Comments

2
Learn your history a little better. You'll note that his party -or at least the really old ones in it- sometimes refer to themselves as being the Party of Lincoln. In those days, to be a Democrat was to be pro-slavery. A fair amount of the time since has also featured Democrats doing a great many things you wouldn't approve of, either...But why let that spoil a good argument?

Tell the father of the woman you're fucking that his party had a great record on civil rights, as of the nineteenth century.
3
so, then, st. john's rules has a kid that is married?
4
The IA has it right, for no one has yet to name any accomplishments of the Republican party.
Even their own party can't name an accomplishment:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe…

What a sad, sorry party.
5
I think R.B got it mostly right because the I,A is giving you a 2 sider to think about.
6
I understand your rant. That can be frustrating. For a lot of people "political debate" just means seeing who has the funnier insult, the sharper comment, or the loudest voice. For those people, the actual policies being discussed are only secondarily important, if they are important at all.

That said, I have an issue with your historical argument. Our two political parties are not stagnant, and neither of them have maintained a consistent ideology throughout their history. For this reason, the modern incarnation of either party should not be blamed/credited for the actions of that party's distant past (more than a generation ago). The fact that the E.P.A. was created during a Republican Presidency does not mean that modern Republicans have any affinity for the agency. In other words, the party make-up at the time the agency was created is entirely irrelevant to the debate going on today.

Similarly, the history of American Civil Rights is full of twists and turns of positions. I won't bore you with the whole history lecture (though I encourage you to read about it, it's fascinating stuff). The first Civil Rights Acts (passed in 1866-80, give or take a few years) were passed by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Then the party was persuaded to surrender the fight for about 50 years. Then Republican appointees on the Supreme Court made some of the greatest strides of the era. However, no modern republican would support Earl Warren for appointment to the Supreme Court today.

Additionally, you mention women's suffrage, which was one of the major reforms of the "progressive era." But, unlike today, the progressive label was not owned exclusively by one party. Many members of both parties called themselves progressives. Though, probably the biggest name of the era was Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Republican. And, as a Republican, he almost single handedly invented the modern concept of environmental conservation, setting aside more land as federal parks and wildlife preserves than any other President (and I believe all other Presidents combined). (As an aside, Teddy Roosevelt's national park craze is a very funny story in and of itself. It's too long to be retold here, but it is definitely worth reading about.)

Does any of this mean that the modern Republican party shares any of these views or would do any of these things again if they had them to do over? Probably not. Of course, the Democrats were busy opposing most of these things at the time they where happening, and modern Democrats will often cite them as examples of our best policy achievements.

The reverse is also true, though the examples are less fun.

The important point is that an idea offered by a political party must be judged on its own merits, not on the history of the party offering it.
7
Yeah, I can't think of one thing the Republican party has accomplished in the last 20 years. Spend like crazy, run up the national credit card when in office and then yell bloody murder when the Democrats take control. Obama put the 2 Bush wars on budget and this Bush Depression is the Republicans fault... let us not forget that we also got hit (9/11) on Bush's watch. 4 million jobs have been created since Obama took office, with NO help whatsoever from the Republicants. Let us also not forget that under the Bush administration, we were LOSING over 700,000 jobs a MONTH! They don't know how to govern, these Republicants. What they do know how to do is yell, scream and turn working folk against one another, all the while funneling taxpayer money to the rich and multi-national corporations. Sad thing is, the typical Republicant falls for these tactics hook, line and sinker.
8
Can't trust any politician that signs the Grover Norquist pledge.
9
I.A., I must be your brother. Our dad is a nut bag. I gave up trying to talk with him about anything remotely political years ago. He still comes up with zingers like how socialized medicine is evil (after Medicare and VA paid for his cancer treatment) and so on. The latest? "Too bad there were not some concealed-carry people sitting in that theatre in Aurora.
We just have to refuse to bite. Or raise him one.

"There aren't enough guns on the street." No Dad, there aren't enough sane people on the streets. Didn't you say that this guy was a normal, educated white guy? Their neighbors always say they seemed normal, so I guess it is time to stop giving guns to people who seem normal, huh?
"The president is a Muslim?" Yeah, that's why he is ordering extra-judicial executions of American bloggers. That is just crazy jihady bullshit. Too bad the blogger was a Muslim too.

I'll see your crazy right-wing propoganda and raise you a lefty conspiracy. Then change the topic to the weather. Oops, here comes the global warming consipracy crap.

Hey, Dad, did I tell you th latest about the chickens?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.