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.
So you want to tear down the Nation, after all the Founders owned slaves and did not free them when they declared their own freedom from England. Why do you hate America?
Yeah, Democrats who believed in the supremacy of states rights over that of the federal government, who favored small government over large government, who favored local control over that from Washington DC, who believed in traditional social values....
Gee, kind's sounds like modern REPUBLICANS.
150 years ago, Democrats were the CONSERVATIVE party while Republicans were the LIBERALS of their day.
Face your history.
Ken
The term conservitive and liberal are subjective. The idea that everybody got together in 1964 and changed sides is silly. Just accept that the dem party supported racism and slavery. We're not saying that the dems support that now, but it's obvious they do not want black people to be successful. That's the purpose of the dependency programs, the "modern plantation" if you will.
Anyone who has studied history knows that the members of the Southern Democrats back in the 1800s we're WHITE CONSERVATIVES. Party alliances have shifted over time since then, as they continually do.
To just look at party titles in today's context and play dumb to the historical context makes conservatives feel like they "scored" some cheap argument points, but really it just makes you look stupid and dishonest.
So, a handful of states now represent the whole party?
Was FDR also part of this? The Democrats now days love referencing FDR, but was he really a present day Republican? After all, if they claim the KKK was born out of Democrats who are present day Republicans, then so was FDR and every other Democrat.
So at that, what about the past Republicans? Are they present day Democrats? Are there some names to go with this? What percentage are we talking about?
Democrats need blacks poor, dependent, and a victimhood mentality so that they can always count on their votes. That's what the pandering is all about. The DNC has never been on the side of blacks, and they only supported the civil rights act when they saw their party circling the drain. I do not believe that dem supporters are racist but no doubt the party leaders have been for over 200 years.
Democrats had been supporting desegregation and civil rights legislation from the late 40's into the early 60's, hardly a time of 'circling the drain', they acted from a position of strength but not without risk.
It cost then dearly with the abandonment of large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters, mostly from the southern states but also from cities in the north with changing neighborhoods.
It was a risk worth taking, they did the right thing.
The term conservitive and liberal are subjective. The idea that everybody got together in 1964 and changed sides is silly. Just accept that the dem party supported racism and slavery. We're not saying that the dems support that now, but it's obvious they do not want black people to be successful. That's the purpose of the dependency programs, the "modern plantation" if you will.
In political science terms, everyone in the US is a liberal unless they are a monarchist.
I agree, it is a silly concept that all of a sudden everyone changed sides, I have not even gotten names, percent of people, etc. Also, that would mean every Democrat in the past was actually a present day Republican, including the loved FDR.
The term conservitive and liberal are subjective. The idea that everybody got together in 1964 and changed sides is silly. Just accept that the dem party supported racism and slavery. We're not saying that the dems support that now, but it's obvious they do not want black people to be successful. That's the purpose of the dependency programs, the "modern plantation" if you will.
Those terms ARE subjective and completely relative to each other. By todays' standards the Democrats AND Republicans of 1860 were BOTH very conservative (especially socially). By the standards of the day however, the Democrats were far more conservative than the Republicans of that time - as shown by the 1860 Currier and Ives political cartoon on the Library of Congress website. It wasn't the DEMOCRATS who were viewed as fans of big government, who were portrayed as "Socialists" wanting the government to give them "free stuff" and "weak-kneed Feminists" and folks who believed in "Free Love" and anti-police - it was the REPUBLICANS.
""Abraham Lincoln's supporters are portrayed as radicals and eccentrics of various stripes. The satire is loosely based on an anti-Fremont cartoon from the previous presidential race, "The Great Republican Reform Party" (no. 1856-22), also issued by Nathaniel Currier. Here Lincoln, sitting astride a wooden rail borne by Horace Greeley, leads his followers toward a lunatic asylum. Greeley instructs him, "Hold on to me Abe, and we'll go in here by the unanimous consent of the people." Lincoln exhorts his followers, "Now my friends I'm almost in, and the millennium is going to begin, so ask what you will and it shall be granted." At the head of the group is a bearded man, arm-in-arm with a woman and a Mormon. He claims to "represent the free love element, and expect to have free license to carry out its principles." The woman looks at Lincoln, saying "Oh! what a beautiful man he is, I feel a 'passional attraction' every time I see his lovely face." The Mormon adds, "I want religion abolished and the book of Mormon made the standard of morality." They are followed by a dandified free black, who announces, "'De white man hab no rights dat cullud pussons am bound to spect' I want dat understood." Behind him an aging suffragette says, "I want womans rights enforced, and man reduced in subjection to her authority." Next a ragged socialist or Fourierist, holding a liquor bottle, asserts, "I want everybody to have a share of everybody elses property." At the end of the group are three hooligans, one demanding "a hotel established by government, where people that aint inclined to work, can board free of expense, and be found in rum and tobacco." The second, a thief, wants "the right to examine every other citizen's pockets without interruption by Policemen." The last, an Irish street tough, says, "I want all the stations houses burned up, and the M.P.s killed, so that the bohoys can run with the machine and have a muss when they please."
So, a handful of states now represent the whole party?
Was FDR also part of this? The Democrats now days love referencing FDR, but was he really a present day Republican? After all, if they claim the KKK was born out of Democrats who are present day Republicans, then so was FDR and every other Democrat.
So at that, what about the past Republicans? Are they present day Democrats? Are there some names to go with this? What percentage are we talking about?
You may be too young to remember, or perhaps were not interested at the time ...
When the south was primarily controlled by Democrats their congressmen and senators often collaborated with Republicans on legislation concerned with social issues. Southern Democrats were very conservative, and opposed civil rights legislation. Their often common nemesis was the northern Democrats.
It is interesting to note that the Republican party was the comfortable home to liberals and progressives for generations, since the days of the abolitionists and many decades afterward. Not any more.
The DNC is no longer the party of slavery and Jim Crow.
No major party is the party of racism.
Yes, some racist groups like the KKK and BLM prefer one party over the other, but neither party is the party of racism.
you are so right on this one. We maybe don't like a certain party and it is obvious the democrats are every bit a racist as the Republicans; there is enough blame to go around a 1/2 dozen times, but was was and what is now, is now. No one should even try and connect today's democrats with the ones a century or more ago. anymore than it is realistic to continue commenting on Washington and Jefferson having slaves.
Makes more sense to abolish the current party that trashes blacks and supports Nazis and white nationalists.
that isn't true at all and you know it. The Republican party does not support Nazis nor trash blacks, anymore than the Democrats and blacks are all support violence. There are extremes on both sides. .
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.
Like the one, hate the other
.
