The History of the Democrat Party

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not even making sense! Going from a steadfast pro-civil rights and anti-big gov't to the opposite is NOT a "new wedge issue"...it's a complete change in social attitude and political philosophy.

Neocons have been pushing this revisionist BS for years....but the truth is out there....as I pointed out to Bravo. Observe and learn:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=371

Most Republicans still profess to be anti-big government. What has changed is that, over time, the wedge issues they have crusaded over (originally slavery and polygamy) have shifted...

They can "profess" whatever the hell they want...their ACTIONS tell a different story. And as I provided previously, close examinations of some of the claims do not stand up.

Given the negative impact of Nixon, Reagan and the Bush family on the middle and working class people with regards to finances, corporations and continuing improvement on civil rights, I dare say that your alluding to a positive history on "wedge" issues by the GOP in the last 30 years is no more than wishful thinking, if not out right revisionist in nature.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're SO full of shit it almost defies description. But do continue to spin your fantastic tales steep in your admitted proud ignorance....you're doing EXACTLY as I said you would.

Getting schooled really pisses you off, doesn't it....:lol:

Its so funny to watch you rant, rile and rave.....I enjoy it every time.

I hope I don't act like that IF you ever get the upper hand of me in some exchange.....its not likely to happen, but then I'm not as perfect as you make me seem.....

Translation: our intellectually impotent Bravo doesn't DARE deal with the information I provided in an honest, rational and logical manner. No, instead he ADMITS willful ignorance and then blathers on with his usual self aggrandizing ranting.

Post 376 is our dimwitted Bravo's demise on this subject. I leave him to further dig his own grave.

 

[Minister of Truth]

They can "profess" whatever the hell they want...their ACTIONS tell a different story. And as I provided previously, close examinations of some of the claims do not stand up.

Given the negative impact of Nixon, Reagan and the Bush family on the middle and working class people with regards to finances, corporations and continuing improvement on civil rights, I dare say that your alluding to a positive history on "wedge" issues by the GOP in the last 30 years is no more than wishful thinking, if not out right revisionist in nature.

Dems have a sad history, indeed an unpardonable one, regarding wedge issues. You also forget that both the moderates (ala Lincoln) and the Radicals of the early GOP were pro-business, pro-industrialization, and pro-capitalism, meaning that they were in line with the GOP of all ages in its "war on the middle-class." The fact is, the GOP has never changed its position on market liberalism, and the DAP has always hated it for this.

I would argue that the fact that the GOP remains consistently on the right side of the wedge issues places it in line with the Radicals of old. The only thing that has occurred, during the Nixon era, to have led to the weakening of the party is the introduction of the South into the GOP, which as we all know, is a region of cretins and morons.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
They can "profess" whatever the hell they want...their ACTIONS tell a different story. And as I provided previously, close examinations of some of the claims do not stand up.

Given the negative impact of Nixon, Reagan and the Bush family on the middle and working class people with regards to finances, corporations and continuing improvement on civil rights, I dare say that your alluding to a positive history on "wedge" issues by the GOP in the last 30 years is no more than wishful thinking, if not out right revisionist in nature.

Dems have a sad history, indeed an unpardonable one, regarding wedge issues. You also forget that both the moderates (ala Lincoln) and the Radicals of the early GOP were pro-business, pro-industrialization, and pro-capitalism, meaning that they were in line with the GOP of all ages in its "war on the middle-class." The fact is, the GOP has never changed its position on market liberalism, and the DAP has always hated it for this.

I would argue that the fact that the GOP remains consistently on the right side of the wedge issues places it in line with the Radicals of old. The only thing that has occurred, during the Nixon era, to have led to the weakening of the party is the introduction of the South into the GOP, which as we all know, is a region of cretins and morons.

I'm in no way making excuses for the Dem Party...but that does not automatically validate your assertions. You're just repeating the same old generalized accusations without dealing with the pertinent details.

Pro-business, capitalism and industrialization of the Lincoln era is a HELL of a lot different than the pro-corporate mentality of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush driven GOP. The GOP sure as hell changed it attitude, hiding corporate greed and monopoly under the guise of "market liberalism". Nixon's 5 year plan was estimated to screw things up for 30 years, and Enron, The S&L scandal and current Wall St./bank crimes are all results of the forementioned (with a helping hand from Slick Willy).

As for your assessment of the South....need I remind you that some Southern Presidents did a pretty damn good job of getting/moving the country out of some tough times. I don't paint over everyone with one brush....just try to keep things straight.

My previous statements stand, your "wedge" issues statements just don't.

 

[NOVA]

Now that we've cleared up how the party's voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, lets continue your schooling on history with how the party's voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1968.....

The Civil Rights Act of 1968, vote totals by party: Democrat 63% approved -37% opposed, Republican 80% approved -20% opposed.

Damn. How about that.....many Democrats still trying to keep those darkies out of their lilly white schools and restaurants....while the Conservative Republicans vote to embrace them and make sure they are given their constitutional rights.....

Class dismissed for today....please study and pour the Koolade on the ground...."far-left websites for assholes" are off limits...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Now that we've cleared up how the party's voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, lets continue your schooling on history with how the party's voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1968.....

The Civil Rights Act of 1968, vote totals by party: Democrat 63% approved -37% opposed, Republican 80% approved -20% opposed.

Damn. How about that.....many Democrats still trying to keep those darkies out of their lilly white schools and restaurants....while the Conservative Republicans vote to embrace them and make sure they are given their constitutional rights.....

Class dismissed for today....please study and pour the Koolade on the ground...."far-left websites for assholes" are off limits...

Don't you just love how our intellectually impotent just keeps ignoring things and then repeating himself, folks?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=655170&postcount=371

Someone clue in our hopelessly proud & ignorant Bravo...I'm done kicking his dopey ass, because he's just either too stuborn or dumb to get the point. Watch him go!

 

[Minister of Truth]

I'm in no way making excuses for the Dem Party...but that does not automatically validate your assertions. You're just repeating the same old generalized accusations without dealing with the pertinent details.

Pro-business, capitalism and industrialization of the Lincoln era is a HELL of a lot different than the pro-corporate mentality of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush driven GOP. The GOP sure as hell changed it attitude, hiding corporate greed and monopoly under the guise of "market liberalism". Nixon's 5 year plan was estimated to screw things up for 30 years, and Enron, The S&L scandal and current Wall St./bank crimes are all results of the forementioned (with a helping hand from Slick Willy).

As for your assessment of the South....need I remind you that some Southern Presidents did a pretty damn good job of getting/moving the country out of some tough times. I don't paint over everyone with one brush....just try to keep things straight.

My previous statements stand, your "wedge" issues statements just don't.

Nixon does not equal Reagan, etc. Nixon was a big supporter of a controlled economy via regulations and price controls. Hell, he even gets credit for the Clean Air Act.

The reason why I keep pushing wedge issues is because every hundred years or so Dems adopt and monopolize old GOP wedge issues. Evidently, the GOP has been doing something right along these lines.

Finally, my comments about the South still stand. Since the days of Jefferson and Madison, the South has dramatically held America back from what it could have become. I hate the South, and always will. Its the reason why I'm not as much of a fan of the GOP as I could otherwise be.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I'm in no way making excuses for the Dem Party...but that does not automatically validate your assertions. You're just repeating the same old generalized accusations without dealing with the pertinent details.

Pro-business, capitalism and industrialization of the Lincoln era is a HELL of a lot different than the pro-corporate mentality of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush driven GOP. The GOP sure as hell changed it attitude, hiding corporate greed and monopoly under the guise of "market liberalism". Nixon's 5 year plan was estimated to screw things up for 30 years, and Enron, The S&L scandal and current Wall St./bank crimes are all results of the forementioned (with a helping hand from Slick Willy).

As for your assessment of the South....need I remind you that some Southern Presidents did a pretty damn good job of getting/moving the country out of some tough times. I don't paint over everyone with one brush....just try to keep things straight.

My previous statements stand, your "wedge" issues statements just don't.

Nixon does not equal Reagan, etc. Nixon was a big supporter of a controlled economy via regulations and price controls. Hell, he even gets credit for the Clean Air Act.

But you overlook his "5 Year Plan"...which analyst predicted would have damaging effects on the economy for decades. Also, you overlook the fact that the majority of players from the Nixon administration just segwayed to Reagan, and then the Bushies.

The reason why I keep pushing wedge issues is because every hundred years or so Dems adopt and monopolize old GOP wedge issues. Evidently, the GOP has been doing something right along these lines.

As I demonstrated previously, your "wedge issues" schtick just doesn't play out when properly reviewed.

Finally, my comments about the South still stand. Since the days of Jefferson and Madison, the South has dramatically held America back from what it could have become. I hate the South, and always will. Its the reason why I'm not as much of a fan of the GOP as I could otherwise be.

Hey, you're welcome to your opinion and I surely don't deny history when it comes to the Civil War and the Dixiecrats....but I'm just not willing to blanketly condemn an entire region and all individuals it contains....nor am I willing to let the "North" off the hook with it's blatant hypocrisy when condemning the South. Fair is fair.

 

[Minister of Truth]

BTW, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing regarding wedge issues. On wedge issues, the GOP has a shining history, and ironically, it is over wedge issues that the GOP receives the most hate and vitriol from the left and Democrats. This is precisely why discussing the DAPs current opposition to the GOP on wedge issues is worthwhile, because it aligns the two camps with their historical selves more completely than in any other field.

Also, 5 Year Plans are incredibly leftist. No rightwinger of any stripe believes in 5 year plans. They have most commonly been used by communist governments, such as in the USSR and in China. You just shot your Nixon = Reagan argument in the foot more completely than anything I could have possibly argued.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Translation: our intellectually impotent Bravo doesn't DARE deal with the information I provided in an honest, rational and logical manner. No, instead he ADMITS willful ignorance and then blathers on with his usual self aggrandizing ranting.

Post 376 is our dimwitted Bravo's demise on this subject. I leave him to further dig his own grave.

Thaichi you fail to see the nature of the "Good ole boyism" of the modern conservative nee reactinary political movement.

What you believe matters little. You only have to repeat something often enough and it becomes true. See how accomplished SM and Pavo and Dweebway are at that?

So you see to be a modern conservative the truth and facts matter little. What matters is being able to walk in lock step with the good ole boys.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Thaichi you fail to see the nature of the "Good ole boyism" of the modern conservative nee reactinary political movement.

What you believe matters little. You only have to repeat something often enough and it becomes true. See how accomplished SM and Pavo and Dweebway are at that?

So you see to be a modern conservative the truth and facts matter little. What matters is being able to walk in lock step with the good ole boys.

Mott is a Neocon. Mott is a Neocon. Mott is a Neocon.

 

[Taichiliberal]

BTW, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing regarding wedge issues. On wedge issues, the GOP has a shining history, and ironically, it is over wedge issues that the GOP receives the most hate and vitriol from the left and Democrats. This is precisely why discussing the DAPs current opposition to the GOP on wedge issues is worthwhile, because it aligns the two camps with their historical selves more completely than in any other field.

Also, 5 Year Plans are incredibly leftist. No rightwinger of any stripe believes in 5 year plans. They have most commonly been used by communist governments, such as in the USSR and in China. You just shot your Nixon = Reagan argument in the foot more completely than anything I could have possibly argued.

You seem to believe that repeating your beliefs and assertions ad nauseum will make them valid. Since I've logically deconstructed your statements on these points at least twice now, what you're doing now is just insipidly stubborn.

Nixon's 5 Year Plan was anthing BUT "leftist"...just ask Paul Volcker. You need to know your ammunition before you shoot, you know.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You seem to believe that repeating your beliefs and assertions ad nauseum will make them valid. Since I've logically deconstructed your statements on these points at least twice now, what you're doing now is just insipidly stubborn.

Nixon's 5 Year Plan was anthing BUT "leftist"...just ask Paul Volcker. You need to know your ammunition before you shoot, you know.

All you ever do is claim you won a point with no actual argument being made, make unfactually sound comments like your "5 Year Plans aren't leftist" idiocy, or flat out lie.

Nice try, though... BTW, what I repeat, besides my beliefs, is fucking actual history, which is twice as much as we can get out of you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You seem to believe that repeating your beliefs and assertions ad nauseum will make them valid. Since I've logically deconstructed your statements on these points at least twice now, what you're doing now is just insipidly stubborn.

Nixon's 5 Year Plan was anthing BUT "leftist"...just ask Paul Volcker. You need to know your ammunition before you shoot, you know.

All you ever do is claim you won a point with no actual argument being made, make unfactually sound comments like your "5 Year Plans aren't leftist" idiocy, or flat out lie.

Nice try, though... BTW, what I repeat, besides my beliefs, is fucking actual history, which is twice as much as we can get out of you.

Oh spare us all your blustery bullshit......As the chronology of the posts shows, every time I address your points, all you do is just repeat them...YOU don't actually debate the issue using facts and logic.

Then you continually make claims that I'm lying or some other such nonsense WITHOUT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY PROVING YOUR ACCUSATION BEYOND YOUR OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE.

It's like this chuckles, you're talking in general terms, so I do the same (i.e., anyone that's paid attention in the last few decades knows Paul Volcker is anything BUT a leftist who's economic theories and plans lend themselves to communist run economies).....the difference is that when I call you on your version of "fucking actual history", you just squawk like a fucking dumb parrot the same erroneous statements ad nauseum.

Get over yourself, butch.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Except that you have NEVER refuted my posts. When posts go unrefuted, they stand as they are, and I repeat them because your nonsensical commentary is distracting. For example:

Perhaps, but as history showed, the "Radical Republicans" of the GOP are LONG gone!

This post refuted nothing. I explained how all of the GOP of the 1850s and 1860s agreed on social issues such as slavery and polygamy, and thus your post is irrelevant and misleading

The Radical Republicans that fought in gov't against slavery and fought FOR gov't protection of all it's citizens against the excesses of gov't DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE. And the Dixiecrats that were the majority of the Dem party DO NOT RUN THAT PARTY ANYMORE. Do your fucking homework, and STOP insisting your revisionist wants are a replacement for ALL the historical facts. Hell, your compadres have been pointing to the the GOP's glory days of the Radical Republicans for years...you should talk to them.

Like I said before, how do you explain the last 30 years of the GOP? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Get it together, T&A...you're embarassing yourself.

All of the leading paragraph are still planks of the GOP. Excesses of government and the protection of US citizens. For example, the AZ immigration law is designed to protect citizens from the problems of illegal immigration. You have also failed to explain the 30 previous years, and I can't read your mind.

You're not even making sense! Going from a steadfast pro-civil rights and anti-big gov't to the opposite is NOT a "new wedge issue"...it's a complete change in social attitude and political philosophy.

Neocons have been pushing this revisionist BS for years....but the truth is out there....as I pointed out to Bravo. Observe and learn:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=655170&postcount=371

The first paragraph is a complete lie. The GOP supports much smaller government than the DAP. Or are we pretending that the Obama budgets don't exist. For the party that wrote and passed the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the only way you can claim that the GOP has abandoned civil rights is the subsequent lack of civil rights bills, which would be pretty lame. What has the DAP actually done for blacks since it officially changed its stance on civil rights?


You still have yet to post a single post of substance!!

 

[DamnYankee]

...need I remind you that some Southern Presidents did a pretty damn good job of getting/moving the country out of some tough times.

Like Carter?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by T&A

Except that you have NEVER refuted my posts. When posts go unrefuted, they stand as they are, and I repeat them because your nonsensical commentary is distracting. For example:

So YOU say it is, and therefore it is? GET the fuck outta here with that delusional BS of yours...the chronology of the post shows otherwise. Now you'll do the "out-of-context, deny and lie" dance you defeated neocon parrots do so well. Let's watch:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Perhaps, but as history showed, the "Radical Republicans" of the GOP are LONG gone!

Originally Posted by T&A
This post refuted nothing. I explained how all of the GOP of the 1850s and 1860s agreed on social issues such as slavery and polygamy, and thus your post is irrelevant and misleading

The GOP of the time period you site was referred to as the RADICAL REPUBLICANS, you ignorant bullhorn! Look it up! My statement stands, because your reference means NOTHING regarding the actions and policies of the GOP in the last 50 some odd years. The GOP in our lifetime is NOT the GOP of the Radical Republicans, as same with the DEM party. This is why it's so easy to deconstruct the contention of the opening post's author that past party positions still stand today as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The Radical Republicans that fought in gov't against slavery and fought FOR gov't protection of all it's citizens against the excesses of gov't DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE. And the Dixiecrats that were the majority of the Dem party DO NOT RUN THAT PARTY ANYMORE. Do your fucking homework, and STOP insisting your revisionist wants are a replacement for ALL the historical facts. Hell, your compadres have been pointing to the the GOP's glory days of the Radical Republicans for years...you should talk to them.



Like I said before, how do you explain the last 30 years of the GOP? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Get it together, T&A...you're embarassing yourself.

Originally Posted by T&A
All of the leading paragraph are still planks of the GOP. Excesses of government and the protection of US citizens. For example, the AZ immigration law is designed to protect citizens from the problems of illegal immigration. You have also failed to explain the 30 previous years, and I can't read your mind.

Ahhh, but while they are saying one thing they are doing another. Case in point, giving government MORE power over the citizens in AZ (local cops with additional Federal agency powers) does not jibe with the GOP's mantra of less gov't. The deregulation of over-sight of the very institutions that control your financial future while passing laws that protect them from accountability (i.e., lawsuits) contradicts protection of US citizens...passing laws that greatly lower the accountability of corporations that produce faulty products is not gov't for the people......for examples of what I speak, check into Reaganomics, the S&L scandal, Enron, Wall St. and bank bailouts, pharmaceutical company products, under Reagan and the Bushies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're not even making sense! Going from a steadfast pro-civil rights and anti-big gov't to the opposite is NOT a "new wedge issue"...it's a complete change in social attitude and political philosophy.

Neocons have been pushing this revisionist BS for years....but the truth is out there....as I pointed out to Bravo. Observe and learn:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=371

Originally Posted by T&A
The first paragraph is a complete lie. The GOP supports much smaller government than the DAP. Or are we pretending that the Obama budgets don't exist. For the party that wrote and passed the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the only way you can claim that the GOP has abandoned civil rights is the subsequent lack of civil rights bills, which would be pretty lame. What has the DAP actually done for blacks since it officially changed its stance on civil rights?

Nice dodge, but first you have to logically and factually prove that what you cite is a "lie". As I demonstrated earlier to that dimwit Bravo, the fallacy of the GOP championing the Civil Rights Act was not as clear cut as you'd like it to be. Furthermore, here are a few tidbits you need to know:

Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 Opposed Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Current GOP chairman Steele had to cop to the "Southern Strategy" of the GOP that has existed for decades. That little ditty was credited to Kevin Phillips, Nixon's political strategist. Get up to speed on that, and you'll have an idea as to why black voters started switching to the Dems. Also, remember that Truman's desegregating the army was a big factor.


Originally Posted by T&A
You still have yet to post a single post of substance!!

The chronology of the posts does not support your accusation.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually, it does, everything you posted was rubbush. Your faux agony about the Radical Republicans has everything to do with their policies, which were held by the entire GOP, even after they were gone. Therefore, it is not really about policy, as you would have us believe, but about activism and noise level, which are purely about style.

You claim that the GOP has reversed itself on civil rights, yet offer nothing of value. The civil rights era is over. Are you saying more is needed? Perhaps you could draft some specific text that neither party is currently pushing through Congress. I think most Americans understand that what is most needed in 2010 is not legislation, but a continuing change in public attitudes.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually, it does, everything you posted was rubbush. Your faux agony about the Radical Republicans has everything to do with their policies, which were held by the entire GOP, even after they were gone. Therefore, it is not really about policy, as you would have us believe, but about activism and noise level, which are purely about style.

Grow up, man. Stamping your widdle feet and screaming the same T&A blatherings over and over in various forms won't magically prove you right in a printed medium were people can read logical and fact based responses that disproves your assertions. The chronology of the posts proves me out, I don't expect a stubborn sort as yourself to acknowledge such.

You claim that the GOP has reversed itself on civil rights, yet offer nothing of value. The civil rights era is over. Are you saying more is needed? Perhaps you could draft some specific text that neither party is currently pushing through Congress. I think most Americans understand that what is most needed in 2010 is not legislation, but a continuing change in public attitudes.

Sorry, your lame ploy won't work. YOU made all the claims and assertions about the GOP and civil rights....and when I logically and factually took the wind out of your sails, you now assert some bullshit as if I'm making this an issue. Again, the chronology of the posts shows your intellectual dishonesty.

Hell, even Michael Steele had to cop to the "Southern Strategy" as a focal point of why blacks started voting in the majority for Dems. And as I logically pointed out with a link, the vote on the Civil Rights Act in 1965 was more about strategy to survive as a party than moral standing. Combine these with other little historically accurate tidbits I threw in, and it's a no brainer to see your erroneous, yet insipidly stubborn assertions for what they are....wrong.

But do continue to repeat and bullhorn, rail and bluster, T&A...it's all you've got going for you on this particular issue. So unless you've got a new angle or some new false accusation, I leave you to your ponderings.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=656860&postcount=397

 

[Minister of Truth]

No logic, no facts. Move along...