Reid Sinks to New Low

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I’m not saying Reid isn’t a jackass. I think he’s stupid. BUT. The parties have switched names over the decades. Sure, Lincoln was called a Republican, but he wanted a strong central government AND the civil war was more about State’s rights than it was about slavery. Which means that Lincoln held the ideals of the current Democrats. So he doesn’t fall into the same party as the current Republicans. It is much easier to think of this in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’

Also, “southern democrats” were about as conservative as you can get. States Rights, low regulations, proponents of Christian faith in the laws(scopes, anyone?), etc.[/quote]

I think I get it?

Since the Democrats who controlled the Southern states in the 60s and prior and ran them in ways very discriminatory towards blacks were in other ways like today’s Republicans, therefore it is correct to blame the Republican party for how Southern states treated blacks.

And likewise, Democrats of the 60s being the prime opponents of the Civil Rights Act really in no way invalidates that the Democratic Party was the hero of the day for civil rights, because actually they, including Klansman Robert Byrd who remained the Democrats’ choice for Senate Majority Leader for decades and still is in office, were really like Republicans.

Makes perfect sense.

Now I understand why it is so widely believed that Democrats are historical heroes for civil rights and Republicans are at fault for what occurred under a Democrat-controlled Congress and in Democrat-controlled states. It makes perfect sense now that you’ve explained it.

22

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
That being said, it doesn’t relieve the failings of the democratic party. And comparing slavery to covering a minority of the population with health care is completely asinine. [/quote]

The only reason Democrats are against slavery is because they don’t want private citizens to own slaves-- it would compete with government slavery.[/quote]

zing.

Harry Reid’s opponent will not even have to campaign, Reid is losing it for himself.

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I’m not saying Reid isn’t a jackass. I think he’s stupid. BUT. The parties have switched names over the decades. Sure, Lincoln was called a Republican, but he wanted a strong central government AND the civil war was more about State’s rights than it was about slavery. Which means that Lincoln held the ideals of the current Democrats. So he doesn’t fall into the same party as the current Republicans. It is much easier to think of this in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’

Also, “southern democrats” were about as conservative as you can get. States Rights, low regulations, proponents of Christian faith in the laws(scopes, anyone?), etc.[/quote]

I think I get it?

Since the Democrats who controlled the Southern states in the 60s and prior and ran them in ways very discriminatory towards blacks were in other ways like today’s Republicans, therefore it is correct to blame the Republican party for how Southern states treated blacks.

And likewise, Democrats of the 60s being the prime opponents of the Civil Rights Act really in no way invalidates that the Democratic Party was the hero of the day for civil rights, because actually they, including Klansman Robert Byrd who remained the Democrats’ choice for Senate Majority Leader for decades and still is in office, were really like Republicans.

Makes perfect sense.

Now I understand why it is so widely believed that Democrats are historical heroes for civil rights and Republicans are at fault for what occurred under a Democrat-controlled Congress and in Democrat-controlled states. It makes perfect sense now that you’ve explained it.[/quote]

Tada!

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican!

Please read Why Martin Luther King Was Republican :

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

…

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

…

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

etc, etc, etc

24

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I’m not saying Reid isn’t a jackass. I think he’s stupid. BUT. The parties have switched names over the decades. Sure, Lincoln was called a Republican, but he wanted a strong central government AND the civil war was more about State’s rights than it was about slavery. Which means that Lincoln held the ideals of the current Democrats. So he doesn’t fall into the same party as the current Republicans. It is much easier to think of this in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’

Also, “southern democrats” were about as conservative as you can get. States Rights, low regulations, proponents of Christian faith in the laws(scopes, anyone?), etc.[/quote]

I think I get it?

Since the Democrats who controlled the Southern states in the 60s and prior and ran them in ways very discriminatory towards blacks were in other ways like today’s Republicans, therefore it is correct to blame the Republican party for how Southern states treated blacks.

And likewise, Democrats of the 60s being the prime opponents of the Civil Rights Act really in no way invalidates that the Democratic Party was the hero of the day for civil rights, because actually they, including Klansman Robert Byrd who remained the Democrats’ choice for Senate Majority Leader for decades and still is in office, were really like Republicans.

Makes perfect sense.

Now I understand why it is so widely believed that Democrats are historical heroes for civil rights and Republicans are at fault for what occurred under a Democrat-controlled Congress and in Democrat-controlled states. It makes perfect sense now that you’ve explained it.[/quote]

Tada!

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican!

Please read Why Martin Luther King Was Republican :

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

…

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

…

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

etc, etc, etc

[/quote]

That was an interesting read Steely, I had no idea, nor would I have thought MLK was a Republican. Typically, it has been programmed within the media and stereotypes that Republicans are strictly “pro only-white.”

Let me ask some of you this, because you are some smart sum bitches… How has the definition of a Republican during the time of MLK changed so much from today? Today, it seems that the main stream media has labeled Dems as the immigrant and minority loving party, while the GOP is the opposite. Today we have labels of Republicans as being grumpy old white men with prostate and infidelity problems, with no love for those less fortunate.

25

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today, it seems that the main stream media has labeled Dems as the immigrant and minority loving party, while the GOP is the opposite.[/quote]

Well, they get that much right. Let’s ask ourselves where Obama has hemorraghed support, as seen in polls today. On the otherhand, where has support remained virtually election day high? Why are the prospects of Republicans looking better and better? Who do we think will be responsible for (potentially) big GoP wins in the near future, after regretting their support of Obama and crew? Who will stay solidly with the Democrats, no matter what? The media has it exactly right. We’re a bunch of identity groups, backing the parties who’ll serve our group interests.

26

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Let me ask some of you this, because you are some smart sum bitches… How has the definition of a Republican during the time of MLK changed so much from today? Today, it seems that the main stream media has labeled Dems as the immigrant and minority loving party, while the GOP is the opposite. Today we have labels of Republicans as being grumpy old white men with prostate and infidelity problems, with no love for those less fortunate. [/quote]

Personally, I think it had to do with the turnaround in the 60’s because of big government social programs which were supposed to eliminate poverty ie. “The Great Society”. It ended up shuffling lots of welfare to impoverished families, including many black families which at the time took it as help. Turns out 4 generations later or so, trillions spent, families don’t know anything BUT welfare, and there’s more poverty than ever. But, I digress.

Big gov’t welfare, plus anti-war hippie movement which carried over into the (Republican) Nixon administration, plus Nixon’s FAIL became the face of power and corruption in the ‘establishment’ equalled no one wanting to be associated with Republicans.

That, coupled with growing government social spending became associated with minorities who were associated with civil rights and more dependence on social welfare and spending money became the face of the Democratic party.

SO in the end, social spending = civil rights = Democratic Party. LBJ was in the limelight during the height of racial tensions so to the generation that missed the Republicans championing civil rights in the 40s and 50s, LBJ’s ‘support’ and social spending rose the Democrats (following the coat tails of 'R’s) to be the face of the civil rights movement.

Don’t forget the media’s non-support of the Vietnam war, which became Nixon’s war. Nixon, whom the media abhorred was Republican, etc etc etc, so by default the Democrats were the party to be (anything but Republicans!), and persist that until today.

My theory anyway.

27

Well, the Democratic Party has been the party of calling the other one racist; the party supported by the media in that depiction (as when this is studied, the vast majority of reporters, editors, etc report that they vote Democrat); the party of teaching victimization and dependency on government; and the party of promising ever-bigger taxpayer-funded benefits for minorities while accusing the other of wanting to take away benefits.

40 years of that adds up in terms of establishing a common belief.

And succeeds in wiping out – for most people – the fact that it was the Democratic Party that controlled the Southern states and ran them in manners discriminatory against blacks, and the fact that it was principally Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act. People believe the reverse: rather than this being from random error, I attribute it to the above.

28

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, the Democratic Party has been the party of calling the other one racist; the party supported by the media in that depiction (as when this is studied, the vast majority of reporters, editors, etc report that they vote Democrat); the party of teaching victimization and dependency on government; and the party of promising ever-bigger taxpayer-funded benefits for minorities while accusing the other of wanting to take away benefits.

40 years of that adds up in terms of establishing a common belief.

And succeeds in wiping out – for most people – the fact that it was the Democratic Party that controlled the Southern states and ran them in manners discriminatory against blacks, and the fact that it was principally Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act. People believe the reverse: rather than this being from random error, I attribute it to the above. [/quote]

Good post Bill spot on. Did you notice that when Lincoln is ever mentioned in the media they forget to call him a republican?

29

Maybe that is the solution for the Republicans then, to get back to their origins.

30

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I enjoyed watching him and Schumer standing side by side delivering a health care speech today. Cheech and Chong of the Senate.[/quote]

Take that back! Cheech and Chong are awesome!