TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Historical fact check!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Historical fact check!

post #1 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:20am
Thread Starter 
Reid Compares opposition to Health Reform Bill to favoring slavery

A powerful statement. And it needs to be followed up with this statement from someone else:

"Maybe Senator Reid has forgotten that there was a word for those who opposed ending slavery. It was 'Democrats.' Many seem to have forgotten that the party that fought a war over slavery (among other issues) and ended slavery in the U.S. was the Republican Party."
Reply
post #2 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Reid Compares opposition to Health Reform Bill to favoring slavery

A powerful statement. And it needs to be followed up with this statement from someone else:

"Maybe Senator Reid has forgotten that there was a word for those who opposed ending slavery. It was 'Democrats.' Many seem to have forgotten that the party that fought a war over slavery (among other issues) and ended slavery in the U.S. was the Republican Party."
An in that time, the Republican party was the liberal party, aka "The Liberal Republican Party". Over the decades the parties have changed positions, and names. There have been Whigs, Tories, Federalists, Anti-federalists, Democratic Republicans...but the stance of the conservatives and liberals have always been the same. To make a claim that today's Republican party is anything like the one that opposed slavery is simply wordplay on history.
Reply
post #3 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:30am
Thread Starter 
Just checking the facts, ma'am.
Reply
post #4 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Just checking the facts, ma'am.
So, the party of yesteryear that ended Slavery became today's Democratic party...so what was the point again?
Reply
post #5 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:39am
Thread Starter 
No, it didn't. The Republican Party is still the Republican Party, no matter how much some of their platform may have changed. So my original statement is still historically true.
Reply
post #6 of 61
12/9/09 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
No, it didn't. The Republican Party is still the Republican Party, no matter how much some of their platform may have changed. So my original statement is still historically true.
Exactly. And trying to use such history to lay modern claim to a totally different party's exploits is just as I said, simple wordplay, an attempt to associate the conservatives of today with the liberal victories of the past.
Reply
post #7 of 61
12/9/09 at 1:10pm
I believe it was the Republicn Party that pushed for Civil Rights for Black people also.

For the last fifty years or so, Black people have voted for the Democratic Party. Just what has the Democratic party done to help Black people in those 50 years.

The Democrats throw money at the problem but do nothing to solve the problem. They give hand outs, not a hand up.
Reply
post #8 of 61
12/9/09 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So, the party of yesteryear that ended Slavery became today's Democratic party...so what was the point again?
That Harry Reid is an idiot...
Reply
post #9 of 61
12/9/09 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I believe it was the Republicn Party that pushed for Civil Rights for Black people also.

For the last fifty years or so, Black people have voted for the Democratic Party. Just what has the Democratic party done to help Black people in those 50 years.

The Democrats throw money at the problem but do nothing to solve the problem. They give hand outs, not a hand up.
It was the liberal party that pushed for civil rights. Whatever name they chose to operate under in the past is little more than semantics now. If there is still a US government in 100 years, half the parties will probably be under different names, but their core values will probably change very little.

The only difference I see in throwing money at domestic problems and Republicans throwing money at foreign problems is who gets to spend it.
Reply
post #10 of 61
12/9/09 at 2:47pm
Thanks Skippy for pointing out that the democratic party then is absolutely nothing like the democratic party today, they are totally different parties.
Maybe an example that people are more likely to agree with: It is like calling Mark Twain a modern democrat, he was a democrat at the time but when looked at from a modern perspective, he is much more center than left. I know conservatives today are offended if anyone tries to claim that Mark Twain and other progressives of that era as modern democrats. The only thing that's the same about the Democratic party then and the democratic party today is their name.
And during the 60s, it was the democratic party that pushed for civil rights, including Robert F Kennedy who was among the civil rights leaders.
mrblanche, your statement is not incorrect by any means, but it doesn't mean that the party that today calls itself the republican party is the one responsible for ending slavery.
Reply
post #11 of 61
12/9/09 at 3:06pm
And in 1898 in Wilmington, NC, it was the conservative democratic party that was making statements like "take this country back". (sound familiar). It was the conservative party that physically ousted the newly, legally elected integrated government from state offices and roamed the city randomly shooting black citizens. (shape of things to come?).

Conservatives and Liberals have changed and traded party names more than once, but they are basically the same. All the wordplay and semantics being pitched about is simply conservatives trying to rewrite history and to insert themselves as the good guys.
Reply
post #12 of 61
12/10/09 at 8:48am
What makes you say that the Democrats shooting black people were "conservative"? Because liberals just couldn't shoot a black person?

Conservatives are the "good guys," why would you say they aren't?

Reply
post #13 of 61
12/10/09 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What makes you say that the Democrats shooting black people were "conservative"? Because liberals just couldn't shoot a black person?

Conservatives are the "good guys," why would you say they aren't?
Because in 1898, the Democrats WERE the conservatives. And I say they're the bad guys because they were the one's that fought to preserve slavery, the Jim Crowe Laws, segregation, the "male-only" vote, etc. The conservatives have a long history of having their stance defeated, and later generations looking at them saying "who did they think they were?"

And, as an aside, but still curious, note...the cry of "take this country back" being voiced by today's conservatives, is nearly exactly the same cry voiced by them back in 1898, right before they went on their killing spree and reasserted the dominance of the white christian male power structure. A bit chilling, actually.
Reply
post #14 of 61
12/10/09 at 5:35pm
OK I believe as much as anyone that some conservatives are a serious danger to to the stability and future of our country and are no better than the religious extremists in the Middle East. But I am old enough to remember George Wallace - a Democrat - running for President in 1968 and I think he was right up there with some of the religious Right crazies we are seeing nowadays in the Republican party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZ4G251WR4
Reply
post #15 of 61
12/10/09 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Because in 1898, the Democrats WERE the conservatives. And I say they're the bad guys because they were the one's that fought to preserve slavery, the Jim Crowe Laws, segregation, the "male-only" vote, etc. The conservatives have a long history of having their stance defeated, and later generations looking at them saying "who did they think they were?"

And, as an aside, but still curious, note...the cry of "take this country back" being voiced by today's conservatives, is nearly exactly the same cry voiced by them back in 1898, right before they went on their killing spree and reasserted the dominance of the white christian male power structure. A bit chilling, actually.
Isn't it interesting that of all the Tea Party Rally's, there was no violence and no arrests and no "killing sprees."

So, you are saying that liberals are lily white and never racist and never violent and commit no crimes?

I don't believe for one second that the conservatives of the 19th century were a bunch of racists. They were anti-slavery, the plantation owners and slave owners were the pro-slavery people.
Reply
post #16 of 61
12/10/09 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Isn't it interesting that of all the Tea Party Rally's, there was no violence and no arrests and no "killing sprees." .
And there was no violence and no arrests and no "killing sprees" in the rallies leading up to the events in NC either. That came once the situation reached it's head...which looks to be building up again.

Quote:
So, you are saying that liberals are lily white and never racist and never violent and commit no crimes?
Nope. But I AM saying they don't do it as a party.

Quote:
I don't believe for one second that the conservatives of the 19th century were a bunch of racists. They were anti-slavery, the plantation owners and slave owners were the pro-slavery people
Uh no; the Republicans of the 19th century were anti-slavery. BUT, the Republicans of the 19th century was the liberal party...we're on the very verge of being funny here. Who do you think the plantation and slaves owners were? That was then, this is now, and now's definitions don't apply. A joint used to be a place you didn't want your kids hanging out...gay used to mean "happy"...truck used to mean garbage...and Republicans used to be liberal.
Reply
post #17 of 61
12/10/09 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
And there was no violence and no arrests and no "killing sprees" in the rallies leading up to the events in NC either. That came once the situation reached it's head...which looks to be building up again.



Nope. But I AM saying they don't do it as a party.



Uh no; the Republicans of the 19th century were anti-slavery. BUT, the Republicans of the 19th century was the liberal party...we're on the very verge of being funny here. Who do you think the plantation and slaves owners were? That was then, this is now, and now's definitions don't apply. A joint used to be a place you didn't want your kids hanging out...gay used to mean "happy"...truck used to mean garbage...and Republicans used to be liberal.
So, YOU say, I believe that is nothing but a convenient excuse to explain away the fact that Republicans have always been anti-slavery and pro civil rights. Sorry, doesn't work.

If I remember correctly, and I do, the illustrious Democratic Senator Bryd, remember him, the longest serving Senator ever, and STILL serving BTW, was a Klansman. How could that be, oh the horror of it, a Democrat as a KKK member.
Reply
post #18 of 61
12/10/09 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So, YOU say, I believe that is nothing but a convenient excuse to explain away the fact that Republicans have always been anti-slavery and pro civil rights. Sorry, doesn't work.

If I remember correctly, and I do, the illustrious Democratic Senator Bryd, remember him, the longest serving Senator ever, and STILL serving BTW, was a Klansman. How could that be, oh the horror of it, a Democrat as a KKK member.
Republicans, yes. But conservatives, no. You're mixing up the two. The conservatives of the 1860's were the democrats. The Republican party didn't take on a conservative aire until well into the 1930's. It's easy to check out, if you like. Forget looking it up by party, because that's just semantics. Look up the major pro-slavery players, such as Hammond, and research as to whether he was liberal or conservative. The "convenient excuse" is being used by conservatives as a feel goody self delusion, a form of denial that many of the overturned evils of the past rested squarely on their laps.

And the pope was a Nazi...so what's your point?
Reply
post #19 of 61
12/11/09 at 5:12am
Thread Starter 
The Republican Party was founded as a farmers' rights party. It has as much right today to call itself "the party of Lincoln" as the Democratic Party has the right to call itself "the party of Jefferson."

It's true that parties change over time. That is why I'm an independent.
Reply
post #20 of 61
12/11/09 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Reid Compares opposition to Health Reform Bill to favoring slavery

A powerful statement. And it needs to be followed up with this statement from someone else:

"Maybe Senator Reid has forgotten that there was a word for those who opposed ending slavery. It was 'Democrats.' Many seem to have forgotten that the party that fought a war over slavery (among other issues) and ended slavery in the U.S. was the Republican Party."
Interesting. I got something very different from listening to that. It seems to me he was comparing the GOP foot dragging on health care reform to similar foot dragging done in the past with regards to other issues, not just slavery. And I don't get that he said anything like equating the foot dragging to "favoring slavery".
Reply
post #21 of 61
12/11/09 at 10:42am
Harry Reid is old and senile. No worries, we will be voting him out of office come next November. The local garbage collector could beat Harry Reid if the election were today.

But, then again, never underestimate the short memory of the masses.

FTR, I have always voted for Harry Reid. Shocker, huh? But never again.
Reply
post #22 of 61
12/11/09 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Harry Reid is old and senile. No worries, we will be voting him out of office come next November. The local garbage collector could beat Harry Reid if the election were today.

But, then again, never underestimate the short memory of the masses.

FTR, I have always voted for Harry Reid. Shocker, huh? But never again.
I don't think it's such a shocker. I'm fairly sure that all of us at one time have voted for a "winner" that was a fundamental disappointment to us once the winning was done. I know I have.
Reply
post #23 of 61
12/11/09 at 12:38pm
Thread Starter 
I heard Dennis Miller say that every time he hears Harry Reid speaking, he's looking around for the CSI guys to draw a chalk line around him.

Reid's in big trouble with his state, and he's currently 10 points behind his challenger. But the only poll that counts is the one they take on election day! And that's a long ways away. Many things could happen before then.
Reply
post #24 of 61
12/11/09 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I heard Dennis Miller say that every time he hears Harry Reid speaking, he's looking around for the CSI guys to draw a chalk line around him.

Reid's in big trouble with his state, and he's currently 10 points behind his challenger. But the only poll that counts is the one they take on election day! And that's a long ways away. Many things could happen before then.
Dennis Miller is a hoot, isn't he?
And wasn't O'Reilly TICKED about that episode of Law and Order SVU that aired Wednesday? WHOA, he was really mad.
Reply
post #25 of 61
12/12/09 at 1:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Dennis Miller is a hoot, isn't he?
And wasn't O'Reilly TICKED about that episode of Law and Order SVU that aired Wednesday? WHOA, he was really mad.
Poor little thing. He got upset over an fictional drama. Tender little fellow, isn't he. Bless his heart.

But then again, if he just can't tell the difference; that may give us some insight as to where he comes from.
Reply
post #26 of 61
12/12/09 at 8:11am
Did you watch the show Skippy? They mentioned O'Reilly, by name, and what they said was a total lie. At the very least, I think they should tell the truth.
Reply
post #27 of 61
12/12/09 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Did you watch the show Skippy? They mentioned O'Reilly, by name, and what they said was a total lie. At the very least, I think they should tell the truth.
No, not a fan of any of the supercops series. So, what part of "fictional drama" did he not understand? It's not like it was factoid statement on a quasi-news program.
Reply
post #28 of 61
12/12/09 at 11:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Poor little thing. He got upset over an fictional drama. Tender little fellow, isn't he. Bless his heart.
Unfortunately, he does seem to have a sense of humor. This is an endless source of angst among those who fancy themselves humorist but are really just cheap-shot artists.

Do you understand the difference between fictional drama and public cheap shots? The President seems to be pretty touchy about them, too. In fact, the only Presidents I know of who haven't been were the two Bushes. All the rest seemed to take it all too seriously.
Reply
post #29 of 61
12/12/09 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Unfortunately, he does seem to have a sense of humor. This is an endless source of angst among those who fancy themselves humorist but are really just cheap-shot artists.

Do you understand the difference between fictional drama and public cheap shots? The President seems to be pretty touchy about them, too. In fact, the only Presidents I know of who haven't been were the two Bushes. All the rest seemed to take it all too seriously.
Why yes. A fictional drama is a scripted program dealing with people that aren't really who they portray, in situations that aren't really happening, with prepared dialog, thoughts and opinions that aren't really theirs, that may or may not vaguely refer to contemporary places, persons or events.

A public cheap shot would be something along the lines of a news network personality engaging in yellow journalism.
Reply
post #30 of 61
12/12/09 at 12:57pm
Some people really will make a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of publicity.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Historical fact check!