In what I considered a satirical manner you tried to link present day Dems with actions of Dems in the past. As I and others pointed out little if any similarity to present day.
At least have the cojones to admit it.
I totally agree that what was going on 50 years ago bears little resemblence to what is true now.
The actions of the people involved in the accomplishments listed below bear little if any resemblence to those calling themselves Liberals today.
And I agree with sird below that present day establishment Repubs are no more than the openly racist wing of the Democrat Party. The ones left behind in the present day Democrat party are closet racists.
Since nearly everything I was responding to in HC's post were actions 50 years old, my response was appropriate.
Â
Ah c'mon kurt you can't squiggle out that easy.
In what I considered a satirical manner you tried to link present day Dems with actions of Dems in the past. As I and others pointed out little if any similarity to present day.
Also you imply that liberal and Democrat are synonymous, not necessarily true now and certainly not in the past.
You are really playing fast and loose with history there kurt. I don't have a lot of time right now but c'mon five ex-Confederates in Pulaski Tenn. that created the KKK are what you are calling liberals/Democrats? They may have been nominal Democrats simply because at that time no self respecting Southerner would ever be called a Republican, Lincoln's party.
And the passage of the Civil Rights act did need Republicans because in the early, mid-60's the Republican party didn't in reality exist in the South so yes it was Southern Democrats that were blocking the legislation. BUT in a few years most of those Democrats would defect to the Republican party.
You cannot legitimately compare the philosophies and actions of the parties 150 or even 50 years ago with the parties of today. Totally different environments.
Since nearly everything I was responding to in HC's post were actions 50 years old or more, my response was appropriate.
You are really playing fast and loose with history there kurt. I don't have a lot of time right now but c'mon five ex-Confederates in Pulaski Tenn. that created the KKK are what you are calling liberals/Democrats? They may have been nominal Democrats simply because at that time no self respecting Southerner would ever be called a Republican, Lincoln's party.
And the passage of the Civil Rights act did need Republicans because in the early, mid-60's the Republican party didn't in reality exist in the South so yes it was Southern Democrats that were blocking the legislation. BUT in a few years most of those Democrats would defect to the Republican party.
You cannot legitimately compare the philosophies and actions of the parties 150 or even 50 years ago with the parties of today. Totally different environments.
Yes, the Southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Bill were not "Liberals" in any way, shape, or form. Incidentally, the illustrious, Republican/Conservative champion, Barry Goldwater, also opposed the bill.
You are really playing fast and loose with history there kurt. I don't have a lot of time right now but c'mon five ex-Confederates in Pulaski Tenn. that created the KKK are what you are calling liberals/Democrats? They may have been nominal Democrats simply because at that time no self respecting Southerner would ever be called a Republican, Lincoln's party.
And the passage of the Civil Rights act did need Republicans because in the early, mid-60's the Republican party didn't in reality exist in the South so yes it was Southern Democrats that were blocking the legislation. BUT in a few years most of those Democrats would defect to the Republican party.
You cannot legitimately compare the philosophies and actions of the parties 150 or even 50 years ago with the parties of today. Totally different environments.
Like I said hardcore racism towards Africans is primarily a southern thing; when it comes to equality of the races up until probably the early 60s or so there were the southern Democrats; northern Democrats and the Republicans. Finally the environment became more friendly for the southern Democrats to go ahead and migrate over to the Republicans and constitute the party as we have it today. Now there still are the blue dog Democrats who maintained the party loyalty based mostly upon the Democratic traditional support of the Unions and the working man in general. It is interesting to note that the stronghold of these blue dogs are mostly pretty isolated from contact with people that look other than themselves primarily rural Appalachia. I have spent time with true hill people and the level of their racism is quite shocking to be sure.
Who made passing the Civil Rights Act possible over Democrat (Liberals) objections ?
Which President created the EPA ?
I'll take Democrats for $1000 Alex ...
What party created and sponsored the KKK ?
What party created the need for the Voting Rights Act because of groups like the KKK ?
What party had a Grand Wizard of the KKK as a sitting Member of Congress ?
You are really playing fast and loose with history there kurt. I don't have a lot of time right now but c'mon five ex-Confederates in Pulaski Tenn. that created the KKK are what you are calling liberals/Democrats? They may have been nominal Democrats simply because at that time no self respecting Southerner would ever be called a Republican, Lincoln's party.
And the passage of the Civil Rights act did need Republicans because in the early, mid-60's the Republican party didn't in reality exist in the South so yes it was Southern Democrats that were blocking the legislation. BUT in a few years most of those Democrats would defect to the Republican party.
You cannot legitimately compare the philosophies and actions of the parties 150 or even 50 years ago with the parties of today. Totally different environments.
i've been going through a lot of "liberal" lectures lately....chomsky, johnson, hedges, etc. obviously i don't agree with a lot of what he says or all of his solutions
but he like some of the other liberal intellectuals has the balls and the guts to point out the force, the corruption and the violence in politics today
especially by the so called liberal politicians
he also points out the foolishness of their blind followers (and the consequences)
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.
That is why Kerry registered his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying $75k in taxes in Massachusetts ...
So why is it that conservatives traditionally give more to charity ?
and
Why is it that Obama is pushing to end the charity deduction ? To force conservatives to give to the government so it can pick who is most worthy ?
:duelingbroadbrushgeneralizations:
Charity begins at home, not Washington D.C. But then I am stoopid ... and believe in charity.
" She shops at organic gourmet food shops run by leftists living in Dane County." Oh, the shame and the horror!
Nice April Fools. I particularly like "We accept that Left feels righteous vandalizing our homes and keying our cars." since that's what us 'lefties' spend hour every waking hour doing.
no salads or decent cheeses for republicans! that should make sure of some converts................
