Lawrence O’Donnell: Get rid of the Bible on Inauguration Day

[daveman]

Liberalism is a progressive philosophy. That's what you and your ilk fail to understand.

That's probably because you are a conservative. Which is a lockstep, unchanging (or very slow to change) one.

Many liberals in 1776 believed that black people were inferior.

Liberalism progressed from that point.

You guys didn't.

Democrats and Republicans:
In Their Own Words
A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts
Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison
of the Early Platforms of the
Two Major Political Parties​

The party platforms prove you wrong.

The Republican party started out as the Liberal wing of the Whigs.

And during history party configurations have changed.

Republicans, however, have generally favored the wealthy and Democrats have favored labor.

Good parrot. You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

Actually, you'll be thrown under the bus the very second your useful idiocy is no longer useful.

 

[del]

Liberalism is no longer the ideology of teh American Democrat Party of the Left. Those are LOLberals.

Liberalism is found in libertarians, who are considered neoliberals after classical liberalism went belly up and replaced by speciial interest group "liberalism". Which is what the struggle of todays left/right is all about. It's about securing power and favor for the special interests of either side. It's not about equality and liberty for all. Those days are over.

yeah, whatever

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's the unfortunate truth.

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberalism is a progressive philosophy. That's what you and your ilk fail to understand.

That's probably because you are a conservative. Which is a lockstep, unchanging (or very slow to change) one.

Many liberals in 1776 believed that black people were inferior.

Liberalism progressed from that point.

You guys didn't.

Democrats and Republicans:
In Their Own Words
A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts
Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison
of the Early Platforms of the
Two Major Political Parties​

The party platforms prove you wrong.

The Republican party started out as the Liberal wing of the Whigs.

And during history party configurations have changed.

Republicans, however, have generally favored the wealthy and Democrats have favored labor.

The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1800 to 1825, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party).

The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824 the caucus system practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824 the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; It held its first convention in late 1831 in Baltimore. It morphed into the Whig Party by 1835. The Whig Party fell apart in the mid-1850s because it could not bridge North-South differences on slavery, while the Democrats held together by taking positions favored by the South. Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republican party was formed before the wig party. Then the wigs desolved and became the Repugs again.

 

[del]

It's the unfortunate truth.

did you read that in a graphic novel?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Haven't found one, del. If i do I'll let you know so you can understand too.

 

[Sallow]

knock yourself out

Glad I have your approval.

i knew you would be

And why is it that people say birds have such small brains?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's quality not quantity. So that's a double loss for del.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

It's the unfortunate truth.

did you read that in a graphic novel?

Oh for fuck's sake, look up classical liberalism and you may learn something, specifically about how little it has to do with the modern meaning of the word. Graphic novel. Nice try at a joke, but ultimately pretty impotent.

 

[rightwinger]

It's the unfortunate truth.

did you read that in a graphic novel?

Oh for fuck's sake, look up classical liberalism and you may learn something, specifically about how little it has to do with the modern meaning of the word. Graphic novel. Nice try at a joke, but ultimately pretty impotent.

What was classical conservatism?

 

[paperview]

Democrats and Republicans:
In Their Own Words
A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts
Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison
of the Early Platforms of the
Two Major Political Parties​

The party platforms prove you wrong.

The Republican party started out as the Liberal wing of the Whigs.

And during history party configurations have changed.

Republicans, however, have generally favored the wealthy and Democrats have favored labor.

The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1800 to 1825, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party).

The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824 the caucus system practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824 the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; It held its first convention in late 1831 in Baltimore. It morphed into the Whig Party by 1835. The Whig Party fell apart in the mid-1850s because it could not bridge North-South differences on slavery, while the Democrats held together by taking positions favored by the South. Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republican party was formed before the wig party. Then the wigs desolved and became the Repugs again.

"wigs"

lol

 

[paperview]

The WHIG party didn't dissolve, they split, over the expansion of slavery issue.

then when most went with the liberal-minded republicans, it became extinct.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

did you read that in a graphic novel?

Oh for fuck's sake, look up classical liberalism and you may learn something, specifically about how little it has to do with the modern meaning of the word. Graphic novel. Nice try at a joke, but ultimately pretty impotent.

What was classical conservatism?

Why?

 

[beretta304]

When new issues of nativism, prohibition and anti-slavery burst on the scene in the mid-1850s, no one looked to the quickly disintegrating Whig party for answers. In the north most ex-Whigs joined the new Republican party, and in the South, they flocked to a new short-lived "American" party.

In 1860, many former Whigs who had not joined the Republicans regrouped as the Constitutional Union Party, which nominated only a national ticket. It had considerable strength in the border states, which feared the onset of civil war. John Bell finished third in the electoral college.

In the South during the latter part of the American Civil War and during the Reconstruction Era, many former Whigs tried to regroup in the South, calling themselves "Conservatives" and hoping to reconnect with the ex-Whigs in the North. These were merged into the Democratic Party in the South, but they continued to promote modernization policies such as large-scale railroad construction and the founding of public schools.[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

When new issues of nativism, prohibition and anti-slavery burst on the scene in the mid-1850s, no one looked to the quickly disintegrating Whig party for answers. In the north most ex-Whigs joined the new Republican party, and in the South, they flocked to a new short-lived "American" party.

In 1860, many former Whigs who had not joined the Republicans regrouped as the Constitutional Union Party, which nominated only a national ticket. It had considerable strength in the border states, which feared the onset of civil war. John Bell finished third in the electoral college.

In the South during the latter part of the American Civil War and during the Reconstruction Era, many former Whigs tried to regroup in the South, calling themselves "Conservatives" and hoping to reconnect with the ex-Whigs in the North. These were merged into the Democratic Party in the South, but they continued to promote modernization policies such as large-scale railroad construction and the founding of public schools.[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

And eventually you got what we have today, which is exactly what John Adams feared (see signature). Classical liberalism was embraced almost unanimously by the founders and much of our early politicians. But then they had a lot more in common philosophically than what what we got in the eventual conservative/liberal schism.

 

[beretta304]

When new issues of nativism, prohibition and anti-slavery burst on the scene in the mid-1850s, no one looked to the quickly disintegrating Whig party for answers. In the north most ex-Whigs joined the new Republican party, and in the South, they flocked to a new short-lived "American" party.

In 1860, many former Whigs who had not joined the Republicans regrouped as the Constitutional Union Party, which nominated only a national ticket. It had considerable strength in the border states, which feared the onset of civil war. John Bell finished third in the electoral college.

In the South during the latter part of the American Civil War and during the Reconstruction Era, many former Whigs tried to regroup in the South, calling themselves "Conservatives" and hoping to reconnect with the ex-Whigs in the North. These were merged into the Democratic Party in the South, but they continued to promote modernization policies such as large-scale railroad construction and the founding of public schools.[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

And eventually you got what we have today, which is exactly what John Adams feared (see signature). Classical liberalism was embraced almost unanimously by the founders and much of our early politicians. But then they had a lot more in common philosophically than what what we got in the eventual conservative/liberal schism.

I'm not so sure the "divide" will ever be eliminated or even closed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why swear on the Bible?

Why not have them swear an oath on the Constitution?

Because they don't believe in it.

That's the purpose of an oath Dumbass.

So you're saying they should swear the oath on the communist manifesto?

I think the Bible has alittle stronger support and more authority.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why swear on the Bible?

Why not have them swear an oath on the Constitution?

Because they don't believe in it.

That's the purpose of an oath Dumbass.

Don't believe in it?

Liberals wrote it

Yes. The classical liberals wrote it. The ones who are currently today's conservatives and libertarians

 

[mudwhistle]

The WHIG party didn't dissolve, they split, over the expansion of slavery issue.

then when most went with the liberal-minded republicans, it became extinct.

What you said.

I just said the first word that popped into my head.

 

[Avatar4321]

Lawrence O

“We will ensure that whoever delivers the benediction rejects the same parts of the Bible that President Obama rejects and most Democrats reject, even though every word of the Bible is the word of God,”


There you have it. Those are the only people now living in America...oBUMa and Dopeycrats.

aside from the fact that many of us don't consider the new testament, "the bible", what parts of the bible has the president rejected? what part do "most democrats" reject?

how absurd to think only republicans have a lock on G-d.

no matter how self-satisfied and uber moral and holier than thou the rabid religious right is.

(that said, lawrence o'donnell is entitled to his opinion. i think it's kind of silly. although, to be fair, many religions don't 'swear', on a bible or otherwise. i would think it would be up to the president, who, despite the fauxrage, hasn't chosen to forego tradition.

i could see it being worth discussion if the president took this viewpoint... but i doubt you really are concerned with what lawrence o'donnell thinks.

I wouldn't begin think that conservatives "have a lock" on God. God is there for all people to come unto Him. But you can't deny that much of the left is radically anti-religion. Just check out a few posts on this board and you can see.

And no, I dont care much about what LD thinks. I think we should concern us more with what God thinks.