Revisionist history
- Onusonusposted 10 years ago
0
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.That's what they want people to believe. I think that they really do believe that if you tell a lie often enough suddenly it will come true. I know Obama believes that.
The European parliament and local councils have whole departments thinking up this sort of rubbish.
Renaming roads, schools and colleges after people or places and then giving rubbish explanations as to why. Normally they never have any public consultation either because they know best.
Everybody knows this is in error. Most educated people know that Lincoln was a Republican, a superb leader, representing a party that was vastly different than it is today. So.....
The people who made this plaque back in the early 1900's knew exactly what they were doing. They had a specfic goal in mind and that is to attach the Democrat party with Democracy in general. Except for the fact that Democrats have always been in favor of special interest groups. You can talk to any highschool graduate and ask them what party was abolitionist, and I guarantee you they will say Democrat. On the same token you can ask them who started the KKK and they will immediately say Republican.
The fact is that this stuff works and they know it. After all, dead Republicans have been voting Democrat for decades in Illinois.Obviously it is a joke, since the turn of the 20th century Democratic party, pro rural, pro-Southern had nothing to do with Lincoln. That was the special interests of the Democratic party at the time. The GOP has no special interests groups? Quite the contrary they drive Rolls Royce's and own Lear Jets, I think that is interest group enough,
I can't apologize for the ignorance of the masses. But I know better.Denying reality, while common to the liberals of the world, does not change it.
A large brass plaque, riveted to a brick building wall, is not a joke. It is another liberal, Democratic lie designed to fool an ignorant public. Or at least the ignorant liberal public (republicans would question this, quickly finding an answer) - something not hard to do. Obama has done it for years now, after all.Again, your six is my half a dozen. In my world it is the GOP that is the most deceiving. And believe me, that is quite real, I was not born yesterday. Who is stupid enough to believe that Lincoln had anything to do with Democratic party, particularly during the time the plaque was placed there?
You spoke to me before about putting people in boxes, is it possible that conservatives are guilty of this, as well?LOL Credence, if you think the Democratic party is any different than the GOP when it comes to lying and spinning the truth to get what they want your MUST have been born yesterday.
I'm sorry, I just find the continued insistence that Conservatives are all evil, that Liberals are all angels and only liberals have any workable answers to be comical in the extreme. Worthy only of a comedic, ridiculous post in return.I just think that it is fair to say that you are not without your biases in promoting your point of view. I prefer the progressive spin, while you tout that of the right side of the ideological spectrum, same difference.
Not quite. What you are picking up as biases is mostly sarcasm. Like the term "progressive"; there is nothing "progressive" about the liberal agenda of the nanny state. We've been there before, in the cotton fields of the deep south, and to go back to that is not "progressive."
There are several issues that we can debate where there are clear sides and boundaries, what about the availability of safe and legal abortion services, just one of many?
As for the cotton fields of the deep south, what about the southern strategy, where the white vote went from Democratic to the GOP, it aligned pretty well with the Democrats and the Civil rights agenda of the sixties and seventies, was that just a coincidence? Were white southerners making a statement with this exodus? The cotton fields were the status quo, who among the residents of the south had the greatest interest in maintaining that?"Clear sides and boundaries" are there? Who is going to build those abortion centers? Who do you expect to pick up the costs? I'm all for abortion clinics, as long as I'm not the one paying for it. And just that quickly the sides and boundaries aren't so clear cut, are they?
Sorry, you missed the reference to cotton fields completely. The oh so "progressive" policies of the liberal today hinge very much around fiscal irresponsibility and the support of anyone they can suck into the net. History shows very plainly and clearly that doing so for more than a very short time results in a dependency of people on government to provide for them instead of doing it themselves; thus the reference to slavery of the deep south where the slaves were dependent on plantation owners for their every need. In some ways that is exactly where the liberal policies of today are headed; to a dependency of vast numbers of people on the government for the food on their table. Or the table itself, for that matter.
I fully understand that you will not agree with that assessment; the moral outrage produced when anyone even thinks about individual responsibility is far too great. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that people aren't becoming dependent, as the numbers of people living in the country but paying no income taxes grows, isn't going to change that they are being supported OR that they are becoming unable to do without that support.Well, sounds like you are wrestling with moral dilemma? As for abortion, Roe vs Wade, 1973, made the record ruling that access to abortion under many circumstances is to be safe and legal. So the clinics performing them are no different then any other involved with other parts of human anatomy and condition. You have nothing against public clinics in principle, do you?
I wish that I could pick and choose those things that I want to support and pay for verses those that I do not. Believe me, there are plenty of things that this government is involved in that I would choose to opt out of if it were possible. To that point, I think that it is clear cut.
I am not so far from you as to the danger of too much government largesse on behalf of those who are given incentive to stay on the dole indefinitely. I lived in Hawaii, a state where there was too much of this for my taste. But, I don't see anything wrong with hand ups rather than hand outs. After all, who is it that was not unemployed at any time during their lives? That unemployment insurance came in handy. In spite of what you think about liberals, we recognize that the aid programs are valuable if they are not abused. No one support waste, fraud and abuse. Look at the stories of all the folks claiming disability and are getting payments who are not disabled. Oddly enough they are not in the inner cities but in West Virginia, Kentucky and Tenn. Instead of gutting the programs, remove the abuses and much of the waste will go with it.
Maybe, I agree with more than you thought. I know about individual responsibility and it not something that conservatives corner the market on. I want to curb abuse from the little guy in the street to the plutocrats in Washington and on Wall Street, while conservatives seem to want to turn a blind eye to the exploits of the 'big shots' and focus on the more vulnerable in our society. In my progressive world, no one is above the law nor beyond being held accountable for their actions. I am quite aware of what is happening in regard to dependency, but I will not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I am not a tax expert but if people have no income....., I am more concerned about the fat cats that pay less than their fair share, in spite of what they say (Romney), but again that is my liberalism talking.Do I have something against public clinics? I don't know - define "public". If "public" means tax supported then I would be against any abortion not done for the mother's health or possibly for rape - as the vast majority are optional that would pretty much shut it down.
Here's the problem with aid programs and liberals, as I see it: We simply never see a liberal advocating the end of even a cutback to an aid program. When we see the damage in multi generation welfare Moms we don't talk about how to stop that, we talk about how to get more money to them. The answer to any aid question is always more money. Instead of providing jobs building American infrastructure in the midst of the recession, we increased the time on unemployment - more money. Instead of providing day care and requiring single Mom's to work we up the food stamps and housing allowance - more money. When kids from families receiving food stamps go to school hunger we don't ask why they aren't fed at home with the food we provide, we give them more food - more money.
So how about doing some really hard questioning on just why we continually "spend" more and more money for nothing instead of getting some production out of those taking our charity?
If we're not going to support fraud, waste and abuse, then let's do something about it, something beyond crying about how bad it is as we increase total charity payments.
Well, liberals are clearly more progressive than conservatives (so much that "progressive" has become a negative word at Republican conventions) Let's drop fiscal politics for just a moment - though I am PROUDLY liberal in that regard as well - what is on the "liberal agenda" in social issues?
-Equality for LGBT people and gay marriage
-Assure women's reproductive rights
-Social tolerance for people of all backgrounds and religions (or lack thereof)
-Eliminate racism and sexism
-Protect the environment (and not refuse to believe in climate change)
-Advance and fund the sciences
and so on. The Republican party hardly has a great track record in any of those fields. The liberal party is, if anything, not liberal enough - pretty much any other leading nation in the world will tell you how behind America is on social issues, and "progression" is exactly what is needed. The usual Republican platform on social equality is lagging at best, and science? Well, science does have a liberal bias, after all, lol.
Also, let me interject my hate for the term "nanny state" - Republicans try so hard to be outraged at everything Democrats do that suddenly Michelle Obama trying to promote kids eating healthy means OMG NANNY STATE... yet the conservative Republicans would just as soon make Christianity the national religion, outlaw women's reproductive rights and send gay people to therapy (or jail). Being angry about politics that want to promote health is pretty absurd, yet there you have it, Republican outrage. Almost as great as the "War on Christmas", the "War on Men" and, no doubt, the impending Fox News sponsored "War on White People."
As far as the original topic - it's stupid for either party to claim historical politicians from over a hundred years ago. Politics weren't the same back then, issues weren't the same, party names didn't even mean the same thing. Republicans and Democrats both need to strictly focus on contemporary figures, or better yet, current figures that actually matter, rather than detract and point to "heroes" of the past as symbols and battle cries. Onusonus - directed at you - "Republicans" did not abolish slavery, it was essentially an entirely different party that just happens to bear the same name.
(Noting, I am generalizing Republicans here, though I don't agree with fiscal Republicans, not all are social conservatives, to be fair)You have pretty much said it all. Can't add much to it except that the GOP were primarily the advocates for the anti-slavery, abolitionist stand
You have hit almost exclusively on Republican social stances and complained (correctly) they they do not keep up with the rest of the world on allowing people to make their own calls of how they shall live.
What you did NOT care to mention is that Democrats are no better, except that they do it all from "I know better than you" rather than a "God says..." position. It is usually the Democratic party that is out there promoting the idea that government knows all; they know how to feed your kids better than you, they know how you should eat better than you, they know how to drive your car safely better than you, and now they know all about whether you need health insurance better than you. The liberal nearly always knows better than you how you should be behaving and what choices you should be making, and they are happy to "help" you make the correct decisions.
But most of all, the Democrat liberal in this country knows better than anyone else how and where you should spend the fruits of your labor (and that of your neighbor, for that matter). They will even do it FOR you, via a tax code that has grown so far out of reason that our forefathers, the ones that founded this country, would die of mortification if they knew what their creation has become. It was never, ever contemplated that government would be spending anywhere near the percentage of our GDP that it does, and the liberals aren't satisfied yet.
So "progressive" does not mean "better", it just means "different" in the final analysis and "different" does not often translate into "superior".Addressing an earlier post, Wilderness Yes, the cutting needs to be done but with a scalpel not a meat ax. Obama tried to do something with the stimulus, but conservatives think all of us are really going believe that the Thurston Howells of the world, the so called Job creators, if allowed to loot the treasury with more tax breaks on their behalf will have the incentive to increase outlays and create jobs. More of that damned Reagan tinkle down stuff. I don't buy it. Obama offered to sacrifice a great deal from social spending to get a grand bargain but the conservatives wanted it all, or nothing.
Perhaps providing the day care costs more than upping the allowances. Clinton attempted to rein some of this in with his "Mend it not end it' programs. But alas, as always with the right, the little guy is the one with the target on its back. Yes, I am for DOING something, but I will not throw working people and the disadvantaged under the bus thinking that the GOP is only trying to get the fiscal house in order. Sorry, I trust them to make adjustments fairly and equitably just about as far as I could throw that mascot of theirs.
Your point is well taken, if I could impose limits or support it being done in the right way, I would. The GOP has shown little if any interest in anyone that does not drive a Bentley and that includes me. I would not trust them to take out the garbage.
That is my problem with the GOP and why I stick with the Dems even though I have my issues with them as well.I don't know about that ax - the percentage of govt. spending that goes into charity needs something more than a paring knife.
Day care might cost more than increasing the allowances, yes. So? So instead of a short term rise in cost leading to a long term cut as those women go off of welfare, we just stick more money out there? That's the gripe from me all right - it's always just more money, never less. We've crossed any reasonable limit on govt. charity and it is long past time to reign it in but nowhere is there a Democrat daring to suggest that the country needs less charity, not an expanding, endless supply of choke chains to enslave the people to government.
But you won't look at cutting back on that dependency. You won't do anything but spend more and more, making more and more forever dependent, and all because you don't want anyone hurt. Well, the very programs you are expanding are hurting people, and you even recognize that! But you still won't support any cuts at all, will you? Just go on and one, blaming the GOP for all the evils while the liberals grind millions of people into poverty in the name of "helping".
That's a major problem to me, and why I stick with the GOP even thought I have nearly as many issues with them. The liberals are actively causing massive problems both socially and financially and refuse to make any changes except to expand the very programs that are causing the damage! All while they call themselves "progressive"!
Oh dear me. The kool-aid is strong in you. Let's break it down a bit in no particular order.
1. -Protect the environment (and not refuse to believe in climate change)
Not exactly. It's believe only the scientists that come to the conclusions which we support. The bulk of scientific research clearly shows that the Earth's warming has slowed significantly over the last 15 years even though the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere have increased. The left's answer? "clearly there are elements of climate change we do not yet understand" lol
2. -Eliminate racism and sexism
Not exactly. They ignore what doesn't help them politically and use what they believe will. Trayvon Martin case in point. The President was quick to speak out about this case, likening Trayvon to his own son if he had one, before he even knew any facts at all. This created a race issue around a case that was not even about race as the alledged racial slurs that NBC offered were quickly proven false (yet oddly, didn't hear too much about them being proven false did you?) They promote discourse among the races at every chance they get because they believe it keeps them viable from a political stand point. If minorities were to come to the conclusion that racism is not the rampant issue that Democrats make it out to be, they might not be so inclined to vote Democrat would they?
As for sexism, they passed a law that forces men and menopausal women to pay for birth control and maternity care. Really? We don't just have to respect a women's reproductive rights but we are supposed to pay for them too? Nope. Sorry. Personal responsibility is sorely lacking here.
3.Social tolerance for people of all backgrounds and religions (or lack thereof) No. It's pretty evident they have no tolerance for Christianity in any regard at all. It's also pretty clear from the rhetoric of the President that you are evil if you are successful. You are the very core of everything bad in our country because you had the nerve to be successful. Just listen to a speech or two back from the 2012 campaign.
4.-Equality for LGBT people and gay marriage. I have no issue with the current bill which prevents discrimination in the work place. I have no issue with gay marriage as long as it is not used to then discriminate against those whose belief system (whether you agree with it or not) says otherwise, i.e. forcing churches to perform gay marriages, such as the current case where a photographer refused to take on a client based on her beliefs. She is now being sued. I don't have to agree with her stance to disagree that she should be persecuted for it.
5. -Assure women's reproductive rights
I support women's reproductive rights. Most do. They just don't support her being able to kill her chid for no other reason than it's inconvenient. You should watch a partial birth abortion, check out the case in PA of the doctor performing late term abortions and then killing the babies born alive. There is no right on earth to justify that. Nothing. The odd thing is, if someone else were to take the life of a woman's unborn child, they will be prosecuted for murder. So now the child only has value if their mother happens to want them. Abortion should not be allowed as birth control. There is no reason in this day and age that you 1. do not understand how babies are made, 2. do not have access to birth control (it is offered free at every public clinic and a whole lot of high schools even). Rape, incest, these are the two instances that I can understand there being an exception. Other than that you are simply talking, once again, a complete lack of any personal responsibility at all. When the mothers' life is in danger is another exception that I believe should be allowed.
6. Advance and fund the sciences
Really? You think the Democratic Party does that? Prove that one to me. For my part, I will leave you with a study that showed that conservatives actually know more about the sciences than their liberal counterparts.
All sources listed below:
sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … celebrate/
I gave you the liberal spin on it (from blaming the oceans to actually taking credit for it, they're all over the map about it) but can't prove anything.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … nity-care/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court- … y-couples/
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/ju … t-gosnell/
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2013/09 … errorists/
I could go on all day with youtube videos that prove just how intolerant the so-called tolerant Democrats & progressives actually are.
Bottom line is this: The plaque is a lie. Plain & simple. A lie. If it was the other way around, liberals would be lined up the block around this University demanding it be removed and fixed. Yet, the liberal element claims it is "mistake" and "not what they meant" much the same as they have done with the President's outright lie about keeping insurance.Uh oh. As soon as you insinuate that "women's reproductive rights" do not include the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy you've crossed the line. Everybody knows that is a basic right, granted by the god that designed the female body, and everyone else has to cough up the cost of birth control for that specific entertainment.
You're in trouble now!Has human biology changed since I left school?
In those days it took a man and a woman to make a woman pregnant. Since when have women been able to do it unaided?Don't think it's changed - I'm old but not that old.
But what does that have to do with women (and only women) having a innate right to force anyone else to purchase birth control for their sexual activities?There you go again!
"what does that have to do with women (and only women) "
Don't men have anything to do with it?Sure! Let the man playing with her pay, not some stranger across the country. They have no stake in personal entertainment pleasures and no reason to pay for them.
Yes I know and to think, I even left out the entire "everyone is too stupid to know what's best for them so the Government should take care of them" argument.
You can take almost any religious stance, replace the word "God" with "Government" and it then becomes a liberal argument.Hmm. I had never thought about the God/government thing, but you're right! Kind of says something about liberals not wanting to control our lives, doesn't it?
@John
Certanly it takes a man & a woman. What's your point? A man should provide the birth control he can, a woman should provide what she can. A woman has a menstrual cycle, part of her reproductive process, are we going to make men pay for tampons too?
That doesn't even address the men/women who are over 50 and will never, ever need either now being forced to pay for it. A second time I might add since they paid to have it when they needed it.As far as I'm aware menstruation rarely if ever has life changing consequences and never involves society in bringing up a child that its parent can not afford.
And why on earth should men over 50 not be prepared to contribute? We can still do it you know and with full effect.Blackmail is seldom a viable reason to pay someone for anything...
You see a society where everybody cooperates and helps the weaker members of that society as blackmail!
You have a funny definition of "help" I "help" my little grandkids by teaching them, by playing with them, by buying them gifts.
What you actually mean is that we should buy the gift of birth control for all pre-menopausal women because...because...because they're too stupid to do it themselves? Because they're too cheap to pay the few $$ per month needed to support their entertainment? Because they don't like the proper functioning of their bodies and want it changed?
Why would we buy gifts of recreational drugs for women? 'Cause they surely do NOT have an innate right to those gifts!Who's talking about an innate right?
I'm talking about not overburdening society with children who aren't properly prepared for.Well, that's what I said earlier that you took umbrage to: blackmail. Either fix me so I can play without producing babies or I will produce babies for you to take care of.
Stupid enough to think that a few minutes of fun is worth their figurative life down the road. Rather live a life of poverty than wait until they can gather $2 for a condom.
Anyway, back to topic Abraham Lincoln was a supporter of democracy.But not of the nanny state. He didn't like people being told how to live, what decisions they were allowed to make.
And just that both sides of that conflict had no problem gathering volunteer soldiers should say something about peoples willingness to make their own calls. Right up to dying, they were competent to make their own decisions.
You know, democracy depends on people making their own choices; where the liberals get off figuring they need to take those choices away I don't get.I know that in the USA I'm considered to be a liberal but I recognise nothing in myself in your description of a liberal.
In my country it is the right wing that insists on removing choice.Actually, both do here. Conservatives (far right) from insisting that everyone follow their religion, liberals (not nearly so far from center) from insisting that no one else is competent to make any decisions. Things like soft drink size, automobile seat belts, motorcycle helmets, what you send in your kid's lunch box etc. must all be decided by govt. instead of the person involved.
But the liberals then go on and decide that their brand of morality includes playing Robin Hood far beyond anything reasonable, sucking in huge numbers of people into their own peculiar form of slavery. The conservatives want nearly as much money, but for the most part spend it on the country, not individuals.I've always worn a seat belt, even when it wasn't required by law. The alternative both for me and my family just doesn't bear thinking about.
Certainly your choice, and a smart one. But a choice - here there is none as the liberals decided we were all too stupid to decide for ourselves.
In the UK seat belt law was instituted at the behest of the Automobile Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
Oh, and the law was finally passed by the government of that renowned liberal Margaret Thatcher!So you don't have a choice; the great liberal mind always knows best, even across the pond I guess.
Well, keep a stiff upper lip about it (is that the correct Brit thing to say?) and maybe one day you'll grow up enough to think for yourself.Sheesh, are you confused! Thatcher wasn't a liberal by anybodies definition.
But the AA and the RSPA are both liberal (you can tell because they have all the answers that ordinary people are too stupid to understand). Thatcher always seemed like a nice lady; presumably she had to knuckle under to a large majority and approve it. Probably would have been assassinated had she not gone along; the typical liberal isn't too concerned about long term affects of their nefarious plans.
Neither the AA nor ROSPA are at all liberal and Thatcher never had a large majority, in fact she never had a majority at all, every election there were more people who voted against her than for her.
Well, there's nothing religious or Godly about seat belts; the only other reason to require them is that the AA thinks they know better than the driver how they should behave and what they should wear. That makes them liberal by definition. See how easy that is?
Must be a really smart woman, to always get her way even when the votes go against her. We capitalists do that arguing with our sla...uh...employees, but that's different.
And breast enlargement, botox injections, face lift, hair coloring and all the other things women choose to do to change their body into what it wasn't.
@John
Isn't that why they do paternity tests? To make sure the man contributes?
I see though, that you've failed to address all the women over 50.
"cannot afford" Again, where is personal responsibility?
It reminds of a tale of woe a liberal blogger put out during the shut down. A story of government program that was not getting funding. Two women, two very different cases. One a 16 yr old teen mother getting money to pay for child care while she attended high school so she did not have to drop out. Great! Good program!
The second, a married couple and parents of four, where neither one worked who weren't getting their rent for free anymore, who had just had their FOURTH CHILD! Now it becomes, say what?!
The Government has turned children into paychecks.@John
You saying women are weaker and unable to make proper decisions nor have the intelligence or means to then deal responsibly with the consequences if they do make a poor decision? Is that what you're saying?No. In fact I am saying just the opposite. Many men do not deal responsibly with matters of sex.
The Republican party has a great record in several of these areas. Let's look at environmentalism.
Who started over 154 national forests and our national wildlife refuge system? He was a republican. . .Teddy Roosevelt
Who started the EPA? He was a Republican . . .Richard Nixon
Who pushed for and signed the Clean Air Act? He was a Republican. . .Richard Nixon
Who started the vehicle fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards? He was a Republican . . .Gerald Ford
Who pushed for and signed what is often considered the single most important environmental agreement in history, the Montreal Protocol? It was a Republican . . .Ronald Reagan
Please, Republicans have a great record when it comes to environmentalism. Liberals have portrayed Republicans as not being sympathetic to environmental concerns, but the truth is quite different and provable.Impossible, those guys must have been Democrats. Regardless you won't be hearing about any of that from today's liberal high school professors.
Kind of makes me wonder if they still hold classroom viewings of the long time debunked Gore flick "an inconvenient truth".Er! Roosevelt a republican! Surely some mistake.
Theodore Roosevelt served as US President from 1901-1909 as a Republican. In 1912 he bolted the party and ran as a "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" candidate.
On the other hand, Franklin D Roosevelt was a dominant leader of the Democratic party. FDR was the exception the proves the rule; a high quality democrat that cared for and worked for his country.
Is that why the GOP is pushing so hard to get rid of the EPA right now?
And Teddy Roosevelt would be considered closer to Obama than to Reagan.
And Reagan wasn't a good president....
Neither was Nixon....
Ford was a great guy....he was even featured on The Simpsons....if Homer Simpson likes him, I like him too.The vast majority of Americans disagree with you about Reagan. He's one of the most popular of all time. Still, the topic was environmentalism not whether or not these people were good presidents. The Montreal Protocol was crucial to environmentalism.
Green Peace and the Sierra Club rate Nixon as one of the best environmental presidents, and that's what the topic was about, the environment.
Whether or not you want to call T. Roosevelt a liberal is beside the point. One could argue that this is historical revision. The bottom line is that he was a Republican.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Republicans now days have little to do with what a Republican was 30 years ago or more.I'll agree with that, but what the GOP stood for 30 years ago doesn't change what they have become today.
And I know Reagan is a God to some, but Iran-Contra was used by Cheney to give legitimacy for the second Gulf War......is that really a legacy worth celebrating?
As for Roosevelt, he wanted many of the same things that Obama wanted. Not sure how that's revisionist to say he was closer to Obama than to Reagan...unless that means Obama isn't really a socialist?That part of Reagan's legacy is certainly not a highlight, but so much of his legacy is, in fact, worth celebrating. I certainly don't think the man was perfect; nobody is perfect.
IMHO, I'll still take the Republicans, within the past thirty years, over the Democrats.
Just about everybody wants a lot of the things President Obama wants. Who wouldn't want better health care opportunities for Americans? That doesn't make T. Roosevelt a Democrat.
Do any of these Teddy Roosevelt quotes sound liberal?
A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws.
Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace.
The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead.
Teddy Roosevelt sure sounds like a Republican.
Rolls Royce, Private Jets - that sounds like American actors. Isn't Hollywood a leftist redoubt?
So I am imagining things when I see the GOP consistently ally themselves with big money and big business to the detriment of every other consideration. Is there a reason for that? Hollywood is just a small portion of the total wealth and influence, but infinitesimal relative to the big picture. The rightwinger uses 'Hollywood" to just get attention, but it is quite unwarranted.
Do you look for and find the democratic politicians doing the same thing? If not, then yes, you are imagining that it is only the GOP.
Not to the same extent, is there a reason why working class and poorer people vote democratic besides all the conservative's accusations of their getting free money?
Besides the free money they get? No, there is no perceptible reason for the poor to vote democratic.
Business, yes - the liberals will pay them for goods and services to the poor, but not the poor. But isn't a lifetime of free money enough reason to vote liberal?
The working class, now, has no reason to vote democratic at all. They support themselves, they (for the most part) care about their country and don't wish it to deteriorate and fall apart to satisfy some utopian liberal dream of equal wealth for everyone.BTW, Wilderness, it is Panama the country and not the city in Florida. So, what do the conservatives offer the working class, except more exemptions for the wealthy? From the black perspective that is what we see as the burning question. How do you do it better, rather than be a source of more foreboding? Pandering to the wealthy is unpopular among disaffected groups.
There is a timeless war between the have verses and have not, the system has to make it possible for the survival of both sides. I do not want to see the movers and shakers milked out of their incentives to do what they do. But unions, minimum wages protect the workers. I was appalled to hear that there a understanding among conservatives that a minimum wage is a bad thing when 90 percent of the world's nations have such provision. What is it that they know that conservative ideology here in America does not? Are we so exceptional that we can ignore the experience of so many other societies? Enjoying your Sunday?
"Except for the fact that Democrats have always been in favor of special interest groups." Congress has been in favor of special interest for years. Pointing to one culprit in charge of the votes for sale plague that pervades either party is like choosing one convict in jail as the reason why the others are in there with him. Neither party has the answers to our problems because they are all on the take whether for personal or corporate gains. Get real and don't rewrite what the slime on the hill are up to and point to one group of slime bags as better than the other.
Not vastly different. Lincoln's opinions on personal conduct and private property clearly deny Democrats and lefties ( as if there is a difference) any claim to anything of Lincoln's.
There is a world of difference between democrats and lefties.
Yes the lefties in America have much farther to go to amount to the level of societal decay that the lefties abroad have achieved.
Not so much, J Holden. In the US, Lefties congregate in the Democrat Party, which also houses its fair share of liberals.
No, in the US lefties congregate in the SDUSA. Liberals are not left wingers.
Sure they are. Both liberals and socialists are left wingers.
And any other scurrilous names we can think up.
The SDUSA is virtually gone. Shut down in 2005. A dream that failed. Now, it's nothing more than a little ragtag group that tried to pick up the pieces but never gained momentum.
Perhaps it's because you don't live in the US that hold such errant views?
Leftists and liberals both congregate in the Democrat Party today. And of course, I know there is a difference, I separated the two in my former post, after all. But, they do overlap in their political ideology.The fact that lefties congregate in the Democratic party does not indicate that the Democrat party is leftist, just that they are seen as the lesser of two evils.
Or the greater, I suppose it depends on your perspective, and contact with reality.
No, Mr. Holden, it does not indicate that the *entire* democrat party is leftist, but the far-Left fringe of the party is. And it's a very vocal fringe, although most Americans reject their thinking.
My lady calls me Mr Holden as she is about to do the sort of thing that I could not possibly mention here.
Vote conservative? Don't worry, that's a good thing.
An ever growing number, just wait until the Obamacare really kicks in.
The body of lefties populating the democrat party is greater in scope and depth of authority within that party than it has ever been.
True. If it were not so, Martin Bashir would be out of a job.
Martin Bashir would find it hard to ever be employed again, if the values espoused by feminists were anything but an absolute lie.
A plaque on a building at an institution of higher learning, this is not an accident.
It would have looked a little stupid to have the whole sign in upper-case apart from democrat wouldn't it?
I would assume that many people of different political persuasions are democrats, but not necessarily Democrats.
Just as many left wingers may be conservative, but not Conservative.Oh please stop.
It's such a pathetic attempt to condone that which should not be condoned and everyone here knows that if it was the other way around the liberals would not stop crying about it
There would be organized protests, MSNBC would be blaring the news about it. Somehow it would be construed as racist, no matter how they had to spin it.
The very fact that anyone would condone it is hypocrisy at its worst.Stop what?
Pointing out that Lincoln supported democracy?
The very fact that anyone would deny that is hypocrisy at its worst.Stop defending it and admit that if it said republican for say, FDR, even though the word can be used in the same manner, there would be an overwhelming outcry from the left.
No one is denying Lincoln supported democracy, haven't heard anyone say that. It is you twisting the usual and common meaning of the word to support keeping the plaque as it stands.
I'd like to know when is the last time you used the word democrat to mean a supporter of democracy (other than in this instance) and not meant a member of said political party.We don't use language in the same way that we did 100 + years ago do we?
Would you suggest rewriting Shakespeare because we don't talk like that any more?By definition all US citizens are republicans - even those opposed to republicanism.
Yes but you are avoiding the pertinent question now aren't you?
That if it was a plaque that claimed FDR as a republican, there would be a never ending outcry from the left.
Diversionary tactics. The best liberals have to offer.Diversionary tactics! Like trying to claim that Lincoln wasn't a supporter of democracy!
Once again, no one has said that at all, yet you keep on going there like it has some bearing on the conversation.
Once again avoiding the question put to you in a direct manner.
That is the definition of diversionary tactics.
And to be clear, people have indeed re-written Shakespeare into more modern English.
Do you deny that the plaque is now misleading at best and proporting a lie at worst?
Do you deny that if it was FDR claimed as a republican that there would be a never ending outcry from the left until it was changed?Do you deny that Lincoln was a supporter of democracy?
What American president wasn't a supporter of democracy? That point is pointless. This plaque is supposed to show how Lincoln was different, special. Stating the obvious is a waste of time.
I don't follow you here. Why would anybody who wanted to be elected in America state that they were against democracy? I must really be misinterpreting your question. Sorry.
Okay, that's kind of funny. . .
(No sarcasm is intended.)
What were you asking then?Whether Beth denied that Lincoln supported democracy.
No sarcasm read into your comment.Wait a minute... I didn't realize I had anything to do with your conversation. I was just making a joke that instead of everyone being up in arms that someone called him a democrat, maybe a democrat had simply signed the plaque simply as Democrat. It wasn't even slightly a political comment. Just an absurd thought that made me laugh.
Sorry Beth, I maligned you. My only excuse is that it is late.
I of course meant sassysue. In future I must check rather than rely on my doubtful memory.Oh good. I am easily confused, I'd hate to think everyone didn't find my jokes as hilarious as I did. lol
It was probably appreciation of your joke that fixed your name in my mind
John, I've already stated, over and over and over that no one is denying Lincoln supported democracy.
Considering they take an oath to do so, I would think that every President is a supporter of democracy. Wouldn't you?
Now, how about you answer the questions put to you instead of dodging them because you don't like the answers.
Edit: And just for truth's sake, no one can say that was the intention of the plaque at all at its dedication. It was dedicated in 1905 when the Democratic Party was active. One cannot say with certainty that the motives were not revisionist.Lincoln did not support the right of blacks to vote and he did not think they should marry whites. How does that figure into your "democracy" theory?
He thought they shouldn't be owned, which was the first step. We had a very long ways to go.
You are absolutely right, which is why he supported a constitutional republic. Hence he was a Republican who supported a constitution and a declaration of independence that despite the popular oppinion (which is what the Democratic process is based on) these founding documents guaranteed the right that all men are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence making him a Republican.
I have known he was a Republican for as long as I can remember... You don't have to convince me. Stuff like this just doesn't upset me as much as it does others. He was what he was and no one can change that.
Sure they can change it, they do it all the time. Ask any college student which political party started the KKK,
You can change the story, but you can't change the truth. I understand if you feel the need to sweat it.
Believing that the right to vote includes the ability to vote intelligently (something that an ex-slave or someone without any knowledge of politics or business is plainly unable to do) has nothing to do with believing in democracy. While I don't know that was Lincolns reasoning, it seems it was popular in our History. Demonstrate your ability to vote intelligently and you can do so.
And blacks marrying whites has even less to do with being democratic.
The plaque may be misleading to those with only a passing understanding of the English language or with mischief on their minds.
It is perfectly clear to me that though Lincoln was a Republican he was also a supporter of democracy, a fact that should be understandable by anybody with even the briefest acquaintance with US politics.
I do not deny that some on the left do not have any better understanding than those on the right.A passing understanding of English? lmao
C'mon now, you know better than that. High School courses are not going to make anyone an expert on politics, history or anything else so unless someone pursues a higher degree within that realm, the plaque is beyond misleading.
Then, there is the following video:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/19/neith … epublican/
The point is the very denial that the plaque is misleading is what is wrong with politics. It's very simple really.
Yes, the plaque is misleading in today's society and use of the word democrat. We do not believe that it was the intent at the time to present false information nor mislead anyone however, we are placing a plaque beneath it which shows Lincoln's years serving as President and denotes his political party to avoid confusion.
Wouldn't be that difficult would it? Admits no sinister motive. Takes into account the other POV. Rectifies the situation to keep everyone content. But, they can't do that can they? Makes me ask why the university is so dead set to keep that misleading information there without clarification.Funny thing, the intentions of the word "Democrat" written on the plaque are loud and clear to everyone in the room except for you. Moral relativism at its finest.
Here's another quote for you to twist; "If you like your health plan you can keep it, period!"Oh! If I like my health plan I'm a period! OK.
That is absolutely correct, in so far as Americans all reside in a republic and participate in a republican system. We do not reside in a democracy and the idea of a democratic system has become muddled and indecipherable over time. Voting for representatives with the representative receiving the majority of votes is republican but is it, in the clearest sense, democratic? I think this is where the confusion emerges, some what intentionally.
You meant USA citizens do not hold ultimate authority and power?
And what of the Democratic-Republican party of the USA?"You meant USA citizens do not hold ultimate authority and power?"
At this time any answer is questionable. Within 20 years the answer will be a resounding "NO" if things don't change radically. The professional politicians we "elect" are getting too powerful to imagine that we hold ultimate power.One would think so but political power is dispersed and it is easy to gather up sufficient support when one hands out the "goodies" seized from others.
But isn't the fact that political power is dispersed at the very foundation of democracy?
And democracy is good, how? Mere majority rule is a quick road to tyranny.
Yes, much better to have a dictator, that never leads to tyranny.
Nice leap, I wonder who was endorsing dictatorship?
Well you seem not to like democracy, what's your alternative then?
Democracy that is merely majority rule is more cruel and more dangerous than rule by dictate. Dictates have limits, dictators have limits in that they grow tired or they grow fearful. The cupidity of the dictator can be sated because his ultimate fear is rebellion, but what majority fears a rebellion? When four wolves and a sheep vote on the lunch menu, who fears the will of the sheep? It is this democracy that I find objectionable.
What! Democracy more cruel than Mugabe, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and Saddam Hussein for example?
Thanks but I'll stick with democracy and hope we never give the vote to wolves or sheep.Robert Mugabe has received numerous mandates and Saddam Hussein won an over whelming victory in every election. Evidently analogies are wasted.
It would help if you actually used an analogy.
My apologies, it appears that metaphors are as wasted as Barrack Obama in his teens. Perhaps the wolves being analogous to the majority and the sheep analogous to the minority in a purely democratic system was too much to handle.
(by the way, similes are rather handy, as well)I suggest that you check up on the definitions of analogy, metaphor and simile.
But my point still stands, rather a democracy than the likes of Mugabe, Hussein etc.There are few things more enjoyable than word play. The snob and the purist blanch at the mixed metaphor, I revel in it.
Then you should not do it so subtly that nobody notices what you are attempting.
I've yet to see you attempt a mixed metaphor.
You're correct in your assessment. True democracy is nothing short of mob rule. We have a lot of pie-in-the-sky personalities here that do not understand the dangers. A ruthless dictator can be overthrown. It's much harder to overthrow a ruthless majority.
That suggests that you think one man can know better what is best for most people than most people can!
A majority are rarely ruthless and never as ruthless as a dictator.
Name me one democratic majority that has killed millions of its own people to win and maintain power.The complicity of the populous is always necessary for the tyrant to slaughter millions. Who provides the power and authority for the State to gather and slaughter millions. When the whole of a people do not support the decisions of the tyrant to whom can he turn to continue his slaughter. What tyrant can actually starve the whole body of his people without consequence? No, instead, he creates an internal enemy, focuses the attention of the people on their security. justice, equality, prosperity, etc... and exploits their animosity to exterminate the internal enemy.
Time and again it is the people who ultimately support the brutality of the tyrant, an individual or a party, because it was necessary. Jews were slaughtered in Europe, many times through its history, because they posed a threat to the status quo, be it religious, ethnic, economic, racial or cultural. The Kulaks were starved because it was necessary. History is replete with examples of the body of a people, tacitly or actively, supporting the brutal tyrant. Again, the ignored point, Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, both, routinely enjoyed the political support of their people.
As for one person, or a party, making better decisions than the crowd of individuals making their own decisions and from those a reasoned order emerging, aren't you siding with Adam Smith? Isn't the entire notion of the State running the economy merely siding with the notion that an elite, or an individual, is more capable than the entire body of individuals. Isn't the whole idea of central planning and centralized authority - hallmarks of the leftist state - antithetical to the idea of the individual making decisions in concert with all other individuals and producing a reasonable order?
One must certainly choose to live in a society in which the caprice of the majority is contained and tempered by a legal order that provides stability and continuity, respects the minority and protects the natural rights of its member from the very same caprice of the majority. Or live with a tyranny compelled by the majority vote or majority complicity. Again, it is the lost analogy of the wolves and the sheep or, more viscerally, 5 men and 4 women voting on what constitutes sexual consent.Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe both routinely slaughtered their political opponents.
Central planning and centralised authority are not hallmarks of the left, rather they are hallmarks of the right.
Your sheep/wolf analogy doesn't work, there are far more sheep than wolves.
And as for 5 men and four women voting on what constitutes sexual consent, that assumes that all men will agree on what constitutes sexual consent, and all women will agree on the same. It also assumes that their ideas will be different..
What makes you think that a single man would make a better decision than many women on what constitutes sexual consent?
Look at countries without democracy and how they treat women - you've been raped? Then we'll stone you to death.
Why do you think if a nation does not choose a pure democracy it will end up with a dictatorship? I can't follow that line of thinking. People misuse the word, "democracy," but as noted - true democracy is mob rule.
The US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic based on federalism. More than once we've had a candidate receive the majority of the votes, yet the other candidate wins. Our electoral college plays a vital role in tempering mob rule.
When there are a majority of citizens that want others to live via their beliefs (modern day Egypt for example) a democracy can be deadly. More deadly than a dictator, because the majority makes the rules and the minority cannot stop them.
I'm not sure where you studied Civics, but I'd suggest that it might behoove you to crack one of the old political theory books and take a peek-see.
retief said "And democracy is good, how? Mere majority rule is a quick road to tyranny." No mention of pure democracy (whatever that may be). Just democracy versus one man rule.
Again, we seem to be up against Americans using the English language differently from the rest of the English speaking world. We all accept the USA as a democratic republic, except for you Americans!
Democracy is not perfect, as Churchill said it is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried.
We often get leaders elected with a minority vote, but at least we can vote for who we choose. There'll be no knock at the door if we vote for the wrong person.
I wish you could tell all those who have died at the hands of dictators for opposing them that their form of government is better than ours. A tyrannical dictator is unstoppable by the majority.
I suggest you put your books aside and take a look at the real world."The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
Are you sure you want to look to Churchill for inspiration?
Let's remember that the Fascists in Germany and Italy were produced by democratic systems.I don't look to Churchill, or any other right wing icon for inspiration. I will however quote anybody who makes a salient point.
Ah, convenience and flexibility, how political of you.
J Holden said. "Again, we seem to be up against Americans using the English language differently from the rest of the English speaking world. We all accept the USA as a democratic republic, except for you Americans!"
What "the rest of the English-speaking world" does or does not accept (terminology-wise)," isn't relevant. Only the facts are relevant here. You can easily find out what a pure democracy is with a little initiave.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pure+democracy
The bottom line is that your comment suggesting that a majority is more benign than a tyrant - is false and shows a lack of historical knowledge. Churchill blurted out something, that, in retrospect, hopefully, he retracted.
You seem to be suggesting that because most of the "English speaking world" accepts a dumbed-down definition of a term - we should all accept it.
No one is denying that some dictators are ruthless, what we're trying to explain to you is that a ruthless mob is much more dangerous than a ruthless individual. It's much harder to stop. Again - I will point to modern day Egypt. Democracy there - was more dangerous than the despot that ruled previously. That's today's world, but it reflects what has historically occurred in other civilizations as well.I know what a pure democracy is. You failed to answer my question as to where such a beast may be found.
If you wish to speak a different language from the rest of the world, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to understand you.
Well, that's a bit confusing, John, since you said, "No mention of pure democracy (whatever that may be). " And, you didn't really ask "where such a beast could be found" until just now.
It's difficult to have a conversation with you because you refuse to recognize political theory - when you're trying to argue political theory. What you're attributing to "the rest of the world" is an uninformed opinion.
If a thousand people do not understand a topic, that only makes the few who DO understand it that much more vital.
To answer your question, there is no pure democracy or true democracy in the world today, and there is a good reason for that. Retief2000 already explained that in detail to you. We just had the discussion about mob rule being more dangerous than a single dictator, You argued against the historical logic that explains how it's easier to launch a coup and overthrow a tyrannical despot than it is to overthrow the majority of the citizens.
In Salem, MA in the 1600's pure democracy was in effect. The religious zealots far outnumbered those accused of heresy and witchcraft. And so, of course, the zealots, through pure democracy (mob rule) established laws that unfairly targeted a minority of citizens and burned them at stakes. That's a small example of an historical pure democracy. Pure democracies typically rise during the initial formation of communities, but because they are so detrimental to so many, they are usually replaced before long with either a dictatorship or a representational government.
Defending the wrong use of the term isn't a winning strategy. Surely you know that. Btw, I can't "reply" to your messages, so I have to reply to a message farther up the board.So anybody who disagrees with you does not have a different view point to you, they do not understand the topic!
Having a different opinion is great. The world is build on diverse opinions. But, basing an argument on a false understanding of a subject is a completely different thing.
Your argument is like the child who thinks a new moon comes up every night and he doesn't understand the concept of moon revolving around the earth. He can tell his folks that a new moon rises every night. But, does saying that make him correct?
It's just pointless to discuss a subject with someone who, 1) doesn't understand the facts and, 2) stubbornly refuses to educate himself so we can all have a real debate.
Call it "an opinion" if you like, but it's more a practice of trying to nail Jello to a tree.Oh well, excuse me for a few years whilst I go away and find myself an education like yours.
BTW it must be awfully frustrating for you living in a democracy when you could be living under a dictator like Mugabe.
I live in a constitutional republic, based on federalism, John. But keep telling yourself a new moon rises every night.
I'm quite happy with my government because it eliminates the possibility of mob rule.
Mugabe? Honestly? You had to choose the worst possible example of a dictator? Why didn't you choose Raul Castro?
What do you think about the once-duly-elected Morsi who is now on trial?
You pick and choose and make a practice of splitting hairs. I just want to have an intelligent discussion. Why would it take you a "few years" to look up the meaning of a few political terms???
Have a good day, Mr Holden. We will just have to agree that we approach discussions differently. I'm sure you're a nice and a good person, so it really doesn't matter. Does it?OK, I'll bow to your superior knowledge and accept that you do not live in a democratic republic - but perhaps you can answer me one question.
Assuming that you are fairly typical of Americans, can you explain to me why, if "you" have such a strong distaste for democracy, do you charge about all over the world deposing dictators and imposing democracy?
They're not actually adopting pure democracies, which is what I was trying to point out to you. But even in representational, democracy-type govt.s they run the risk of mob rule. Again - I point you to Egypt where the majority elected a religious zealot that immediately began taking away the rights of those who had different faiths and women (in particular).
Elections are only as good as the Constitution that backs them up. Here in the US, we have an incredible Constitution that does not allow a voting majority to take away the rights of minorities. Egypt did not have that.
And, the whole world isn't deposing dictators - Egypt did - and regretted it. Libya did (with help) and is now in a turmoil, destabilized and experiencing increased terrorism. Extremists in Syria tried, and the US President tried to help them, but was shot down by the Russian President. And we should probably all be thankful for that, since the Syrian rebels are (collectively) no better than the extremists that rose (for a very short time) in Egypt.
Not everybody or every culture is ready to vote for their own form of government. I think that's what you're missing.
Here, by the way, is a quick explanation of what a democratic republic is - and the nations that have that type of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republicAnd I have never claimed that any democracy was a pure democracy or that a pure democracy was in anyway desirable.
Well, good then. We agree on something. I always prefer to leave a debate with a modicum of agreement.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Maybe it was just signed by a democrat... like:
I like chocolate. Beth.You aren't planning on torturing the politicos now, are you Beth?
A plaque on both your houses! Or just one.Why can't my posts all be witty and charming like yours? lol
It's my day off... It's this or folding socks. I have a lot of socks to fold.
Related Discussions
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 13 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 26
Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?
by Charles James 13 months ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
- 16
Have Liberals and Conservatives Changed Since The 1960s
by Sharlee 2 years ago
8 Core Principles of ConservatismIndividual FreedomLimited GovernmentThe Rule of Law. Peace through StrengthFiscal ResponsibilityFree Markets.Human DignityConservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.Conservatives support the...
- 80
Democrats who think for themselves are punished by other Democrats
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
Two Democratic reps under attack by their own party after praising President Trump“If only it were a joke or somehow funny, but it’s not. If you even mention President Trump in a positive manner while serving as a Democrat politician, prepare to be walked off the proverbial pirate ship’s plank and...
- 20
Why Do A Majority Of Black American's Vote Democratic?
by Sharlee 4 days ago
The historical bond between the Democratic Party and the Black community in the United States is rich and complex, marked by pivotal moments and initiatives, particularly in the 1960s, that underscore Democrats' support for Black citizens. In this brief overview, I will present a condensed timeline...