|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 12:07:26 GMT -5
A lot shoots out here about reading the Constitution.
It's interesting how it took liberals, the ACLU, and Thurgood Marshall (before he was a Justice) the better part of the 20th century to teach conservatives how to read the literal parts of the Constitution regarding civil rights and social freedom.
Thank a Liberal
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Aug 26, 2003 19:14:08 GMT -5
Funny, I had always thought it was the Democrats who opposed civil rights and the Republicans who passed the civil rights legislation...
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Aug 26, 2003 20:00:22 GMT -5
It's not all that funny, I mean Larry Miller, now he's hilarious! But you are correct, it was the Republicans that passed civil rights legislation, it was also republicans who emancipated the slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Aug 26, 2003 20:04:15 GMT -5
Thought so. Which party was George Wallace, again? And the senators who filibustered the federal anti-lynching laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Aug 26, 2003 20:13:55 GMT -5
Um...........lemme think................ Oh yeah the Democrats. Lets also not forget that Robert Byrd was a Klansman. Also a Democrat. But aren't you shirking certain duties elsewhere?
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 27, 2003 8:10:44 GMT -5
You guys are as ill-informed as Mo. You all still get all the historical terms mixed up: Lib/Conserv/Repub/Demo....
Here it is again:
During the time of the Civil War the Repubs were the Liberal Party and the Demos were the conservative party. See, that helps explain to you wits why Abe wanted to free the slaves, and the South (Demo) did not.
A transistion occurred over the next 100 years in which the Repubs became the conservative party and the Demos the Liberal (hence why Demos ultimately supported Civil Rights while the Repubs opposed it, and why southern Demo Conservatives changed parties in droves....ask John Connally about that).
Also, if you can find him in hell, ask the D-ck Nixon and his conservative supporters (who were Repubs...imagine that!) about his "Southern Strategy" on race and civil rights. Oh, then go ask LBJ (a Liberal outcast in the Southern Demo Part) what his position was.
This is not a Republican Political Forum....it is a CONSERVATIVE Forum (use your reading glasses). If you relegate your discussion to the conserv/Liberal issue,
you'll have to recant and apologize for the misinformed replies.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Sept 2, 2003 17:51:49 GMT -5
USA50, it is a nonsense for you to suggest that the democrats were conservative and republicans liberal during the civil rights movement. That works only if you presuppose that the more racist party is the conservative one, a circular argument and logical fallacy.
Obviously, the democrats of the sixties were much more right wing, as the whole political scene was. But they were never to the right of the republicans. If they had been, why would the sixties liberals have become democrats rather than republicans.
Nor did the party evolve before the modern liberals joined. When the modern leftists were joining up, George Wallace was blocking school doors to black children and Richard Daley was running Chicago. The year McGovern won the presidential nomination, his cheif rival was Wallace. The liberals were flocking to the dems even whilst the federal anti-lynching laws were being filibustered and Al Gore's father was voting against the civil rights act.
|
|
|
|
Post by expat on Sept 4, 2003 12:50:13 GMT -5
For all it matters, he said
Emphasis added. Yes, the 1960s had folks' dander up, but the Civil War it was not.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Sept 4, 2003 13:53:06 GMT -5
Ah, I did miss that. But, to be fair, Favre and I were talking about the civil rights movement originally. So his intervention regarding the civil war was irrelevent if not actually wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 4, 2003 19:29:15 GMT -5
Ah, I did miss that. But, to be fair, Favre and I were talking about the civil rights movement originally. So his intervention regarding the civil war was irrelevent if not actually wrong. Jules, you let them both off too easy! I reject the notion that the Republicans were ever the liberal party or that the Dems were ever conservative. The Republicans freed the slaves AND were the catalyst in the Civil rights movement. You confuse that with being liberal and that is your mistake. Conservatives wish to free all people while liberalism survives only by maintaining an oppressed class of dependent lock in votes. Conservatives strive to teach everyone to achieve their goals, Liberals teach them how to blame everyone else and stay oppressed, counting on the liberal in question to throw them a bone in exchange for their vote. You are deluded to think that liberals are the compassionate ones while they keep their foot on the throat of minorities in order to achieve power. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 4, 2003 20:29:29 GMT -5
Republicans have been on the right side of civil rights since Abraham Lincoln started our party and freed the slaves. Republicans voted in a larger percentage than democrats IN FAVOR of the Civil Rights Act. Republicans have always been the party of inclusion and individual liberty.
The liberal democrats maintain power by pitting the poor against the rich, black against white and woman against man. It is the party of divide and conquer. They are a pitiful, hypocritical bunch. Senator Byrd cares as much about racial equality as Bill Clinton cares about women being free from sexual harassment in the work place. The rhetoric continues with an attitude that seems to suggest that their actions don't matter as long as their lap dogs drink it up. Some of their lap dogs even say as much!
Their attitudes about race would suggest to me that they still believe the African American to be an inferior race, not able to achieve without their help. I believe it was President Bush who referred to it as "the subtle racism of lower expectations."
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Sept 5, 2003 7:32:23 GMT -5
Good point. One sees the same subtle racism in the levant. The Israelis are expected to behave irreproachably, but goodness, we can't expect the Palestinians to not go about murdering pregnant women, can we? Every time some liberal refers to them as being 'driven' to something or suicide bombing being the result of 'desperation' they are treating them like exotic wildlife rather than thinking human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Sept 5, 2003 7:34:46 GMT -5
Favre, it doesn't suprise me in the least to learn that the party allignment was the same in civil war days. I'd have bet upon it. Buty whilst my English history is pretty sharp, I'm on shakier grounds with American history so I thought I'd best not challenge that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett7855 on Sept 5, 2003 20:56:22 GMT -5
Just a passing little tidbit--Lincoln only freed the southern slaves--the "Emancipation Proclamation" only pertained to the states that were members of the confederacy. ALSO--unless there's been some recent scientific development that I missed-- the sins of our fathers are actually rather irrelevant in TODAYS political arena. When we speak about liberals and conservatives here, most of us (although I admit this is an assumption on my part) usually tend to attach certain qualifiers, like 'modern', to those terms.
If you must insist on living in the annals of history, by all means, do so. I, for one, prefer to live in the present and look toward helping to create a better future for my family.
This doesn't mean I think history is unimportant. History is our way of figuring out how to keep from repeating the sins of our fathers. As with many other things, politics is a constantly evolving creature (and no, I don't buy into evolution in the biological sense). I do however, believe in social evolution.
If we are to elvolve socially, we must examine the politics of the past but if we don't want to become the next generation of fossils in the dinosaur bed, let's look to the things that need to change in the current political structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Sept 5, 2003 21:10:45 GMT -5
History is everything. The liberals are masters at re-writing it. We need to know how to combat that.
"if we don't want to become the next generation of fossils in the dinosaur bed, let's look to the things that need to change in the current political structure. "
I agree with that, but at the same time, we must never forget what really happened in the past. There are already people trying to re-write the history of the Reagan era. They are only failing because too many still remember the truth. If we forget what happened, they will succeed.
|
|
