3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Obviously u cant read or put together common words.... let me say it again. the label republican has changed very much. a republican 150 years ago is different from the rush limbaugh republican of today.... sry but ur wrong.... liberal progress is what changed this country for the better, otherwise we would still be burning witches and hanging black people.... Did you forget what screen name you were using when I responded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Again...this notion that only whites can be bigoted is in itself...bigoted. That is an astute and subtle observation. Give RkFast his account back, you poser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 That is an astute and subtle observation. Give RkFast his account back, you poser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 If you want to have a dialogue, make some sense, or maybe you should post when you are sober. Actually most blacks were Republican up until the 60's. Even MLK. Radicalism and the "Great Society" went a long ways to change that. You make pronouncements, but not based on fact. Typical liberal, you think that if you shout loud enough and repeat yourself often, then what you say will be considered fact. No. Most blacks especially in the south fled the republican party in droves (yes, it was a small bloc) after 1927 (poignant because that is where most AA's were before northern migration towards industry). Look it up, I will help: 1927 ...What became of the 1927 refugees during and after the flood constitutes one of the more sordid and little-known episodes in the history of post-slavery America. It's recounted in John M. Barry's riveting book Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America, and everyone who is even remotely interested in the fate of the present-day diaspora should read it... ...The black vote in those days represented a small but meaningful Republican Party bloc, and Hoover already knew he was likely to be the Republican candidate for president in 1928. A flood camp scandal in the Negro press would scuttle much of Hoover's black support. He responded by enlisting the political help of the era's most prominent conservative black leader, Robert Russa Moton, who had succeeded Booker T. Washington as director of the Tuskegee Institute. In exchange for a pledge of free parcels of land to blacks who persevered in the Delta, a promise Hoover had no intention of pursuing, Moton assembled an all-black commission that quashed the most dire reports from the refugee camps. In the end, Hoover became president and some 350,000 or so of the 1927 refugees--about half--never returned to the cotton patch, or returned under duress only to flee at the next opportune moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Well, I have close firends and family members that live and work in the black community and the way they are set aside for not being "one of us" is blatant and conspicuous. My wife's been called a "cracker" and worse by her students AND their parents on many occasions. Again...this notion that only whites can be bigoted is in itself...bigoted. I am not saying they can be bigoted, everybody is in some way. That notion just doesn't get me all in a tizzy. It is the bigotry where the social power stucture is that does... That is the most critical problem. Again... I am not condoning bigotry... It is gonna be there. Addressing it from a one-way street AT THIS TIME is still in the best interest. Like I said, of course we see that power structure shifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Again...this notion that only whites can be bigoted is in itself...bigoted. and that is why their perception is fundamentally flawed and they don't see. The liberal view of racism will be allowed no quarter on my watch ... come he** or high water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Again...this notion that only whites can be bigoted is in itself...bigoted. and that is why their perception is fundamentally flawed and they don't see. The liberal view of racism will be allowed no quarter on my watch ... come he** or high water. You are spinning it that way. Of course everybody should not be bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 You are spinning it that way. Of course everybody should not be bigoted. But for now we'll only deal with the white bigotry. Or at least bigotry from the ones in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 "a strong white "southern element" (bigoted statement, yes in deed) my case in point.... I'm an educated person so takes easy before trying to blow smoke up my a** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 "a strong white "southern element" (bigoted statement, yes in deed) my case in point.... I'm an educated person so takes easy before trying to blow smoke up my a** Yes it is. I don't have the power to act on it though. Like I said... Everybody is going to have some sort of biogtry. The scary part is that mostly throughout our history the white establishment has used their power to act on it. I am not denying that a certain amout of bigotry by the minority is a tool to bring about change to the power structure. Things are not always a two-way street... Maybe some day they will... We are getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 But for now we'll only deal with the white bigotry. Or at least bigotry from the ones in power. Major point here (in red). Yes, primarily. I know you guys are being cry-babies and can't handle this... Or feel threatened... You sound like my 11 year old son that thinks everything should be about him. You really shouldn't. Now everybody get on their high horse and flame me away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 If you are comparing Lincoln's Republican party to today's Republican party you are clueless. The Southern Democrats remained in the Democratic party because they had opposed the politics of the Republican Lincoln. When the Democratic party became more liberal during the 70's they started changing to Republicans. Over history there have been heroes and villains in either party, but if you think the Republicans, today, are less racist than Democrats I believe you are mistaken. Robert Byrd is still a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Rush is a "racist" for his quotes. But when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a "waitress"....well ya see...thats "satire." Hey, this thread is a bout Rush being a racist, not about mainstream liberal satire being misogynistic (that means hating women, Dellapelle john) . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Robert Byrd is still a Democrat. Because he saw the heinous errors of his way and changed for the better when parties were changing, hence staying a Dem. Is this really so hard to understand folks? I expect a lot of blinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Lincoln of course was a republican, the name means crap... He almost certainly he would not be a republican today. Take that to the bank. Which bank? First Retarded of Asshatville? I will not tolerate historical ignorance, or the stupidity that comes from drawing conclusions based on that ignorance. THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY, IT WAS ABOUT THE CREATION OF CORPORATE AMERICA. It was specifically about: 1. North East corporations/manufacturers being behind Europe by 50 years 2. Twice as many voters living in the North, as opposed to the South, 3. Allowing their majorities in Congress to impose tariffs on Eurpean goods, bought chiefly in the South in return for agrarian goods, and electing a President who promised that the US would compete with Europe, instead of merely remaining a natural resource provider to Europe 4. The Southern State's business models being f'ed with by said tariffs, along with the fact that their entire economies were based on the exact opposite of what we all know as the American Economy today, and they were willing to fight over it, which is why they attacked a US symbol of commerce, a garrison protecting/regulating a port, and not the Underground Railroad, FIRST. Slavery wasn't even a "war aim" until 1863, more than 2 damn years after it started. And that was done to create trouble behind enemy lines, as well as to attempt to assuage the anger the people in the North had with losing the war up to then by giving them a moral imperative to justify the massive losses they had to endure. THEN, JUST AS NOW, Americans don't hate war, they hate losing wars. Also, the slaves WERE NOT emancipated in the states that were fighting with the North, because Lincoln needed those states to stay on his side. Lincoln sure as hell would be a Republican, or better, a libertarian, today. He would have nothing to do with massive taxation, massive government, labor unions, social engineering, limiting corporate interests in favor of the environment, gay rights or affirmative action of any kind....basically the entire platform of the current Democratic party. This BS revisionist history has to end. Lincoln was, is, and will always be a Republican hero....because he was a friggin Republican. Enough already. If Lincoln was magically made President tomorrow, he would massively cut taxes immediately, and throw half of the current Democratic party in jail for insurrection during war time. However, he would leave the income tax in place, but only for billionaires, since he was the first to institute it on the extremely wealthy...to pay for the Civil war, and since, they would be the ones to benefit most when the war was won. As soon as our current wars were over, he would get rid of it again, just like the Republicans did right after the Civil War was over, just like Lincoln had promised. Show me which Democrat, besides JFK and Ed Rendell, that has ever been in favor of cutting taxes or removing them. conservatism is the status quo when dealing with the social paradigm.... liberalism is progress or challenging the status quo.... Yes, Welfare....a fake liberal(socialist) idea that got us so much "progress" when dealing with "the social paradigm"(fine example of using big words improperly) it was almost completely removed, by a Democratic President to boot. Progress? Towards what? Failure? Economic ruin? Moral relativism? Liberalism, classic liberalism anyway, is about judging ones actions and policies based solely on their real world success or failure, using the scientific method, and dare I say...furtherance of individual freedom? Liberalism is not about the coercion of individual freedom to the will of a small group of self-appointed, intellectual "aristocrats" who base their thinking on the good of the collective, and not the individual. Yes, primarily. I know you guys are being cry-babies and can't handle this... Or feel threatened... You sound like my 11 year old son that thinks everything should be about him. You really shouldn't. Yes, and the big mouths in the Democratic party, and the big mouths on this board, have been acting like anything but cry babies for the last 9 years. And of course, your interpretation of "some people" demanding that their individual rights to life, liberty and especially: property = we think everything is about us. So what does a collectivist think it should be about? The state? Reminder: if you say yes...then by definition, you ain't a liberal my friend. No, you are a fascist, because only fascists put the will and well-being of the state ahead of that of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Yes, and the big mouths in the Democratic party, and the big mouths on this board, have been acting like anything but cry babies for the last 9 years. Ya... Right... Show me where I was crying. Not even with the war. I am just considered a "pot stirrer" by some here. I seem to get in the way of what people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ya... Right... Show me where I was crying. Not even with the war. I am just considered a "pot stirrer" by some here. I seem to get in the way of what people want. So it's safe to assume we are done with the asshat assertion that "Lincoln would be a Democrat today"...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Which bank? First Retarded of Asshatville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I am just considered a "pot stirrer" by some here. No you're not. You're more like the crazy uncle everyone affectionately tolerates during the holidays but no one takes seriously. Of course, he thinks he's a "pot stirrer", as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 No you're not. You're more like the crazy uncle everyone affectionately tolerates during the holidays but no one takes seriously. Of course, he thinks he's a "pot stirrer", as well... You mean the one suffering from acid flashbacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts