippi. Ann also notes that Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina took a more conservative bent later in his career (he was in the Senate until 2005). But he helped initiate the federal food stamp program, and supported regulation of "Big Oil."
I won't go through all 12 (buy and read the book), but here are some examples....
Robert Byrd, staunch segregationist, always favored tax-and-spend policies. He was a liberal during his KKK days, and remained a liberal later in his career when he had to dump his association with the KKK to remain viable. He also won a 100% rating from NARAL, and a 71% rating from the ACLU.
Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a particular liberal hero. Growing up in the post-Nixon era, I remember often seeing plaudits for him from the liberal media. He was a key figure in the Watergate hearings. He was also a staunch segregationist, and was signatory to the Southern Manifesto, which was a reaction to Brown v. Board of Education. The Southern Manifesto was a rejection of racial integration.
J. William Fulbright (D, AR), mentor to Pres. Bill Clinton, is best known for his advocacy of federal subsidies for higher education. He was also signatory to the Southern Manifesto. He was an active opponent of McCarthyism, a supporter of the UN, and a stalwart opponent of the Vietnam war.
Walter George (D, GA) supported the Social Security Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and LBJ's 'Great Society.'
Russell Long, another Senate Southern Dem segregationist, was LBJ's point man on the "Great Society" welfare state programs.
Only a tiny portion of the segregationist Democrats of the 50's-60's era could be labeled as conservative. They were overwhelmingly liberal. They were New Dealers and statists, who but for their segregationist views, would be right at home in the Democratic party of 2015.
I really do not understand why conservatives think this proves anything.
conservatives right now overwhelmingly support the largest government programs.
Military spending, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is factual.
For conservatives "big government" has never been the problem and will never be the problem.
The problem with government for most conservatives is a matter of who.
As in "who" is it that the government helps. This is the chief and main concern/problem that conservatives have with the mis named "big government".
conservatives believe and have always believed that the government shouldn't help certain groups of people.
This is what they mean when they speak on "big government".
They mean programs that help groups of Americans whom they feel don't deserve any help, and whom they don't want the government to help.
This is why conservative southern Democrats could support the new deal then while ensuring that certain groups were excluded from participating in new deal programs.
And modern conservatives can love every war and potential war, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, all the military spending, love the creation of homeland security, cheerlead for the patriot act, love the militarization of police, all the while trying to exclude certain groups of Americans from participating in any government programs.
The groups are the same. The motivations are the same.
The Democrat's amendments prohibit national cemeteries and national parks from displaying the flag. There has never been any contention to displaying it in museums, so its historical context can and will always be preserved that way, as it should be. But it has no place in any national parks or cemeteries. The amendment that the Republicans tried to add at the last minute was an attempt to reverse the Democratic amendments, amendments which had already been voted on and adopted earlier in the day by the House on a voice vote.
So you want to scrub it from the gravestones of the soldiers buried there. How ghoulish, anti-social, and openly bigoted towards Southern white people can you possible get.
The biggest lie that conservatives perpetrate amongst themselves and the public is the idea that they are for small government or that they fear the power of the government.
But just look at what conservatives support by overwhelming majorities and you see it is a lie.
If a person were afraid of government power, the first thing they would do is limit the power of the state to kill its own citizens legally. But conservatives LOVE the death penalty, which greatly expands the power of the state.
If a person were afraid of government power, they'd be extremely afraid of the state amassing this hugely powerful military that the state could then use to suppress/oppress its own citizens, but conservatives LOVE military spending and LOVES our hugely powerful military.
If a person were afraid of government power they'd be afraid of their government fighting unnecessary wars because they'd know that governments all the time use wars to take away freedoms at home and abroad. Yet conservatives support every war and potential war enthusiastically.
Throw in overwhelming conservative support of police power when they kill unarmed citizens.
Add in that the most popular government program amongst conservatives are the 4 largest government programs and you get the picture.
conservatives are not afraid of government power, they aren't afraid of big government programs.
Their whole conception of themselves as the party of small government is a lie.
Ah, so Republicans can be leftists, but Democrats can't be conservative....that makes no sense whatsoever. Guess someone has never heard of Dixiecrats or Blue Dogs...
Dixiecrats were New Deal Democrats and therefore liberal.
Until the 1948 Democratic platform called for civil rights legislation, Democrats who would become Dixiecrats were happy being New Dealers as the New Deal didn`t address race or civil rights.
Only when the party`s stand on race and civil rights changed did these Democrats seek to form their own party and nominate their own candidate for president.
All that shows is that social conservatives tend to be racist.
And yes, those same social Southern conservatives are today's GOP base. The irony is that today's GOP is made up of many poor people in red states....who would vote Dem if not for the GOP playing the race card. It all began in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, with many of those "Dixiecrats" being appalled by the counterculture movement. A movement which was 100% right about the Vietnam War.
As a Democrat, I am glad those "Dixiecrats" are no longer part of our party.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,546 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6028
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Dixiecrats were New Deal Democrats and therefore liberal.
Until the 1948 Democratic platform called for civil rights legislation, Democrats who would become Dixiecrats were happy being New Dealers as the New Deal didn`t address race or civil rights.
Only when the party`s stand on race and civil rights changed did these Democrats seek to form their own party and nominate their own candidate for president.
You contradicted yourself 10 times over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guess someone has never heard of Dixiecrats or Blue Dogs...
