Old Republican people

[Iceweasel]

...but....but ...but they weren't really Democrats because they were in the south!

Didn't say they weren't democrats , I said they were conservatives.

"Conservatives" isn't a political party. Nor do they all agree on everything, neither do liberals, neither do moderates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Segregation was mostly a Democrat thing. Look it up, junior.

I am grateful my GOP followed the lead of the Democratic President and his party's leaders in the Senate and House in ending it with the CRA.

Interestingly, the decency displayed in the voting was dominated by geography not party: Dems and Pubs in the North and the West overwhelmingly voted for it, and their southern counterparts voted overwhelmingly against it. The Pubs willingness to put aside party considerations provided the votes necessary to pass the bill in both chambers.

A great narrative accurately taught in our schools.

Democrats had the power, your twist doesn't alter facts. Because the Democrats were in the south doesn't mean they weren't Democrats. Accuracy is not your goal.

Quit blubbering. Yes, the Dems had the power and passed the CRA with the minority help of good GOP.

The conservatives in the South, Dems and GOP, almost universally voted against the CRA.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[Iceweasel]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

You are all over the place. Conservative does not mean "no change". It means change what you should, not what you can. There's nothing in conservativism that dictates slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, etc.

You didn't quote your source but I see nothing about today's progressives that want to balance liberty, they want the central planners to dictate our so called liberty from D.C.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

American conservative principles are based in the Age of Enlightenment beliefs of the FOunding Fathers.

Individual rights and freedoms were obviously a big part of that. NOt group rights, individual rights and freedoms.

Social justice lumps people into groups and grants special protections and rights based on past disadvantages.

This divides and segregates them.

As I said, utter nonsense.

Utter nonsense?
Is the ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights struggles?
Choose one of the many threads regarding same sex marriage and tell me what you see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Changing comments is in poor form."

He did not change anything of the original post, which he carefully preserved to illustrate his annotation.

Good form, indeed, while Iceweasel's whining is poor form.

I didn't say he changed my post, you stupid asshole. Read at your slow reading level.

The whiner is the moron with 95 thousand useless posts.

What you wrote was "Changing comments is in poor form." He did not changer your "comments", which matches my "He did not change anything of the original post, which he carefully preserved to illustrate his annotation."

You lie as effortlessly and poorly as Yurt. Keep it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^ Product of a failed public school system

Projection by you, as you are the"^ Product of a failed public school system."

 

[Iceweasel]

Segregation was mostly a Democrat thing. Look it up, junior.

I am grateful my GOP followed the lead of the Democratic President and his party's leaders in the Senate and House in ending it with the CRA.

Interestingly, the decency displayed in the voting was dominated by geography not party: Dems and Pubs in the North and the West overwhelmingly voted for it, and their southern counterparts voted overwhelmingly against it. The Pubs willingness to put aside party considerations provided the votes necessary to pass the bill in both chambers.

A great narrative accurately taught in our schools.

Democrats had the power, your twist doesn't alter facts. Because the Democrats were in the south doesn't mean they weren't Democrats. Accuracy is not your goal.

Quit blubbering. Yes, the Dems had the power and passed the CRA with the minority help of good GOP.

The conservatives in the South, Dems and GOP, almost universally voted against the CRA.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

You continue to stuff your fingers up your ass, sniff them and post here in your elated state. No one agreed with you and I've never seen you post anything worth thin king about. If you insult me I'll return the favor, flaming is all you know how to do.

Go ahead and prove that conservatives favored segregation if you want to try. The topic is about how Republicans were the racists. Try to read the ******* thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Republican president Ike had to send troops to force democrats to desegregrate.

And Republican president Nixon desegregated most of the rest of the schools.

False. You have no good links to prove that silly-ass assertion.

 

[RKMBrown]

**** old Republican people! They were bullies! They separated people into groups when they were in school. Blacks and nerds. I'm glad my generation is more evolved!

**** you, ya ass hole. You're confusing republicans for democrats you dumb ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...but....but ...but they weren't really Democrats because they were in the south!

They were conservative Democrats, of course.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Changing comments is in poor form."

He did not change anything of the original post, which he carefully preserved to illustrate his annotation.

Good form, indeed, while Iceweasel's whining is poor form.

I didn't say he changed my post, you stupid asshole. Read at your slow reading level.

The whiner is the moron with 95 thousand useless posts.

What you wrote was "Changing comments is in poor form." He did not changer your "comments", which matches my "He did not change anything of the original post, which he carefully preserved to illustrate his annotation."

You lie as effortlessly and poorly as Yurt. Keep it up.

No wonder your post count is so high, your stupid clit. You lied when you said I complained about him altering my post. Keep sniffing your fingers, girl!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

You are all over the place. Conservative does not mean "no change". It means change what you should, not what you can. There's nothing in conservativism that dictates slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, etc.

You didn't quote your source but I see nothing about today's progressives that want to balance liberty, they want the central planners to dictate our so called liberty from D.C.

My point is clear and has remained so. Your understanding is lacking.

 

[Correll]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

American conservative principles are based in the Age of Enlightenment beliefs of the FOunding Fathers.

Individual rights and freedoms were obviously a big part of that. NOt group rights, individual rights and freedoms.

Social justice lumps people into groups and grants special protections and rights based on past disadvantages.

This divides and segregates them.

As I said, utter nonsense.

Utter nonsense?
Is the ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights struggles?
Choose one of the many threads regarding same sex marriage and tell me what you see.

I addressed that above.

American conservatives champion individual rights, while American progressives want to discriminate in favor of traditionally disadvantaged groups.

This segregates people.

As I said, your belief that segregation can only occur in a conservative world view is utter nonsense.

 

[Iceweasel]

...but....but ...but they weren't really Democrats because they were in the south!

They were conservative Democrats, of course.

They were not business friendly so no, they were not conservatives. That's why the south went Republican. Lies are all you have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

Your comment is utter nonsense. You must be a far right reactionary wannabee conservative.

 

[Iceweasel]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

You are all over the place. Conservative does not mean "no change". It means change what you should, not what you can. There's nothing in conservativism that dictates slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, etc.

You didn't quote your source but I see nothing about today's progressives that want to balance liberty, they want the central planners to dictate our so called liberty from D.C.

My point is clear and has remained so. Your understanding is lacking.

Your point is clearly wrong and your stupidity is on you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

...but....but ...but they weren't really Democrats because they were in the south!

Didn't say they weren't democrats , I said they were conservatives.

"Conservatives" isn't a political party. Nor do they all agree on everything, neither do liberals, neither do moderates.

I said nothing regarding political parties ,only ideologies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

1. Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of socialprogressivism.

1. Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

Which is more likely to advocate for social change such as civil rights? How is that ideological difference apparent in today's civil rights issues?

American conservative principles are based in the Age of Enlightenment beliefs of the FOunding Fathers. Individual rights and freedoms were obviously a big part of that. NOt group rights, individual rights and freedoms. Social justice lumps people into groups and grants special protections and rights based on past disadvantages.
This divides and segregates them. As I said, utter nonsense.

The Founders would turn your ass into the alley because of your lame-o response. Respond correctly, dimwit.

 

[Correll]

Segregation exists only within a socially conservative worldview. Civil rights are inherintly within a socially liberal worldview.
Regardless of party, it was the conservatives who resisted as well as resented the civil rights movement.

That is utter nonsense.

Your comment is utter nonsense. You must be a far right reactionary wannabee conservative.

How dare you call me a wannabee?

And my comment in right on target.

 

[Iceweasel]

...but....but ...but they weren't really Democrats because they were in the south!

Didn't say they weren't democrats , I said they were conservatives.

"Conservatives" isn't a political party. Nor do they all agree on everything, neither do liberals, neither do moderates.

I said nothing regarding political parties ,only ideologies.

The thread is about a political party. Apart from being in the wrong thread, you don't understand conservativism or why the south went Republican.