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.
May be (not guaranteed). Republicanism has changed since its inception. For that reason, it ain't anymore Lincoln's party. When you speak of social issues and their take within the society, if you want to sound more educated than you do, make sure you realize the fact that the republican and democratic words have gone through phases in their implementation.
For that matter, do you know how the "blue" South turned "red" in the 1960s? (Hint: It had to do with such democrats that you speak of, move to the party they ideologically aligned with... the republicans).
Well I can certainly tell you aren't a teacher, or atleast not a very good one if anything. Of course Republcanism, and Progressivsim has adapated since it's inception. My original point underlined the fact it is largely the same party of supporters which counters the common belief amongst democrats that there has been some sort of "ideological switch." That's essentially why I said it to begin with.
You continusouly hibernate in the 1960s--yes,we get it "1964"--uh huh--a great year. Like you said--it goes through "phases." But unfortunately those like yourself refuse to abide by your own acknowledgements. This isn't the 1960s--and that "phase" has passed. You can't continue to define the Democratic Party of today with what went on in the 60s.
What I've noticed is that Democrats continusouly and repeatedly talk about the Civil Rights movement. Yes, great changes were made. But ask them what have you done for me lately, and all you get is blank stares.
Well I can certainly tell you aren't a teacher, or atleast not a very good one if anything. Of course Republcanism, and Progressivsim has adapated since it's inception. My original point underlined the fact it is largely the same party of supporters which counters the common belief amongst democrats that there has been some sort of "ideological switch." That's essentially why I said it to begin with.
You continusouly hibernate in the 1960s--yes,we get it "1964"--uh huh--a great year. Like you said--it goes through "phases." But unfortunately those like yourself refuse to abide by your own acknowledgements. This isn't the 1960s--and that "phase" has passed. You can't continue to define the Democratic Party of today with what went on in the 60s.
What I've noticed is that Democrats continusouly and repeatedly talk about the Civil Rights movement. Yes, great changes were made. But ask them what have you done for me lately, and all you get is blank stares.
And I counter with to the republicans "what have you done for me at all?" All that I have gotten was smiles
The assumptions being drawn here are about as intelligent as stormfront going to Detroit and showing the vast number of democrats not finishing highschool, getting arrested and so forth.
Gee, you go to a racist southern state and find out 29% of Republicans there oppose inter-racial marriage? Shocking lol. The number for Dems there is probably about 20-25%...per the gallup poll calling the Republican variable minor.
Sigh. At least you guys are contributing to a positive racial dialogue....
You have to love the ignorance and miseducated responses in here. Herman Cain, Colon Powell and several others are "prejudiced against their own" depsite holding high office and leadership positions within their party. Democrats "tokenize" Obama into the Presidency and they insist that he's earned his position. Unbelievable.
Sorry to correct your miseducation, C Powell was highly respected in the black community until he started messing around with the bush adminstration, and as far as herman, he is a complete fool.
And what's the reasoning behind wanting to make such marriages illegal? I don't think it says anything about that in the bible
Let me explain, as late as the 1930s there were many people that looked at blacks as being inferior to whites and at one time there were laws prohibit interracial marriages. Apparently racism still exist in this country but is prevalent in the deep south. sadly these are also self proclaimed Christians
Not according to some of the idiot liberals, just like they say blacks can't be racists either. Yeah right.
Yep, based upon the Gallup poll I linked....84% of whites and 96% of blacks support inter-racial marriage which is a nice improvement but still a little ways to go but you know those numbers are skewed by older bigots stuck in their ways which are dying off.
Just looking at FBI hate crime numbers, blacks and whites seem to be generally represented in line with other types of crime. The only real aberration is the high relative percentage of anti-gay hate crimes committed by black males.
Poll the same people and ask them if there is such a thing as "race" and they will all tell you yes. They will also tell you that everything in the bible is true. That Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth only 5000 years ago. It's also not a stretch to say they have no idea what anthropology is.
Why is anyone surprised by these numbers? I'm not.
People who ascribe to racial categories believe in the concept of race.
Well I can certainly tell you aren't a teacher, or atleast not a very good one if anything. Of course Republcanism, and Progressivsim has adapated since it's inception. My original point underlined the fact it is largely the same party of supporters which counters the common belief amongst democrats that there has been some sort of "ideological switch." That's essentially why I said it to begin with.
You continusouly hibernate in the 1960s--yes,we get it "1964"--uh huh--a great year. Like you said--it goes through "phases." But unfortunately those like yourself refuse to abide by your own acknowledgements. This isn't the 1960s--and that "phase" has passed. You can't continue to define the Democratic Party of today with what went on in the 60s.
What I've noticed is that Democrats continusouly and repeatedly talk about the Civil Rights movement. Yes, great changes were made. But ask them what have you done for me lately, and all you get is blank stares.
I suck at teaching. And many teachers hated me (heck, my math teacher once asked me if I was "testing him"). May be I was.
Anyway, side-stepping aside, it is a fact that republican party ain't the party that Lincoln was a part of. It ain't a party that hasn't gone through a phase on its own. Likewise, democratic party has had its share of social conservatives (some still survive but are less so). The social conservative democrats are the one y'all cling onto for your deliberate attempt to prove something that couldn't be further from the truth. There's a reason they took their belief to the republican party during the civil rights movement.
You don't need to be a "I know all" teacher to know that.
Barack Husssein was born a muslim because his daddy was a muslim. You can't change facts.
Even if he was, so what? There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that.
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.
