Verifying Your Political ID

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,214
Reaction score
33,052
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Surprising, isn't it, how very different the views of Liberals and conservatives are.
The following is a series of statements which our Liberal pals fervently believe to be true.....at least they subscribe to the majority of them.



So...here's a quick check to see if...or make sure.... you've fallen into the abyss of Liberalism:



True or False:


1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.


2. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.


3. The laws of economics don't apply to healthcare: the government can provide healthcare for all, and of higher quality than presently available, and at a considerable savings!


4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists.



5. Senator Joseph McCarty committed a crime of greater magnitude by revealing the Soviet spies in the Roosevelt government, than that of the spies themselves.


6. Religion has been responsible for the deaths of more human beings than non-religion!


7. Bush was responsible for the Mortgage Meltdown.

7a. Gore won.


8. Rights are only those entitlements allowed by governments....and can be withdrawn by same.


9. Gorbachev was as responsible for ending the Cold War as President Reagan was.


10. It's a racist nation, and that's the reason for criticism of Obama.


Bonus question: The United States was founded based on the Enlightenment, and, therefore, is not based on Judeo-Christian values.





Ready?
OK.....let's mark your paper.....and no erasing and no crossing out!

Correct answers: all of 'em are absolutely, positively, "false."

How'd ya' do?
Liberal or conservative?
....but, you knew that already, didn't you.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
37,492
Reaction score
9,575
Points
1,330
There is no doubt that many on the Left think some or all of those statements are true.

We on the right know many on the Left are delusional and misinformed. I suspect that we know more about how the Left thinks and what they believe, then they do.

I also believe that much of the misinformation accepted by some on the Left is the result of a media that regularly promotes propaganda that dupes lefties over and over again.

If I could be so bold as to add to your list, this one is big.

Nazism is a right wing ideology.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,227
Reaction score
7,537
Points
290
Location
Nashville
I have to admit I got one wrong. I remember hearing from my father, that religion started more wars and caused more deaths than non religion. That would be partially true. Although it has caused wars, the bulk of the wars are political or imperialistic in nature and more deaths are contributed to those wars than in the earlier wars.

My father, poor fellow, died a liberal. However if he was living today, I am certain he would not be a liberal seeing what is happening in today's society.
 

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
My father, poor fellow, died a liberal. However if he was living today, I am certain he would not be a liberal seeing what is happening in today's society.
"A conservative is a liberal who just got mugged."

Or, in the modern idiom:

"A conservative is an Obama voter who just found he could not keep his old insurance plan or his doctor... and found out about it from an NSA wiretap on his phone."
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.
Nope. But some of them did.

2. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.
Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.


3. The laws of economics don't apply to healthcare: the government can provide healthcare for all, and of higher quality than presently available, and at a considerable savings!
Nope. This is patently false.


4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists.
:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!


I'll finish the rest later.
 
Last edited:

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
What's with all the inane 'define a liberal' threads today? Was that an instruction sent out in the daily email?

A liberal is someone who knows better than to be a conservative.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
5. Senator Joseph McCarty committed a crime of greater magnitude by revealing the Soviet spies in the Roosevelt government, than that of the spies themselves.
McCarthy (check your spelling) did a great deal of damage by besmirching innocent people. He was a dishonorable and unprincipled creature.

The blind nut found the occasional squirrel.




6. Religion has been responsible for the deaths of more human beings than non-religion!
Probably. In the 20th Century, though, the heathens win that score.



7. Bush was responsible for the Mortgage Meltdown.
Yes. Along with Clinton, the Republican Congress, Democrats, Wall Street, the ratings agencies, the SEC, and several other regulators, world governments, and financial institutions.



7a. Gore won.
Nope.


8. Rights are only those entitlements allowed by governments....and can be withdrawn by same.
Nope.

9. Gorbachev was as responsible for ending the Cold War as President Reagan was.
Not as responsible, but definitely responsible.

10. It's a racist nation, and that's the reason for criticism of Obama.
You appear to be a black and white person. ;)

Much criticism of Obama is racially based. Not all.
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
What's with all the inane 'define a liberal' threads today? Was that an instruction sent out in the daily email?

A liberal is someone who knows better than to be a conservative.
If I was going to succumb to a bumper sticker mentality, I would say a left winger is "tax and spend" while a right winger is "borrow and spend".
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,214
Reaction score
33,052
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.
Nope. But some of them did.

2. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.
Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.




Nope. This is patently false.


4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists.
:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!


I'll finish the rest later.



Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Let's seeeee.....Who was the moron who failed to actually acquire an education?

Oh...that was you.


I'll fill in part of your lacunae now....but you should certainly regret dropping out in the third grade.





1. First of all, the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

2. The Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.”

He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.






3. The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.

Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.
George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute






Please don't make the same mistake again.


The outlandish idea that you know anything....ANYTHING.....is, of course, patently false.




You will receive more of the whipping you deserve later.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.
Nope. But some of them did.



Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.




Nope. This is patently false.




:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!


I'll finish the rest later.



Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Let's seeeee.....Who was the moron who failed to actually acquire an education?

Oh...that was you.


I'll fill in part of your lacunae now....but you should certainly regret dropping out in the third grade.





1. First of all, the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

2. The Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.”

He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.






3. The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.

Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.
George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute






Please don't make the same mistake again.


The outlandish idea that you know anything....ANYTHING.....is, of course, patently false.




You will receive more of the whipping you deserve later.
You asked if the Constitution mandates separation of church and state. You did not specify in which direction, dumbass.

I have pointed out many times on this forum (just yesterday, in fact) that in one direction it is intended that no particular brand of religion be forced on everyone while in the other direction it is intended to prevent a religion from chaining itself to a particular brand of politics. The Religious Right (a religious binding to a political cause, by definition) has made the mistake of the latter.

I have quoted extensively from de Tocqueville on this subject.

You have absolutely nothing to contribute to my knowledge on this issue.
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
Those who argue there is no separation of church and state mandate have an agenda. Things like school prayer. And then you find case law has decidely come down against them.

This is the inconvenient truth behind the word playing.

Observe as case law is now derided for banning school prayer, even though case law was demanded to support opposition to the opening premise.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.
Indeed! That is why school prayer is banned. Case law separating church and state.
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,214
Reaction score
33,052
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Nope. But some of them did.



Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.




Nope. This is patently false.




:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"



That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!


I'll finish the rest later.



Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Let's seeeee.....Who was the moron who failed to actually acquire an education?

Oh...that was you.


I'll fill in part of your lacunae now....but you should certainly regret dropping out in the third grade.





1. First of all, the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

2. The Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.”

He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.






3. The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.

Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.
George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute






Please don't make the same mistake again.


The outlandish idea that you know anything....ANYTHING.....is, of course, patently false.




You will receive more of the whipping you deserve later.
You asked if the Constitution mandates separation of church and state. You did not specify in which direction, dumbass.

I have pointed out many times on this forum (just yesterday, in fact) that in one direction it is intended that no particular brand of religion be forced on everyone while in the other direction it is intended to prevent a religion from chaining itself to a particular brand of politics. The Religious Right (a religious binding to a political cause, by definition) has made the mistake of the latter.

I have quoted extensively from de Tocqueville on this subject.

You have absolutely nothing to contribute to my knowledge on this issue.






Your attempt at retreat duly noted.

More beatings to follow.
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,771
Points
48
On Religion, from a Madison perspective......



Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? .........
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

;) Lets try to distinguish between God, Church, Individual, Society, and Government, here. Each of us either chooses to act for or against Conscience, to whatever degree. Accepting or denying the responsibility for that changes nothing. Still, matters of Conscience cannot be force fed or dictated.
 
Last edited:

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
84,696
Reaction score
14,749
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Nope. But some of them did.
Yeah, I mean poor people have all the money, so the rich have to steal from them.

You leftists are so smart.

Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:
Yup, facts fuckup your party line.

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?
I didn't realize that a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was the Constitution?

Also, you leftists don't grasp the back-story - nor that Jefferson gave grants to establish churches AND TO TEACH RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

But hey, facts on you leftists are like salt on slugs...

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.
The only think supporting your position is DailyKOS, sparky.


:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.
Really, with the exception of Strom Thurmond, name one?

Bull Conner? Nope, dim until death.
Orval Faubus? Nope, dim until death.
Grand KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd? Nope, dim until death.
George Wallace? Nope, ran independent then returned to the dim fold.

Lying leftists gotta lie. :thup;
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,214
Reaction score
33,052
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1. The "1%" is made up of millionaires and billionaires who stole their wealth from the 99%.
Nope. But some of them did.

2. The Constitution mandates separation of church and state.

2a. Studying case law, the decisions of courts, is the only way to apply the Constitution.
Nice attempt at poisoning the well. :lol:

Let's seeeee... Who was that guy who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State'"?

Oh yeah! Thomas Jefferson! Conservative hero and advocate of the Bill of Rights. Lookee there, he uses the language of the First Amendment and explains that means the separation of church and state literally in the same sentence! I believe he knew what the Constitution mandates better than what some ignorant dunderheads a couple centuries later do.

Case law also support this.




Nope. This is patently false.


4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists.
:lol:

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!


I'll finish the rest later.



"4. While Democrat Party was the source and wellspring of racism up until 1964, the parties switched attitudes that year, and the Republicans became the racists."

Nice try!

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

Quote:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
That's a Republican strategist talking. Writing off the Negro vote for all time, and using race baiting to scare the racist Democrats into the GOP. Actually saying that weakening the VRA would cause racist Democrats not to move into the GOP, and so the GOP must not allow the VRA to be weakened!



1. " The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party."
Dim-wits, will accept the above without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.

That means you, small-mind.


In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.”
They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.

a. The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

b. While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

c. That included Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.



2. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law." None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News


3. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one.

a. And they were not conservative.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination.

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?


Let's review:

Segregationist Democrats continued to be Democrats.
They did not become Republicans.

And you continue to be a glaring example of an idiot.


Speaking of glaring.....the most popular Democrat today.....today!....always was and always will be a supporter of segregation.
His name is Bill Clinton.

Dare me to prove that?
Go ahead....I love demolishing you.



And I will continue to do so.....



Go lick your wounds....and get ready for more!
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
Nope. But some of them did.
Yeah, I mean poor people have all the money, so the rich have to steal from them.

You leftists are so smart.
You have a 401k? You pay city and state taxes? You pay college tuition? You buy insurance?

Then YOU have been robbed by fraudsters on Wall Street. You're just too stupid to know it.

And I am not a leftist. Just smarter than you.



Case law also support this.
The only think supporting your position is DailyKOS, sparky.
Case law has removed prayer from school. Need more examples?

It was a gradual process. The conservative Democrats over time were drawn to the Republican party.
Really, with the exception of Strom Thurmond, name one?

Bull Conner? Nope, dim until death.
Orval Faubus? Nope, dim until death.
Grand KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd? Nope, dim until death.
George Wallace? Nope, ran independent then returned to the dim fold.

Lying leftists gotta lie. :thup;
I did not say the existing conservative Democratic politicans converted to Republicans, now did I? The voices in your head told you that.

PoliticalChic attempted to build a strawman that the demographic shift occured over a weekend. No one claims that. The voices in HER head told her that.



Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
94,044
Reaction score
15,674
Points
2,180
The Southern conservative of 50+ years ago was virulently anti-communist, strongly advocated states rights, believed in small government, and hated Medicare.

In half a century, that has not changed at all. Just the party to which they predominantly belong.

It just irks Republicans who want us all to believe the GOP still embraces minorities. When you have to reach back 50+ years to prove it, that gives away the whole ball game of the demographic shift which has occured since then.

So the pathetic attempt in the OP to make it sound like we realists believe it happened over a weekend is just that. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top