Are Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s?

  
Via:  ridiculous-daily  •  4 weeks ago  •  143 comments

Are Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s?
Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


This is, if I remember correctly, the EIGHTH time I have posted this article on Newstalkers, although not always as a seed. There , sadly, has been a relatively frequent need to post it, because there seems to be a never ending supply of republicans and conservatives who don't understand it and go off giving misinformation. It has been happening the past few days again. I won't name names, but you know who you are.  I also want to mention that I saw , I believe it was Dismayed Patriot, who either posted an excerpt from this article yesterday, or part of a very similar article containing the same information. 

-----------------------------



Are Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s?


Harry J Enten




Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act 






Wed 28 Aug 2013 09.15 EDTFirst published on Wed 28 Aug 2013 09.15 EDT








Civil-rights-protestors-a-010.jpg?width=

 Civil rights protestors are attacked with a water cannon. Photograph: Getty Images

With Republicans having trouble with minorities, some like to point out that the party has a long history of standing up for civil rights compared to Democrats. Democrats, for example, were less likely to vote for the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 1960s. Democrats were more likely to filibuster. Yet, a closer look at the voting coalitions suggests a more complicated picture that ultimately explains why Republicans are not viewed as the party of civil rights.

Let's use the 1964 Civil Rights Act as our focal point. It was arguably the most important of the many civil rights bills passed in the middle part of the 20th century. It outlawed many types of racial and sexual discrimination, including access to hotels, restaurants, and theaters. In the words of Vice President Biden, it was a big "f-ing deal".

When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:

partycivilrights.jpeg?width=300&quality=

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russellof Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

regioncivlrights.jpeg?width=300&quality=

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

bothcivilrights.jpeg?width=300&quality=8

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns, as Trende showed, had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party.

Today, the transformation is nearly complete. President Obama carried only 18% of former Confederate states, while taking 62% of non-Confederate states in 2012. Only 27% of southern senators are Democrats, while 62% of Union state senators are Democrats. And 29% of southern members in the House are Democrats compared to 54% in states or territories that were part of the Union.

Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republican

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Unless you believe that the current Democratic Party controls the political fortunes of the confederate states (and a map of Trump's electoral wins will show otherwise) it is completely illogical to say that the Democrats are the anti-black party. 

The SOUTH is what voted against the civil rights act, not the Democrats. Who is the dominant party in the South (the confederate states) today?

The political right tries to bamboozle about this issue, and it must be said that they have been able to convince some of the dimwits or the gullible among us.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

The South is home to Right Wing Conservative, Evangelical Faux Christian Republicans, a hostile angry contingency still upset about the outcome of the Civil War.

Anger turns into HATE in time.

 
 
 
WallyW
2  WallyW    4 weeks ago

From  the article in Wikipedia....

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[15] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[16]

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress......

Also....

The bill then moved to the U.S. Senate, where southern and border state Democrats staged a 75-day filibuster—among the longest in U.S. history. On one occasion, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klan member, spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.

No matter how often the left tries to wish and wash it away, the awful stain of slavery and racism will be forever woven into the fabric of the Democrat party.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2    4 weeks ago
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond(D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress.....

Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party in September of 1964, about two months after the passage of the civil rights [act.delete]

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

Joe loves his mentor.....

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

Irrelevant!

He spoke those words while a democrat.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

Wally,

And Trump has said plenty before and after... do I need to put up footage?

This is nothing more than an attack on Joe, because right now, he is the most attractive alternative. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

I made a comment which recounts that his reply was ignorant, and it was deleted. 

How do we specifically correct someone on this forum? 

Or does everything have to be bland? 

How can we get the message across that the right tries to bamboozle everyone if when we say that it is deleted? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
He spoke those words while a democrat.

Who, unable to stomach that party's strong push on civil rights and racial justice,  ran to the open arms of the Republican party.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Other than mentioning Thurmond's name this video only tells us how dishonest its provenance is.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

So you don't think there should be strict laws against crack cocaine? 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.9  CB   replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Biden was a no-nonsense kind of guy back then. One is left wondering if he has changed (mellowed) over the long-haul.  Crack cocaine was messing people up back in the day even with the black - white racial component to consider.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  WallyW @2    4 weeks ago
No matter how often the left tries to wish and wash it away, the awful stain of slavery and racism will be forever woven into the fabric of the Democrat party.

Only to those completely ignorant of US history, facts and reality. Those who do more than a cursory glance at what letter was after what politicians name at a certain time in our history easily can track the bigots and white supremacists movements throughout political parties.

Just by the recognition of why 90% of black Americans currently vote Democrat and why virtually every white supremacists, white nationalist, KKK member and wannabe Nazi currently votes Republican, should be enough to inform one as to which party has which groups interests at heart. Republicans can try to run and hide from all their white supremacists support, the endorsements from David Duke and other KKK leaders and why all of them have a special place in their hearts for the confederate flag, confederate monuments and a shared loathing of having a black President. That is the Republican party of today, the one whose President defended the Nazi's and white supremacists that had been chanting "Jews will not replace us!" by saying they were "fine people". No matter how the Republican party tries to hide it, they know they can't win any elections without the help from those disgusting piece of shit bigots, and that's something they've known since the 1960's when they began their admitted "Southern Strategy" of appealing to disaffected white supremacist Dixiecrats, the ones who also loved the confederate flag and confederate monuments, just like their descendants today who nearly all vote Republican.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @2    4 weeks ago

Of course, you avoid mentioning that Thurmond left the Dem party right after the 1964 CRA passed.  You've also conveniently disregarded the geographic distribution of the votes this seeded article describes.  Just as in 1860 and thereafter, the Democratic party was really two parties: that of the North and that of the South.  They split in 1860 (which allowed Lincoln to win) and they split again repeatedly over the issue of civil rights from the mid-twentieth century on.  Ultimately, the split resulted in full schism with mass defections from the Dem party by mostly southerners  to the Republican party and turned that once noble party of civil rights into as fierce an opponent of those rights as the segregationist Dems had been.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 weeks ago

Excellent piece (and it's the first time I've seen it) but it also very easy to see how today's Republican party is really just the reincarnation of the Dixiecrat party.  Just count up all the Dixiecrats* who fled the Democratic party after the CRAs of the 1960s were passed and found the warm embrace of the Republicans starting with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1972 and its reprise by Reagan in the 1980s and the two Bushes.  But the harbinger of that transformation was the Republican nominee for President in 1964, Barry Goldwater who had voted against the 1964 CRA.  Even Ted Cruz acknowledges and relishes the transformation.  Here he is praising the memory of Jesse Helms and wishing there were "100 more like him" in the party (warning, the video below features a person who may cause severe nausea and retching) :

*Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, John Tower come to mind but the real change came at state level politicians where the exodus was scores of former Dems switching parties and, of course, voters who followed them and put virtually all of those former segregated states under Republican control. 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3    4 weeks ago

Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, John Tower come to mind but the real change came at state level politicians where the exodus was scores of former Dems switching parties and, of course, voters who followed them and put virtually all of those former segregated states under Republican control. 

Here are a few things Ted Cruz said about Donald Trump:

Cruz: "I think in terms of a commander in chief, we ought to have someone who isn't springing out of bed to tweet in a frantic response to the latest polls. I think the American people is looking for a commander in chief who is stable and steady and a calm hand to keep this country safe."

Cruz: "We need a commander in chief, not a Twitterer-in-chief. ... I don't know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we're liable to wake up one morning, and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark."

Cruz: "Donald can't defend his own record. Whenever you point out what he's actually said, he just screams, 'liar.' He insults you. He attacks you. He makes it personal, and he gets very rattled. He doesn't like anyone pointing to his actual, substantive record. And I think that's a sign of weakness."

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @3.1    4 weeks ago

Always good to recall what a slithering, slimy coward Cruz is.  Shitbag accused his father of being involved in Kennedy's assassination and called his wife ugly and I'm fairly certain Cruz got up to the front of the line to suck Shitbag's dick (but it might have been a tie with Rubio) once Shitbag got the nomination. My cat's litter box contains more dignity and self-respect than these two and at least 2/3 of the rest of elected Republicandom.           

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

My cats litter box contains more dignity and self respect than these two (Biden and Sanders) and at least 2/3 of the rest of elected democratdom.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.3  Heartland American  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Nothing like attacking two Hispanic American GOP Senators...

 
 
 
CB
4  CB     4 weeks ago
Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. — Article.

As it stands, voting for a candidate is about how that candidate ultimately makes you feel about yourself and about the world. Republicans and conservatives apparently have this ridiculous notion that Black Americans are too stupid to be informed about how they feel about an individual candidate or party affiliation.

Insanely, republicans and conservatives (preservationists) offer nothing different time and time again and yet expect different results!

Black Americans, women, and other minority groups are keenly aware of what diversity does for them in adding to their power and influence in our society.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4    4 weeks ago

No, voting should be about the ideology of the candidates and how they measure up to the Constitution and upholding and protecting our natural rights

as to African Americans, thankfully there is a growing awareness in that community that the Democrats do not support those principles and instead promote bribery to keep them enslaved to a statist slave master instead of a plantation owner 

 
 
 
CB
4.1.1  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1    4 weeks ago

Conservatives are ones to suggest bribery is the reason Black Americans vote with the Democratic Party. BTW, conservatives going way back to the first black voters to come on the scene have been popping off consistently about why the "po" Negroes can't cope with knowing who to vote for or the power inherent in one man one vote.

As I stated above, conservatives are preservationists. The strategies and tactics used by conservatives are old, tired, and worn-out.  Yet, here you are using them again.

Now then, LFOD, you want to talk about bribery let's: NRA Gun Lobby, Pro-Life Movement Lobby, Right-wing Christian Evangelicals Lobby, Anti-gay 'lobby,' corporate lobby, and more. . . .  All packed in the conservative movement up to their eyeballs financing campaigns against liberty for people who are not politically conservative.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  CB @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
4.1.3  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1    4 weeks ago
No, voting should be about the ideology of the candidates and how they measure up to the Constitution and upholding and protecting our natural rights as to African Americans, thankfully there is a growing awareness in that community that the Democrats do not support those principles and instead promote bribery to keep them enslaved to a statist slave master instead of a plantation owne

I'll bite. In a civilized society, conservative preservationists would remain in their lane and be glad to have a a lane. Instead, conservative ideology insist on overreach.

According to preservationists, our Constitution of the United States is under their stewardship (protection) and only they know what it means. All other interpretations are null.

As to this "growing awareness" of the Black Community about who does what for diversity; it ain't the party of rudderless moral leadership in President Donald Trump. Let me tell you why: Donald Trump speaks with forked tongue! And the republican party and its conservative contingent are delighted, thrilled, overjoyed to be called the "party of Trump" all in an futile effort to sell minorities on displacing their interests for conservatism.

So LFOD throw around libertarian ideology all you can—Black Americans and other minorities would be stupid to stand opposite you catching it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  CB @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

I am enjoying the hell out of your vivisection and evisceration of LFOD.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.5  CB   replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

I have had it up to my eyeballs with some conservative political deviousness! Just the other day, I caught myself trying to figure out how I could publicly disassociate myself from these conservatives and their ideas about our mutually shared Christian faith.

My spirit was troubled. I had to work it through: My faith in God is not tainted by underhanded tactics and strategies deployed by some conservatives who choose to manipulate people who simply want the "American Dream" and its adjoining liberty. I can think about all the lives and behaviors DENIED and UNFULFILLED simply because conservatives are unhappy with liberality of ideas in those they choose to suppress, repress, and offset.

So many lost, wasted, and destroyed lives going back to way back when. Conservatism is the problem. It does not have to be the problem, but it is!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Your level of ignorance about conservative beliefs is consistently wrong. Your rely upon leftist “definitions”

The following provides perhaps the most concise explanation of conservative principles in context.

“Ten Conservative Principles

by Russell Kirk

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics

A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. 

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares thathe acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

Adapted from The Politics of Prudence (ISI Books, 1993). Copyright © 1993 by Russell Kirk. Used by permission of the Estate of Russell Kirk.”

 
 
 
CB
4.1.7  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

I will get back to you later today about my "ignorance."  All I can say now from scanning your 'book' is why can't conservatives simply mind their own business? Just put your money in the coffer like everybody else does and let other people live in peace with its worldview?

Conservatism (preservation -ism) at its best apparently does not play well with others. That much is plain to experience!

More later. I have to rush off!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  CB @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

As an atheist it's good to be reminded that there really are some Christians like you out there who don't just (dating myself here) talk-the-talk but walk-the-walk.  The tenets of Christianity (as expressed in the Gospels) are admirable.  The problem is they're often honored  in the breach rather than the observance and we have plentiful examples of that right here. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.9  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

So organizations that utilize our free speech rights to defend those rights  including for the innocent unborn are engaged in bribery. But leftists who lobby for murder of the unborn, taking away our right of self defense are acting for our good?  

You truly do love authoritarianism and demonstrate repeatedly just how little you care for the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.10  livefreeordie  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.8    4 weeks ago

If the unbelieving world likes your beliefs and values, you can be assured that you really are not following Jesus. Not according to me, but the Word of God

Those who claim they like the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount have probably not actually read it at length. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.11  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

These dogmas of conservatism just pick and chosse what precepts to emphasize , as do all ideologies. 

They had an "order" to preserve back in the old Robin Hood days. The sheriff owned all the deer and if you took one of his deer from the forest because your family was hungry you might get hung. The lords and barons owned all the land and the serfs had to work for nothing. Even their vegetable gardens had to be pruned for the best cabbages or whatever which were given to the local priest or the lord for his table. The poor ate the worst food, gruel, while those higher up the ladder feasted. 

It was "ordered" preacher, and conformed with the morals of the time. 

Keeping things "in place"  is not always the Christian thing to do

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Your level of ignorance about conservative beliefs is consistently wrong. Your rely upon leftist “definitions”

He's just going by your example. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

What a wondrous defense for how long it took to get rid of slavery, for how long it took to even begin to overcome ignorant prejudices. It would have disrupted the "historic continuity of experience" had we just recognized it as evil and stopped. That's why the conservatives at the time didn't want to "rock the boat", so they let bygones be bygones as they continued to be carried on the backs of black slaves they kept uneducated and chained and worked like a farm animal.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.

Yes, and the patriarchy and discrimination against women was customary for centuries, many conservatives certainly didn't want to let that go.

In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

More ridiculous flawed argument for rationalizing discrimination and hate towards your fellow man.

Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

More excuses for many conservatives dragging their feet and fighting equality and diversity with ever fiber of their self centered beings.

The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.

And still more moronic rationalization as to why many conservatives don't support equal rights or ever lift a finger for anyone that doesn't share their prejudiced ideology and resent ever having to pitch in to help the rest of society.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order.

Ah yes, the old "Born into sin!" trope. "Can't trust humans!" so we need arbitrary subjective moral laws restraining our "wills and appetites!".  "We can't just let any consenting adult fall in love and want to spend their lives with another consenting adult! That would be madness! Madness I tell you! Dog's and cat's living together! The end of the world!". /s

the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Sounds more like an unthinking conservative who finds it easier to just accept the status quo without challenging it.

When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects.

There it is. The subtle claim of victimhood. The seething imagined "reverse racism" and "war on Christians" so many conservatives have clung to in order to justify their prejudices. "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression".

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression.

While that would be a reasonable compromise, it appears that those "intelligent conservatives" endeavoring to balance tradition with progress and equality are, sadly, few and far between.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.14  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.11    4 weeks ago

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with conservatism

 
 
 
CB
4.1.15  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

. . . .  The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics

A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

The question: Why do some conservatives hate the nanny state? 

It is clear to onlookers: that conservatives are forceful in tearing down any government model they do not approve of or establish. That conservatives are overly concerned about the moral character of women and female reproduction. That conservatives ostracize and judge homosexuals as unworthy of love, marriage, and a public lifestyle—even when law permits each of these respectively. That conservatives think fully matured women should have a single male head (authority) in their life unto death do them part. That the head of the house is a dominant male coupled to a female help-mate. That homosexuals of both genders should marry opposites and birth children for the good of the 'norm' and 'harmony.'

All this and more are 'nanny state' activities, so again why do some conservatives SAY they hate the nanny state?

 
 
 
CB
4.1.16  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. 

As an atheist would reason: Conservatives can live in all the everyday life strictures they find pleasing. The problem manifests in full bloom when conservatives extend their conventions into common culture. Then, and only then, will conservatives get the push-back they so richly deserve—even from their fellows who love God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Church. Many church people believe in Paul's scripture (Romans 12:18) for peaceful living in a land full of diverse people. Not going about poking and stirring up political hornet's nests or performing political and spiritual frauds in the name of God and the Christian Faith.

Remember what 'kind' of spirit we believers are in possession of: peace, humility, and grace.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.17  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

What?!!! This is outrageous. I am all for reaching back into antiquities for the gems of wisdom which have been unearthed and left shining for all time. Though King Solomon is recorded as writing there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9), there are plenty of attitudes we moderns have not practiced, nevertheless! Attitudes which have been reserved for times such as theseto be put on display in the world. Many groups are speaking up for themselves. They have had enough of the preservationist political schemes and tactics which deny them a truer 'American' experience. 

Conservatism needs to learn a lesson of allowing others to develop their political fortunes. Then, these others will stand up on-top the dead bones of their suppressed and repressed ancestors to achieve greatness for themselves—alongside the wisdom of conservatism. The best materials in this life can not simply be left to conservatism to mede out to the rest of us. We have long well-established histories (writings and worldviews) too!

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.18  MUVA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

Pot meet kettle. 

 
 
 
CB
4.1.19  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

This is just fancy, "wordiness" for stating conservatives are nosy busybodies always probing each other to determine if any divergent repugnance is in the process of developing. 

In a larger sense, local governance - the closer to the source of happenings the better- is and can be a positive ideal. Unfortunately, your number six - principle of imperfectability rears its bald head and we definitely get nightmare scenarios like this:

wpid-screenshot_2014-03-25-10-18-56-1.pn

and worse! We get 'boss Hog" sheriffs who consider the protection of "their citizens" to be paramount and outsiders are treated excessively rough or killed, or coverups are committed.

Afterwards, we get petitions to the state government for change and if that fails there are petitions to the federal government for change. Do you see where we have come from?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.14    4 weeks ago

You are the one that said conservatism wants to preserve the order of things. Sometimes it isnt worth preserving.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.21  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise.

You jest. Give me a moment. . . to find what I rarely have need. . .ah, here we go: jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif.

Cute 'book,' LFOD. Academia > meets > Real world.

_v=63f541561171019

 
 
 
CB
4.1.22  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.9    4 weeks ago
leftists who lobby for murder of the unborn, taking away our right of self defense are acting for our good?  

1. Define, "murder." Please proceed.

2. The NRA is your definition of "self defense"?  How do others without  an NRA lobby manage "self-defense"?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.23  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.14    4 weeks ago
Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with conservatism

In this country's history they have everything to do with "conservatism." It makes not difference whether you accept that or not.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.24  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1    4 weeks ago

Lets see you prove 4.1 LF

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.25  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @4.1.18    4 weeks ago

How do you figure that?  Or is it just your derogatory opinion

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.26  Heartland American  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.10    4 weeks ago

Well said, every bit of it, especially the deleted parts.  I agree 100%.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.27  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.13    4 weeks ago

Good job on this one. As I have indicated (and must continue to do so) when something works in the mundane life of anyone, including a Christian blessed to walk by the Spirit, then he or she is qualified to perform what works for them. They can not have any expectant that disaffected or unaffected people with welcome their worldview as one to rule over them.

Too many "joy-filled" and aggressive Christians in the right-wing evangelical community are tasking the systems . . . . More later.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  CB @4    4 weeks ago
Republicans and conservatives apparently have this ridiculous notion that Black Americans are too stupid to be informed about how they feel about an individual candidate or party affiliation.

Even more ridiculous is their notion that telling Black Americans that will entice them to vote Republican.   It really tells who's stupid in this relationship (cf: 4.1, above).  

 
 
 
CB
4.2.1  CB   replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2    4 weeks ago

The nerve. LFOD can't even persuade the Republican Party to fully accept Libertarianism and still he persist in having hope of persuading Black Americans, women, and other minorities to abandon their trek toward universal diversity in this country.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2.2  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Why would I attempt to persuade the Republican Party to do such a thing. I left them in 1970. The last Republican I voted for was Reagan

i really would be happy to see them go the way of the Whigs and a Conservative party replace them

 
 
 
CB
4.2.3  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.2    4 weeks ago
4.1  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4    12 hours ago
No, voting should be about the ideology of the candidates and how they measure up to the Constitution and upholding and protecting our natural rights As to African Americans, thankfully there is a growing awareness in that community that the Democrats do not support those principles and instead promote bribery to keep them enslaved to a statist slave master instead of a plantation owner 

So your vote is worthless as you do not use it constructively in elections? [Deleted] You don't vote for Republicans (you say) or democrat candidates, and you want minorities to 'wake up' [Deleted]

[Wow. That's] [richly] [ridiculous.]

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

When you're talking about support from 75% of this group versus 85% of that group, it's kind of silly to say that either group is really against a thing. These debates are more about modern partisanship than they are about significant history.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1  WallyW  replied to  Tacos! @5    4 weeks ago

More and more minorities are becoming aware of the condescending racism of a large percentage of the socialist democrat party, and are changing their votes

 
 
 
CB
5.1.1  CB   replied to  WallyW @5.1    4 weeks ago

Conservatists are ones to tell liberals about condescension. Great projection fail. Conservatives: The party of Donald (Do as I say-not as I do) Trump.

People are allowed to ebb back and forth looking for political fortunes where they can find them. I have even done so. Sooner or later a reckoning, a settling down, comes and that is where republicans come up short in the run-up to policy and people diversity.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @5.1    4 weeks ago

Wally you have yet to provide proof of anything you say, so I ask you to provide prove of this statement

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
5.1.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  CB @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

Conservatives, George Washington said, since the formation of this country, have been "nothing but headache"s, complainers and opportunists.

General George Washington complained to Alexander Hamilton, his aide de camp, during the American Revolution that CONSERVATIVES gave him "more headaches than the Tories".

Washinton blamed the "Conservatives" in the Continental Congress for the delays in supplies, boots, coats in the Winter, even food for his troops.

The Commander of the American Revolution told Hamilton that the "Conservatives" dragged their feet until they "could figure out a method" to make a fortune from it.

Shoes, ammunition, weapons, and everything the soldiers needed was an opportunity for them to get rich.

Not much has changed from 1776. Conservatives are always "cashing in on War", and are usually the first to demand it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

No he didnt

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    4 weeks ago
No he didnt

"Brilliant" "rebuttal," Sean jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

The analysis presented in the seeded article is bogus.  There were 36 states at the time of the Civil War so a division of votes based on Union/Confederacy could only include a total of 72 Senators; not 100 Senators as shown in the analysis.  Eleven states seceded so, at most, the analysis could only have a total of 22 Senators from former Confederate states, as is shown in the charts.  However, twenty states were Union states so the analysis could only have a total of 40 Senators from former Union states, not 78 as is shown in the charts.  The analysis deliberately introduces a bias that isn't factual.  The presented numbers are simply wrong.

As usual the press is presenting fiction as fact by throwing around bogus numbers.  There weren't 50 states at the time of the Civil War so its impossible to divide 100 Senators according to regional history of the Civil War.  The presented facts simply aren't factual.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago
Are Republicans Really The Party Of Civil Rights In The 1960s?

Lol fuck no. They took in all the Southern racists who abandoned the Democrats after the pushed civil rights legislation in the 60s. If you want to know where the GOP currently stands in regards to race, look no further than the fact that they are supported by Nazis. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    4 weeks ago
If you want to know where the GOP currently stands in regards to race, look no further than the fact that they are supported by Nazis.

Republicans basically adopted the Dixiecrats and their playbook beginning in the mid 1960s, put it on steroids and exported it from the South to as many other states it could get control of.  

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.1    4 weeks ago

Wrong that is a liberal fantasy you are making shit up. The less racist the south has become the more republican it has become you are living in the pass.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MUVA @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

Your facts are meaningless in this debate.  He posts make believe arguments.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @7.1.1    4 weeks ago
Wrong that is a liberal fantasy you are making shit up.

Nope.  Every word is true and even you know it. 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.4  CB   replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

I suggest just letting them "talk toFACTS%20logo%202.jpg."  BUZZ!

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

Your saying we have to forget the whole time about 120 years the KKK existed didn't count only from 1970 till now give me a fucking break. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @7.1.5    4 weeks ago
Your saying we have to forget the whole time about 120 years the KKK existed didn't count only from 1970 till now

Of course not. They were conservatives then and most of their descendants who they passed on much of their bitter hatred and prejudice to are conservatives now. No one is asking you to forget the KKK, just to understand who they really were. Don't be blinded by the letter on their political party registration because political parties and their platforms have evolved dramatically over the 240+ years since our nation was founded. Those who wanted to conserve and preserve slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, bans on blacks and women voting, bans on interracial and gay marriage, virtually every one of them considered themselves "conservatives". Conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans, as the party identification has changed as the party platforms have shifted, but those considering themselves "conservatives" have remained constant.

I have no doubt if you had interviewed every single one of those marching in Charlottesville waving swastikas and confederate flags chanting "Jews will not replace us!" they would have, nearly to a man, claimed to be a conservative, and most likely a conservative Christian. They were out trying to conserve and preserve the confederate monuments to treasonous slave owners and those who fought to defend slavery. So never forget the over 4,000 lynchings of black Americans at the hands of fearful bigoted conservatives who were irrationally and violently trying to conserve a white hierarchy. The only thing worse than forgetting would be to have those same bigoted conservatives today convince you they somehow had nothing to do with it and get you to place the blame on the only ones who have been fighting against such atrocities from the very beginning, the liberals and progressives here in America who believe in justice, equality and freedom for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.6    4 weeks ago

Complete BS if I want to know about the history of the KKK and racism I do need a lesson from you,I just ask my 88 year old black father that grew up in  rural Arkansa in the 30's .He hasn't voted for a Democrat ever. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @7.1.7    4 weeks ago

I am sure someone will try to sell you on the idea that Southern Democrats weren't ever real Democrats--just conveniences for the Democratic Party to retain control for a very long time--and then after the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, they all jumped ship to the GOP. And THAT explains why the South remained Democratic-majority for several decades.

/s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @7.1.7    4 weeks ago
I want to know about the history of the KKK and racism I do need a lesson from you

Apparently so.

And that's a nice anecdotal story about your grandfather, but the fact is 90% of black Americans do vote Democrat and there is a reason for that. Or perhaps you believe that vast majority, 90% of black Americans, are just "too stupid" to think for themselves and vote for their own interests? Are the much larger number of minority candidates who run as Democrats, nearly 40% vs the slim 2 to 5% of Republican candidates, simply "tokens" being controlled by some racist Democrat party behind the scenes which is intentionally trying to pass laws to disenfranchise themselves? The GOP has been caught with their voter ID laws that "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," for voter disenfranchisement, and that's right now, not half a century ago, but some apparently want to stick their heads in the sand and whine about who created the KKK as if that Southern Democrat party then has anything to do with the Democrat party of today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

It never ceases to absolutely amaze - how many right wingers and "conservatives" do not UNDERSTAND  the fact that over time the Democratic Party became the civil rights party and the Republican Party became the party of white grievance. 

That those are the facts today is undeniable, so what we have to explain is how it happened , not if it happened.  The how has to do with the aftermath of WW2 when southern Democrats continued to resist Negro rights. Then came the Goldwater revolution in the Republican Party and that party was driven far to the right. Gradually the Republican party became the party of white southerners and the Democratic Party became the party associated with progressive social programs to redress centuries of discrimination. 

It all has to do with the south.  The south mainly drove the KKK and Jim Crow, not a party, but the white people of the south. They switched parties, its as simple as that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    4 weeks ago

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to believe that claptrap.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.11    4 weeks ago

That's it?  lol. 

I have never seen a thing from you or many other people here on NT, from the right, that shows you have the slightest understanding of this. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.11    4 weeks ago
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to believe that claptrap.

Yes, it's hard to believe that none of the Republican attempts to obfuscate and hide their Southern Strategy actually worked. The only ones who imagine it to be anything other than the Republican party rebuilding itself on the backs of disaffected white Christian nationalists and white supremacists who had previously been loyal Southern Democrats, are they themselves. I can only imagine that they must rock themselves to sleep each night rationalizing why they and their parents and grandparents fly a confederate flag from their flagpole but now consider themselves hardline Republicans, the party of Lincoln who defeated the confederates and ended slavery.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    4 weeks ago
That's it?

It is all that is necessary.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.11    4 weeks ago

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to believe that claptrap

They read  an excerpt of howard zinn or some other partisan hack and think they understand American history based on two minutes of reading.

The reality, for those who believe in that sort of thing, is that many  Jim Crow era Democrats were progressives in good standing. They weren't "conservatives," they were progressive segregationists. Even some of "southern manifesto" signers were quite happy to support LBJ and his Great Society, including voting for progressive dream programs like medicare.  The south didn't actually turn conservative until it became more urban, more prosperous and less racist.  As the South became more prosperous, more urban and less racist , conservatives did better and the progressives lost power.   The 30s , when Jim Crow was King, was pretty much the peak of the Southern progressives. 
 

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.13    4 weeks ago

I realize you believe the propaganda you have been taught.

I try not to hold people responsible just because they believe stuff that is ridiculous--they are just products of what they have been spoon-fed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.15    4 weeks ago
It would be nice to think that Donald Trump is an anomaly who came out of nowhere to take over an otherwise sane and sober movement. But it just isn’t so.

Upon closer examination, it’s obvious that the history of modern conservative is permeated with racism, extremism, conspiracy-mongering, isolationism and know-nothingism. I disagree with progressives who argue that these disfigurations define the totality of conservatism; conservatives have also espoused high-minded principles that I still believe in, and the bigotry on the right appeared to be ameliorating in recent decades. But there has always been a dark underside to conservatism that I chose for most of my life to ignore. It’s amazing how little you can see when your eyes are closed!

The ur-conservatives of the 1950s — William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and all the rest — were revolting not against a liberal administration but against the moderate conservatism of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ideological conservatives viewed Eisenhower as a sellout; John Birchers thought he was a communist agent. Why the animus against this war hero? Conservatives were furious that Eisenhower made no attempt to liberate the “captive nations” of Eastern Europe or repeal the New Deal, and that he did not support Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare. Worst of all, from the viewpoint of contemporary conservatives, Eisenhower was a moderate on racial issues. He appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided over the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, and then sent troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregatio
Most Republicans in Congress voted in 1964 and 1965 for landmark civil rights legislation, but not Goldwater. In his 1960 bestseller “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater wrote that “the federal Constitution does not require the states to maintain racially mixed schools.” Goldwater was not personally a racist — he had integrated the Arizona Air National Guard — but, like his GOP successors, he was happy to make common cause with racists in order to wrest the South from the Democrats.

Goldwater was just as extreme when it came to foreign affairs. He suggested that Americans needed to overcome their “craven fear of death.” If the Soviets intervened to crush another uprising in Eastern Europe, like the one in Hungary in 1956, he wanted “to move a highly mobile task force equipped with appropriate nuclear weapons to the scene of the revolt.” I used to think Goldwater’s reputation as an extremist was a liberal libel. Reading his actual words — something I had not done before — reveals that he really was an extremist.

The delegates to the 1964 Republican National Convention who chose Goldwater as their presidential nominee fully endorsed his far-right views. They lustily applauded Goldwater’s assertion that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” while booing and jeering Nelson Rockefeller when he tried to deliver a more moderate message. Goldwater didn’t win in the fall, but his example still inspires conservatives, making clear that extremism is embedded in the DNA of the modern conservative movement, even though it was often not the dominant strand.

In 1964, the GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln and became the party of Southern whites. As I now look back with the clarity of hindsight, I am convinced that coded racial appeals had at least as much, if not more, to do with the electoral success of the modern Republican Party than all of the domestic and foreign policy proposals crafted by well-intentioned analysts like me. This is what liberals have been saying for decades. I never believed them. Now I do, because Trump won by making the racist appeal, hitherto relatively subtle, obvious even to someone such as me who used to be in denial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/08/the-dark-side-of-american-conservatism-has-taken-over/?utm_term=.94c8033fe8ea
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.17    4 weeks ago
r was not personally a racist — he had integrated the Arizona Air National Guard — but, like his GOP successors, he was happy to make common cause with racists in order to wrest the South from the Democrats.

Eisenhower, the moderate on racial issues, did better in the south than Goldwater. 
The guy who integreted the schools at gunpoint fared better than the guy who opposed the Civil Rights Act, and yet Democrats still cling to silly narrative. 

In 1964, the GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln and became the party of Southern whites.

The idea that 64 was some watershed year is simply not supported by data.  Again, as the South became more prosperous and more urban it became more conservative. The Republicans conquest of the South began on the periphery, in the more moderate, prosperous and urban states.  The last states to holdouts against the Republicans were the states in the Deep South, the states that were the most rural, poor and segregated were the ones that held out for the Democrats the longest. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.18    4 weeks ago

are there a lot of southern white Democrats Sean? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.16    4 weeks ago
I realize you believe the propaganda you have been taught.

So you think all those rallying to stop the removal of confederate monuments and flying their confederate flags in these deeply red States are all still Democrats? What other hilarious fantasies do you believe in, the tooth fairy? The underpants gnomes?

Yes, I'm sure you don't want me to believe my 'lyin eyes' but the cat's out of the bag. Conservatives continue to cling to the ideology of the confederacy, cling to racist ideals of a time when white male Christians had the world at their feet and believed themselves invincible. And today, like it or not, Republicans are the party that has embraced those conservatives.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.20    4 weeks ago
So you think all those rallying to stop the removal of confederate monuments and flying their confederate flags in these deeply red States are all still Democrats? What other hilarious fantasies do you believe in, the tooth fairy? The underpants gnomes?

Never claimed such nonsense.

We're done here.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.19    4 weeks ago
are there a lot of southern white Democrats Sea

Are there still a lot of white Democrats?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.23  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    4 weeks ago

Yes, most of them but they are all over 70.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.24  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    4 weeks ago

The point is that ignorant conservatives promote denial of the facts. The Democrats are the party of civil rights now, it doesnt fucking matter what they were in 1860. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    4 weeks ago

That's a foolish question.  

 
 
 
CB
7.1.26  CB   replied to  MUVA @7.1.7    4 weeks ago

You can't be serious! It's at first laughable then cryable that anybody's relatives could have lived through the 60's and not understood what President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) did to his Southern associations by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Johnson abandoned his roots to accomplish something bigger than himself in honor of assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

Here, served up all these years later to the confused relatives who could not get a memo:

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a bill that changed the face of America. It opened all public accommodations -- hotels, restaurants, swimming pools -- to all Americans regardless of race, color, religion or national origin.

The bill also ended legal discrimination in employment on the basis of race or sex, and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the law. The signing ceremony represented a personal triumph for Johnson, who lobbied tirelessly on behalf of the bill. Recordings of the president's phone conversations reveal his relentless campaign to wrangle lawmakers in favor of the controversial bill.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3087021

The ridiculousness of this discussion is all the while preservationists, republicans and conservatives have been valiantly (and with back and forth success)  watering down and undermining the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act every since the day it passed July 2! That any thing of value is left in those two acts speaks to the strength of the laws and the potency poured into them by the passers!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.27  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.19    4 weeks ago

No because they can’t relate to the Godless and immoral marxist statist “anything goes” of the Democrats

 
 
 
CB
7.1.28  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

Sell that nonsense elsewhere. If Muva wants to learn the voting cycles of the South, I'd suggest he or she (as the case may be) get a record of it and read it for comprehension. Voting cycles past and present are complex and nuanced things (based on time, exposure, nuance, truths, lies, and propaganda) and are not amenable to soundbites and easy answers.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.29  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.9    4 weeks ago

Then there was the 'new gay scandal of the century' where some conservatives tried to frame Pete Buttigieg for sexual assault simply because he is a homosexual man who dared run for president!

Shame on the bad conservatives who did this dastardly thing. Bad conservatives. Of course, I am sure conservatives would like to move on from a remarkable failure, as though it never even happened.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.30  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.19    4 weeks ago

Your focus is far too narrow.

White voters throughout the nation have left the Democrats for the past 50 years, not just the South

“The majority of whites have voted Republican in every election over the past 50 years, but a meaningful minority of whites support the Democratic nominee every election.

The national exit polls have broken out their survey results by racial group since 1976, and since that year, the Republican nominee for president has received, on average, 54.8 percent of the white vote, while the Democratic nominee has garnered an average of 40.6 percent. In 1980, 1992, and 1996, third-party candidacies affected the distribution of the white vote. The highest percentage secured by a Republican was the 66 percent won by Ronald Reagan in his landslide re-election in 1984; the lowest Democratic number was Walter Mondale’s 34 percent in that same election. Jimmy Carter received the largest percentage of white votes for a Democrat with 48 percent in 1976; George H.W. Bush received the lowest at 41 percent in 1992 when Ross Perot ran, splitting the white vote and dropping Bush from the 60 percent white share he received in 1988.”

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

“White non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 percentage points (58% to 37%), according to the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Romney won whites by 20 percentage points in 2012 (59% to 39%).

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.

Trump won whites with a college degree 49% to 45%. In 2012, Romney won college whites by a somewhat wider margin in 2012 (56%-42%). Trump’s advantage among this group is the same as John McCain’s margin in 2008 (51%-47%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

 
 
 
CB
7.1.31  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.10    4 weeks ago

It is called denial. It is not a mistake. Some republicans are resistant to change; thus, they deliberately disregard truth. It is how President Trump is comfortable telling these folks 10,000 plus and running lies.

Trump knows democrats are fact-checking his deceitful statements—not so with Trump sycophants. Even when in doubt, the sycophants persist in clearing Trump for 'passage.'

It is not a mistake. These conservatives who stayed with Trump are in a social pact with Trump.

These conservatives-republicans will not accept facts even were these broken above their heads and poured down their faces.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.32  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.26    4 weeks ago

LBJs real crime was expanding FDRs Marxist fascist welfare state. That alone makes him a terrible president.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.24    4 weeks ago
he point is that ignorant conservatives promote denial of the facts. T

This whole thread belies that...

he Democrats are the party of civil rights now, it doesnt fucking matter what they were in 1860. 

At your direction, we were discussing the 1960s.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.34  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.31    4 weeks ago

Trump’s lies are irrelevant 

what matters is that the Dems push a radical leftist and Godless immoral social policy.

do you really think conservative and moderates will support taxpayers funding of abortion?

do you really think conservatives and moderates will support making it illegal to have private and or employer provided health insurance?

do you really think that conservatives and moderates will support the Dems open borders policies?

those like yourself on the radical left are separated from both reality and the vast majority of Americans 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.35  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.30    4 weeks ago

Preacher the question is what will it take for conservatives to realize that the Democratic Party of the south in 1860 is not the Democratic Party of today. Same for Lincoln's Republican Party of 1860. 

The conservatives seem to be impervious to reality. 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.36  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.34    4 weeks ago

You say "Trump's lies are irrelevant." Is that because you rule or feel that Trump has not lied to you?

Where is your unrealized border wall? That big beautiful wall with a door in it?

Is the Affordable Care Act voided?

Your labels are irrelevant to me, Trump supporter. Linking moderates into your narrative fails. Conservatives actually broke with conservatives over Donald J. Trump. They simply could not settle in their spirit this brash old chaos player who lies, steals, and cheats to get his way. Now, then what does that say about you who 'walk with Trump'?

My, my, my, how the mighty one of God has fallen! To think that God has to lie, steal, and cheat to get his way. . . wait! Now, that is not the behavior of God is it mighty one?

Trump's lies are irrelevant? Indeed! You might wish to check your understanding to see if you have stretched God too thin and accused God of approving of false witness.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.37  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.32    4 weeks ago

Here is what I have for you today, LFOD:

Be cautious in speaking ill of those presidents who show the love of God in being merciful and loving (even against their own party's wishes); especially, since you or I have never ascended to the apex to understand fully what is required of those who do. Trump being "a disaster" who simply won't take his eyes off of man long enough to see what God loves. When a man or woman thinks God loves ritual, custom, and dogma more than love, justice, and compassion he or she should question why they still sit at the gate of the 'city of God.'

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.38  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.35    4 weeks ago

I looked at the bigger picture which is that Democrats have lost the White vote NATIONWIDE for over 50 years. Forget a narrow minded look at just the South

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.39  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.36    4 weeks ago

obamacare wasn't repealed because of the traitor John McCain.

The wall is being built but the anti-American Democrats refuse to allow full funding of it.

I consider EVERY politician to be a serial liar and I don't pay attention to their words. Their actions are what matters. Trump's actions have far exceeded what any of us hoped for

He is a very flawed man who is doing incredibly well compared to the communist revolutionary Obama.

As to the lies, I would love to see him not lie. But that is between him and God and I hope he goes through that transformation.  But that is not relevant to what matters to most Americans. What matters to us are the actions elected officials take that affect our lives personally

While Trump has not gone nearly as far as I would like, his actions have far surpassed my expectations
taxcuts
deregulation
originalist Justices and judges
pulling out of Paris accords
pipelines and expanding oil and gas
standing up to China
standing up to terrorist Iran
demolishing ISIS
US Embassy to Jerusalem
hardline stance against abortion
no love affair with homosexuals like Obama did
bible studies and prayer in the White House
standing up to the deep state fbi, dea, atf, DOJ which are anti American totalitarian enforcers
those of us who support the president are thrilled by his actions compared to previous Democrat and Republican Presidents
lastly we look at what would likely occur if any of the Dems running should actually be president and have a Democrat Congress and it makes one shudder

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.40  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.37    4 weeks ago

Tell me which president you think showed the love of God?

It certainly wasn't Obama who hates Christianity and lives his life in rebellion to Christ.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.41  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.39    4 weeks ago
He is a very flawed man.

Somebody has sold out God. Is it Trump or . . . .

Let's look together at Trump on [Homosexual] Pride Month:

14215480-7092519-image-a-10_15593435415014215488-7092519-image-m-11_155934354321

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7092519/Trump-Republican-president-promote-LGBT-Pride-Month.html

Is your thrill gone yet, LOFD? Or, do you just swallow hard. . . and shudder. How truly sad it is when a person can not vicarioulsy walk a mile in another persons shoes.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.42  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.41    4 weeks ago

Trump has always been on the left in that area.  I pray for his spiritual awakening to God's demand of Holiness and Righteousness

BTW, I can walk in- someone else's shoes. That's why I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to call people to repent and turn from their sins so they can live with God eternally, instead of eternally in hell.

And Jesus said, “I have come to judge those who think they see and make them blind. And for those who are blind, I have come to make them see.”

Some of the Pharisees were standing nearby and overheard these words. They interrupted Jesus and said, “You mean to tell us that we are blind?”

Jesus told them, “If you would acknowledge your blindness, then your sin would be removed. But now that you claim to see, your sin remains with you!” John 9:39-41

 
 
 
CB
7.1.43  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.40    4 weeks ago

I will not discuss President Obama again with you. It is a waste of my, our, time in discussion. Better to concentrate on the present president who is making policy on a daily basis for better or worse.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.44  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.43    4 weeks ago

fine- but know that the satisfaction rate with Trump supporters is about 88%.  We're happy knowing that it's much better than previous liberal Republicans or the far left Democrats

 
 
 
CB
7.1.45  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.42    4 weeks ago

Trump did not sell out. Throughout this presidency, one of Trump's pact conditions with conservatives and republicans apparently clear is he will remain true to himself! Some of you sold out and moved over to Trump: the brash old chaos player who lies, steals, and cheats to get his way

That's why I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to call people to repent and turn from their sins so they can live with God eternally, instead of eternally in hell.

You can do that, I'd agree. But. You do more than that don't you? You judge this one and that one as outcasts and unworthy of the kingdom of God and worse! You act to see that they are punished in this life by their government to be mistreated, overlooked, and robbed of a good quality life. All so that there will be more in this world for you and yours.

God is not like that. (Matthew 13.) It is remarkable to me that a man can think to know who to label in this world as unworthy of a place in God's special place when Jesus so carefully left us with inferences from 'saving the thief on his cross'! Or, Jesus 'supping' with prostitutes, adulterers, pimps, whores, Samaritans. . . .

You have no clue whom God will call next into kingdom service. Your responsibility is to show unrespited love from the heart - in lieu of you have overly-indulged whims and wants of political savagery: That is, winning at all cost. It is arrogant for a man to think too highly of himself, thus not leaving room for God to act.

Lastly, there but for the grace of God go us. . . .

For God could have granted you to carry the burden of being a homosexual as easily as me.  Were I to 'walk in your shoes,' I can only ask God that I would have the patience to allow God to do a good work in you—without my indulges to trip you up!

 
 
 
CB
7.1.46  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.44    4 weeks ago

To your shame. To your shame. To your shame.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.47  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.45    4 weeks ago

I'll remind you of what I asked you earlier

do you really think conservative and moderates will support taxpayers funding of abortion?

do you really think conservatives and moderates will support making it illegal to have private and or employer provided health insurance?

do you really think that conservatives and moderates will support the Dems open borders policies?

do you really think that I would ever vote for someone who wants to raise taxes ON ANYONE?

do you think that I would ever vote for someone who wants to increase regulations?

do you think that I would ever vote for someone who believes the Constitution is a "living document" instead of the Supreme Law of the Land?

There have been no Democrats since the 1960s I could ever consider voting for and very few Republicans. I treasure the Constitution and the restraint of Government too much that the founders understood as essential to liberty

as to the spiritual, Total nonsense on your part.  We are commanded by Christ to warn people of their sins and the consequences of continuing in those sins. It is an act of love to warn people because we don't want them to go to hell.

I don't judge on my own. I merely go by the standards God has established through Jesus. Your problem (and it's shared by many) is that you are unhappy with those standards and have a deluded belief that God will overlook them.

Taking this stand to warn people is not OPTIONAL (unless you believe it's acceptable to reject the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles

So, naturally, we proclaim Christ! We warn everyone we meet, and we teach everyone we can, all that we know about him, so that, if possible, we may bring every man up to his full maturity in Christ. This is what I am working at all the time, with all the strength that God gives me. Colossians 1:28-29

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 2 Timothy 4:2

Dearly loved friend, I was fully intending to write to you about our amazing salvation we all participate in, but felt the need instead to challenge you to vigorously defend and contend for the beliefs that we cherish. For God, through the apostles, has once for all entrusted these truths to his holy believers.

“There have been some who have sneaked in among you unnoticed. They are depraved people whose judgment was prophesied in Scripture a long time ago. They have perverted the message of God’s grace into a license to commit immorality and turn against our only absolute Master, our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude vs 3-5

And from Jesus

Now you must go into all the nations and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins so that they will turn to me.  Luke 24:47

 And if anyone doesn’t listen to you and rejects your message, when you leave that house or town, shake the dust off your feet as a prophetic act that you will not take their defilement with you. Luke 10:14

to the 70 sent out

“ Of course, not every town will welcome you. If you’re rejected, walk through the streets and say,  We’re leaving this town. We’ll wipe off the dust that clings to our feet in protest against you. But even so, know this: the kingdom of God has come near.”  I tell you the truth, on judgment day, Sodom will have an easier time of it than the town that rejects My messengers. Luke 10:10-12

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.48  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.46    4 weeks ago

nonsense. shame is having UnGodly to the point of anti-God people who despise God and our Constitution.  The Democratic Party makes 70s Russia look good.  

Trump has done more good for our country than the past 4 presidents combined.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.49  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.47    4 weeks ago

Nonsense. You stepped all over the lesson of the thief on the cross in your rust to rebuking other brothers and non-believers. As I stated,

You can do those things you mention, I'd agree! But. You do more, don't you?

You can teach, rebuke, exhort with all patience and teaching. Who would deny the man of God this? It would be like shutting fire up inside you. I get it!

But, you lift your spirit up to alter that which is not for you! Your ministry is to the lost (as was Jesus' ministry); to save all who will come. . . .

Some conservatives are 'hunting' a lost soul as prey -  you enter another's safe spaces - attack their bodies, minds, well-fare - and leave these people despairing of you and other conservatives. Jesus did not do this in ministry. Nor did he order you or any other religious conservative to do so! This is you and other conservatives 'unauthorized' service and it reminds me of torture and torturers who can not be reasoned with together.

Surely, you process that you have no Heaven or Hell to place anybody in! Moreover, you are fully clear that no one will be placed in Heaven or Hell based on your witness of them.

God is in control of the process. God has always been in control of this process. Neither can you speed it up or slow it down. For it is not under your 'mission-statement.' That is: to plant, water, and allow God (all the time God wants) to provide increase.

A much harder task for you to undertake would you to repair the breaches in the Churches messaging. Build the Church into one body, one spirit, under God. Instead of—this for which we have become. God wants this. Jesus prayed for it too. Instead, conservatives run to and fro stirring up "the natives" of this world!

 
 
 
CB
7.1.50  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.48    4 weeks ago
Trump has done more good for our country than the past 4 presidents combined.

So say you and other conservatives. However, Trump split conservatives into uneven halves, yes? Which of the last four presidents accomplished this feat? Moreover, if God is found not to be a conservative—what do you say that he is?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.51  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.49    3 weeks ago

The thief on the cross sought mercy and forgiveness. We are discussing people who find no need to repent.

more false accusations. You have no idea how I minister to people.

what you are gauging and drawing false conclusions from is dialogue in a hostile environment where Christianity is mocked. Even you while claiming to be a Christian rebel against fundamental teachings and issue diatribes against Conservative Evangelical Christians who are supposed to be your brothers and sisters in Christ

1 John 4:20-21 If someone says, “I love God,” but hates a fellow believer, that person is a liar; for if we don’t love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see? And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their fellow believers.“

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7.1.52  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @7.1.50    3 weeks ago

Not at all. Conservatives, both Republicans and independents overwhelmingly support him. It is the Establishment Republicans and the  “Never Trumpers” (who are declining in numbers) who remain opposed. They can’t even find satisfaction in Trump achieving greater conservative results than even Reagan.   The fact that many have joined with the left reveals that their ideological beliefs were phony 

God is apolitical.  [deleted]

 
 
 
CB
7.1.53  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.51    3 weeks ago
The thief on the cross sought mercy and forgiveness. We are discussing people who find no need to repent.

Are we discussing people who find no need for repentance? How does repentance come about? Is it at different periods of life from one person to another? Do all repent at the same time? How about the same stage of life? Of course not. As in the example, Jesus saved a soul preparing to exit this world. (We have no clue or can not venture the age of this young - or old - thief).

We just work to plant, and provide water, and keep calm as we trust God's will supply 'the increase.' This has always been the case.

Jesus demonstrated this, through being present in the moment as a soul came knocking, seeking, asking, for divine consideration/help. Jesus did not 'run people down' and block all accesses to their experiences of life. God is infinitely patient. Spiritual conformity is for the spirit-minded 'soul' which loves God with all its heart! Even so, it is a measured life.

You have not walked a mile in my shoes as the song above explains. There never has been a time when a lecture-sermon could turn me from my "worldly ways." Still, at a point in time, I did turn, repent, and God gave the increase. So what role did society play in my change? Very little:

Society marginalized me. Society guilt-tripped me. Society made people who could not locate the good in me which I held on to all my life in the world—hate me. I never married any woman as homosexual, because the good in me saw, er' knew what horror that could bring into a woman's life once she gives her soul to a man who really does not want her. Society did not teach me that. Society wanted me to 'mate' and put on a show of its success. Today, I live as a Believer with joy in the Lord. However, as Paul stated the flesh still wants human love and contact even after so long a time.

So, you can not speak 'at' me about repentance. I am a living testimony of repentance! I have no idea if you have ever had to discipline your flesh - as some others did, are doing, and will do in the future.

In the meantime, I have learned to love those who are yet, "in the world." They will find their way to God as I did! For we say words like, "God can not fail." So how can a soul miss salvation?  Riddle me this: Jesus on the cross - just in time to save yet another 'traveler.' Or could it be Jesus kept an 'appointment' with a thief in need?

If you believer God can not fail, then do your service to God and to mankind. But, leave off on hurting people who simply want to live as they see fit until their change comes.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.54  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @7.1.51    3 weeks ago
Even you while claiming to be a Christian rebel against fundamental teachings and issue diatribes against Conservative Evangelical Christians who are supposed to be your brothers and sisters in Christ

I confront my brethren for cause. We have failures in securing the word of God. This one has a 'word.' That one has a word.' He uses words to hinder, deprive, maim, and kill. While she shuts off her bowels of compassion to an unbelieving world. Simply because he and she thinks God wants dogma and confrontation.

Who did the first Christians 'rage' against?

We have the Book of Hebrews which tells us of what the new Church and its leaders endured peacefully and humbly—back when the love of God was all they had going for themselves. It took position, status, power, and influence (under Constantine) to give the Church authority to test itself which it did through running out an attacking the unbelieving world.

We are faced with it today. A great many of the faithful are so busy in their confession of faith that they hardly know that conservatives are waging a political war "in the heavens" for the soul of this nation. Yet, it is plain to see that this nation specifically sent out a clarion call to every people on the planet to come here as they were. The constitution would provide them cover from the pains, sorrows, and horrors of a former home. The Constitution did not ask any one to hide their feelings or culture. But now, we see the political wing of the Church seeking to solidify itself in the wellspring of authority so as to do what? To impose its own strictures on all the people no matter their feelings, or diverse cultural background - which they live here with.

Christ did not 'order' this one. This is man's doing. More to the point: this is Conservative Evangelical Christians doing and what's worse, god's conservatives chose a lying 'spirit' of a man (President Trump) and an evangelical 'side-kick'  (Vice-President Pence) to assent to his activities, and a Senate Majority Mitch McConnell to withstand every truth brought into the senate, by quashing and ignore it ("The Grim Reaper.")

And the world hates conservative evangelical Christians for bringing the good name of God down into the dust of the ground. God sees this, LFOD. God will repay.

It is very late. Good night.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    4 weeks ago
Lol fuck no. They took in all the Southern racists who abandoned the Democrats after the pushed civil rights legislation in the 60s. If you want to know where the GOP currently stands in regards to race, look no further than the fact that they are supported by Nazis. 

The south has always been more racially diverse than the northern states.  There aren't slums and ghettos in the south; those are all located in northern cities.  The northern states are actually more segregated than the southern states by forcing racial minorities to concentrate in small, contained areas.

Yes, the south practiced segregation by establishing class distinctions based upon race.  But the north established real ghettos to separate and contain racial minorities, just as the Nazis did.  

How is Queensbridge, Watts, Marcy Projects, Cabrini Green, or Pruitt-Igoe any different than the Nazi Warsaw ghettos?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2    4 weeks ago
There aren't slums and ghettos in the south;

That, of all of Nerm's statements, must be the biggest howler of them all.  Nerm, you clearly have either never been to the South or you closed your eyes when you needed to deny what you were seeing. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2.1    4 weeks ago
That, of all of Nerm's statements, must be the biggest howler of them all.  Nerm, you clearly have either never been to the South or you closed your eyes when you needed to deny what you were seeing. 

If Pruitt-Igoe is an example of woke social justice then liberal activists have no authority to bad mouth Nazis.  Civil rights was forced onto black people, too.  Black Americans have been treated like lab rats in social engineering experiments.  That's straight out of the Nazi playbook for social engineering.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

We sure as shit have some cranks on this site. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
7.2.4  pat wilson  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2.2    4 weeks ago
Civil rights was forced onto black people, too.

Wait, what ????

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8  1stwarrior    4 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
CB
8.1  CB   replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago

This appears to be something familiarly 'straight' out of detached Russian propaganda. Why? Because it bypasses every relevant theory of the case, in order to 'soundbite' imagery. Expect more of it, folks! Election season is just around the corner, along with foreign nations meddling in our elections.

For that matter, workers realize tax cuts are not directed at the working class, workers are needed in the fields, reparations would be a positive action against real (not imagined) past misdeeds on the part of the United States Government and its Majority, which negated its own promise of liberty and justice to all,  and college students are majority white!

This 'poster' is propaganda only! That's straight!

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago

I love this! 

Mind if I use it occasionally?

it is rare to see something summed up so concisely in so few words.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 weeks ago

It figures. Even with its inaccuracies a good propaganda poster is a valuable tool! Why am I not surprised? Shades of Trump; it's expedient to simply untrue one's way through.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.1    4 weeks ago
It figures. Even with its inaccuracies a good propaganda poster is a valuable tool! Why am I not surprised? Shades of Trump; it's expedient to simply untrue one's way through.

Wow, I am so impressed with your rebuttal full of facts.

LOL!

 
 
 
CB
8.2.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.2    4 weeks ago

Nothing impressive about it. I'm not impressed at all about that shady thrown-together poster. Looks Russian to me- the whole emotionally charged *snap-judgement* thing going on in it. Smooth. Too slick.

What do you think? Russian? North Korea-think?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

Whoopsie, I forgot the sarcasm tag.

Well, I didn't really forget--just thought it was evident it was sarcasm.

Looks Russian to you?

Got a lot of experience with Russian propaganda, do you? And this qualifies to you?

Interesting.

What specifically in the poster do you feel isn't true?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 weeks ago
it is rare to see something summed up so concisely in so few words

… that is complete and utter bullshit.

"Our tax cut" wasn't seen nor felt by the average working American, the vast majority of the tax cut went to corporations.

Democrats do not want an "open border", they want immigration reform and sensible border enforcement, not some boondoggle waste of tax payer money.

You're fooling yourself if you imagine your great great grandpa never benefited from the white hierarchy.

And helping cut the debt of the next generations cost of higher education should be in everyone's interest, regardless of how bitter one might be at their own lack of intelligence or education level.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.2.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.2.5    4 weeks ago

nonsense- 90% of my tax clients who are all in the bottom 50% got increased refunds or lower taxes this year.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.7  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @8.2.6    4 weeks ago

Interesting:

You seem to be suggesting that the "bottom 50 percent" can afford to withhold at higher withholding rates than normal or even took the necessary proactive action to change their W-4s well ahead of the end of year to get a positive outcome.

Is that right, LFOD?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.2.8  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @8.2.7    4 weeks ago

1.  just the opposite.  people should change their W4s to reflect lower tax rates and stop lending the government money interest free

2.  and under the new law, approx 90% of taxpayers don't qualify to itemize, the lowest since the 1930s

I would like to have seen the tax cut go much further, but it was a good start

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.2.5    4 weeks ago

My great, great grandpa was a sharecropper. Do tell me more about MY family, seeing as how you are an expert on it now.

I felt the post was spot on.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.10  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @8.2.8    4 weeks ago

Our tax system is defined as 'Pay as you go.' This means taxes are owed throughout the year to the government. That the system requires taxes to be filed once a year on a set schedule is a convenience to all - citizen and government tax agency alike. As most people suffered "tax shock" (in some case enough to depress or kill them and their families - I am sure) the government arranged to have a process of withholding throughout the year.

That there may be some interests paid to the government on the monies (not sure of how much are you?) is no reason to bring it up in this forum. For we can't do a damn thing about the interest payments gleaned from taxation or its other corollaries such as interest and penalty charges on overdue taxes. Or convenience fees from private agencies working with the IRS to get it paid up.

You are really stuck outside tax law and its sophistication. My guess is you like it this way.

 
 
 
CB
9  CB     4 weeks ago

@8.1 Texan_1211

Don't let anybody divide you and me unnecessarily, Texan_1211.  It would be a cheap-trick. A really *cheap* trick.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9    4 weeks ago
@8.1 Texan_1211

Is there a point to that post?

 
 
 
CB
9.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    4 weeks ago

ea9426673b59fda486e3ea38e6d7bd87.jpg Yeah. There is that. That's all Texan_1211.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

Well, that's a relief!

Thanks for stopping by!

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9    4 weeks ago

Cheap Trick-- a decent band.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2    3 weeks ago
Cheap trick---a decent band

Also the name of Trump's favorite mistress.....little known fact.  

 
 
 
freepress
10  freepress    3 weeks ago

The answer is no. They are not the party of Civil Rights or they would not dismantle the Voting Rights Act, engage in gerrymandering districts across the country to try to win without the will of the voters, and they would support any bill to protect our elections from foreign influence.

When our veterans serve their country they don't serve any one political party, they serve to preserve our freedoms.

The biggest thing we have in America is voting and yet we see time and time and time again, the Republican party actively doing anything and everything possible to dismantle our rights when it comes to voting and to suppress the vote based on racist notions and based on fear of losing power.

America does not exist for only Republicans. And it is about time all people regardless of party affiliation to begin acting patriotic and stand up for protecting this most sacred right of the American people to vote. Voting is the voice of the American people.

 
 
 
CB
10.1  CB   replied to  freepress @10    3 weeks ago

I understand that both political parties engage in gerrymandering districts. Shame! I do not know which party 'started it,' but it is certainly time for them both to step by from the cliff! We the people are fed up with this UNAMERICAN treatment of the people by people in power. Enough already?

Republicans and Democrats, the two-party system needs to grow up; all over again!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




igknorantzrulz
ArkansasHermit-too
Bob Nelson
Drakkonis


43 visitors