-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Ann Coulter on Guns & Race
- Thread starter Woodstock
- Start date
For the record back in the day today's republicans were called democrats and vice versa. Just a name change. The demographics were the same.
Coulter knows this but it wouldn't help her make her point. She's a liar but her thesis statement in this article is aligned with my beliefs on the stand your ground law: arm everyone and we'll have less crime.
Coulter knows this but it wouldn't help her make her point. She's a liar but her thesis statement in this article is aligned with my beliefs on the stand your ground law: arm everyone and we'll have less crime.
The "real" history of the democratic party:
In 1790, the political party known as the Democratic-Republicans formed based on a platform of Limited Government, States Rights, Strict Adherence to the Constitution and personal liberty. They obtained power in 1800. Andrew Jackson was the first Democratic-Republican president. They basically shared power with the Whigs (another political party) until the civil war.
IN 1850, a schism formed in the Democratic-Republican party over how to treat slaves and fugitive slaves and former slaves under the law. This schism ended with anti-slavery Democratic-Republicans splitting off to form the Republican party and the remaining party becomeing the Democratic party. The Democratic party generally represented rural agrarian South and West while the Republican party represented business/industrial North East.
It wasn't until the early 20th century that they shifted their platform to poor, minority and urban intrests. They gained power following the great depression, which occured under Republican rule, and paved the way for 60 years of primarily democratic rule of congress from 1936 - 1995.
But that information wouldn't serve Ann's political agenda, so why bother clouding a partician point with the truth?
In 1790, the political party known as the Democratic-Republicans formed based on a platform of Limited Government, States Rights, Strict Adherence to the Constitution and personal liberty. They obtained power in 1800. Andrew Jackson was the first Democratic-Republican president. They basically shared power with the Whigs (another political party) until the civil war.
IN 1850, a schism formed in the Democratic-Republican party over how to treat slaves and fugitive slaves and former slaves under the law. This schism ended with anti-slavery Democratic-Republicans splitting off to form the Republican party and the remaining party becomeing the Democratic party. The Democratic party generally represented rural agrarian South and West while the Republican party represented business/industrial North East.
It wasn't until the early 20th century that they shifted their platform to poor, minority and urban intrests. They gained power following the great depression, which occured under Republican rule, and paved the way for 60 years of primarily democratic rule of congress from 1936 - 1995.
But that information wouldn't serve Ann's political agenda, so why bother clouding a partician point with the truth?
ShadeWPI... Are you saying that the democratic party of the 1920-1940s in the south had nothing to do with the systematic abuse of the Black population? or that they were champions civil rights?
Sorry if I read your response wrong but thats what it sounds like your saying.
Sorry if I read your response wrong but thats what it sounds like your saying.
She's correct on the one of the main assertions of the article - that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_democratic_party_associated_with_the_KKK
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...oftheDemocratParty&page_id=93&tp_preview=true
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
http://takimag.com/article/robert_byrd_democrats_and_the_kkk/#axzz1sVQyNfef
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_democratic_party_associated_with_the_KKK
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...oftheDemocratParty&page_id=93&tp_preview=true
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
http://takimag.com/article/robert_byrd_democrats_and_the_kkk/#axzz1sVQyNfef
No, not saying that at all.
Rather I was pointing out that the Democratic Party that she's refering to in her article is not the Democratic party of today. The Democratic Party in the mid 30s to 40s shifted from representing the interests of the conservative, agrarian south and west to the liberal urban north east, and her attempt to associate todays Democratic Party with the policies of of the 1850s - 1930s is pure partisian garbage.
I have no love of the modern liberal democrats, but I dislike spewing disengenuous misinformation, even when technically accurate, even more, and it's one of the things about the modern liberals that I dislike most.
Herbert Hoover was in office at the start of and during the first several years of the great depression. FDR took office in 1933, almost 4 years AFTER the great depression started. But, like Ann, you don't seem to like to let facts get in your way.
Last edited:
ShadeWPI:
Gotcha....
The fact that the liberal agenda actually works to the disadvantage of people that it is supposed to help is food for another thread. Ted Kennedy was reality challenged most of the time, but trying to put his name and the KKK in the same sentence is a little difficult.
Gotcha....
The fact that the liberal agenda actually works to the disadvantage of people that it is supposed to help is food for another thread. Ted Kennedy was reality challenged most of the time, but trying to put his name and the KKK in the same sentence is a little difficult.
And Jews. I can't for the life of me figure out Bloomberg and Schumer.
Last edited:
Shade,
So are you intentionally glossing over the birth of the trade and labor unions, the Progressive movement, the Wilson presidency and that paradigm shift in the Democrat party, focusing more on a subversive racism in the north east or did you just forget it?
So are you intentionally glossing over the birth of the trade and labor unions, the Progressive movement, the Wilson presidency and that paradigm shift in the Democrat party, focusing more on a subversive racism in the north east or did you just forget it?
Staying on topic, I am pointing out how the party did not change positions, only posture. It's methods may have changed but the goal is the same, control of the "unenlightened". The master knows best, as it were and gun control policies have been instrumental in doing so from the "Reconstruction" era south to current day D.C. and Detroit.
I was pointing to the moment time in the early twentieth century when institutional racism was born in the north, enforced through labor unions and driven by the Democrat party. These are not talking points but an important element of the strategy that led this nation farther away from its founding ideals.
