Republicans & Democrats

[BrownArmy]

And a little history re-write is their solution.

Next, they'll be calling the Democratic party the party of Lincoln.

This has been addressed before.

To equate the 'Republican' party of 150 years ago to the 'Republican' party of today is a gross misunderstanding of history.

Same thing for the term 'Democrat'.

These terms simply don't mean what they used to mean - please stop.

 

[realbrown1]

This has been addressed before.

To equate the 'Republican' party of 150 years ago to the 'Republican' party of today is a gross misunderstanding of history.

Same thing for the term 'Democrat'.

These terms simply don't mean what they used to mean - please stop.

Only liberals believe that lie.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Only liberals believe that lie.

If it's a lie, prove it.

 

[realbrown1]

If it's a lie, prove it.

Prove what?

That the Republicans and Democrats of the 1860's have not switched?

Only fools would believe that they did.

 

[newfie]

This has been addressed before.

To equate the 'Republican' party of 150 years ago to the 'Republican' party of today is a gross misunderstanding of history.

Same thing for the term 'Democrat'.

These terms simply don't mean what they used to mean - please stop.

if you really do an honest comparison GW bush was easily more liberal then Lincoln.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/09/that_liberal_george_w_bush.php

 

[BrownArmy]

Is it true that Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party?

From the first answer on the link:

"I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate.

Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general.

The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business..."


The answer continues and is worth reading.

It's simplistic to call the modern Republican party the 'party of Lincoln'.

If Lincoln were alive today, it would be difficult to determine which party he would belong to, and probably a useless exercise - let's leave Lincoln in his time and live in ours.

 

[Sportello]

if you really do an honest comparison GW bush was easily more liberal then Lincoln.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/09/that_liberal_george_w_bush.php

Your linked piece does not support that.

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

Is it true that Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party?

From the first answer on the link:

"I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate.

Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general.

The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business..."


The answer continues and is worth reading.

It's simplistic to call the modern Republican party the 'party of Lincoln'.

If Lincoln were alive today, it would be difficult to determine which party he would belong to, and probably a useless exercise - let's leave Lincoln in his time and live in ours.

Brown army,you have struck upon the explanation of most right wingers.

They are far more comfortable with their fantasies.

The actual truth is just too damn disconcerting and uncomfortable.

 

[realbrown1]

Brown army,you have struck upon the explanation of most right wingers.

They are far more comfortable with their fantasies.

The actual truth is just too damn disconcerting and uncomfortable.

Is it true that Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party?

From the first answer on the link:

"I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate.

Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general.

The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business..."


The answer continues and is worth reading.

It's simplistic to call the modern Republican party the 'party of Lincoln'.

If Lincoln were alive today, it would be difficult to determine which party he would belong to, and probably a useless exercise - let's leave Lincoln in his time and live in ours.

Your linked piece does not support that.

Some people just can't accept the fact that they support a party, that used to support slavery.

You don't hear modern liberal Democrats praising Lincoln, but you do hear Republicans praising Lincoln.

Must be nice to be a liberal Democrat in today's world.

Able to re-write history, and you live in fantasyland.

 

[newfie]

Brown army,you have struck upon the explanation of most right wingers.

They are far more comfortable with their fantasies.

The actual truth is just too damn disconcerting and uncomfortable.

like Hillary not violating security laws? ah sorry left wing fantasy

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

like Hillary violating security laws? ah sorry left wing fantasy

I like how you didn't disagree with him, but instead pointed out that democrats are just as bad.

 

[BrownArmy]

...You don't hear modern liberal Democrats praising Lincoln, but you do hear Republicans praising Lincoln...

If you say so.

The Democratic party today has very little to do with the party that shared the same name 150 years ago.

It's not a meaningful comparison.

Do you not understand that, or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

 

[realbrown1]

If you say so.

The Democratic party today has very little to do with the party that shared the same name 150 years ago.

It's not a meaningful comparison.

Do you not understand that, or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

I think they have a lot to do with their party from 150+ years ago.

They think they are better at controlling people lives than the people are themselves, and they like to keep their slaves uneducated and dependent on the slave owners for survival.

Just like the African Americans today in the welfare system.

Forced to vote democrat for fear that their welfare, housing and food checks being cut off.

 

[The Other Side]

I think they have a lot to do with their party from 150+ years ago.

They think they are better at controlling people lives than the people are themselves, and they like to keep their slaves uneducated and dependent on the slave owners for survival.

Just like the African Americans today in the welfare system.

Forced to vote democrat for fear that their welfare, housing and food checks being cut off.

Why do you continue to point out that blacks are on welfare as if they make up the the majority of recievers, thus being held back when WHITES recieve the largest percentage of welfare in the country?

Are you this dense?

Using your logic, if democrats are responsible for keeping blacks on welfare, then republicans must be to blame for keeping the majority of whites on welfare year after year. Must be the reason why WHITES make up the majority of the voting blocks for republicans, fearing their stronghold on being the majority of lazy ash welfare recipients would be jeopardized.

People like you simply repeat mistruths and dont think for even a second how stupid you sound.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

Why do you continue to point out that blacks are on welfare as if they make up the the majority of recievers, thus being held back when WHITES recieve the largest percentage of welfare in the country?

Are you this dense?

Using your logic, if democrats are responsible for keeping blacks on welfare, then republicans must be to blame for keeping the majority of whites on welfare year after year. Must be the reason why WHITES make up the majority of the voting blocks for republicans, fearing their stronghold on being the majority of lazy ash welfare recipients would be jeopardized.

People like you simply repeat mistruths and dont think for even a second how stupid you sound.

TOS.

I have never once said that blacks make up a majority of welfare users.

Where in my post did I say that?

So why don't you read it first, then post your answer after you bother to read it?

 

[BrownArmy]

I think they have a lot to do with their party from 150+ years ago.

They think they are better at controlling people lives than the people are themselves, and they like to keep their slaves uneducated and dependent on the slave owners for survival.

Just like the African Americans today in the welfare system.

Forced to vote democrat for fear that their welfare, housing and food checks being cut off.

So you don't understand. Copy.

 

[realbrown1]

So you don't understand. Copy.

Understand your need to re-write history to feel better about yourself?

I have always looked at history are something to learn from.

Not to change it to something I like better.

 

[BrownArmy]

Understand your need to re-write history to feel better about yourself?

I have always looked at history are something to learn from.

Not to change it to something I like better.

I'm not the one rewriting history.

It suits your narrative to draw a straight line and conflate the Democrats of today with the Democrats of 150 years ago, even though that makes very little sense, but carry on.

 

[realbrown1]

I'm not the one rewriting history.

It suits your narrative to draw a straight line and conflate the Democrats of today with the Democrats of 150 years ago, even though that makes very little sense, but carry on.

I guess in your mind, it is modern day Democrats that would have fought a war to end slavery?

Then you must assume that the modern day Republicans would fight a war to continue slavery?

You are so deluded, that it's not worth my time to explain to you how far off from reality you really are.

 

[moreluck]

you're special (I'm waiting....)