This is....

by far the most ignorant post I've ever seen here. This man is obviously hate filled.

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 1:08:27 PM
 

Wrong

Conservatives are the haters. Try to keep it straight. Thanks.

by Mar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 155 comments) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 7:12:31 PM
 

You get it right.

Look through this site and there is an enourmous amout of Liberals saying they hate Reps. They are self proclaimed haters and to make a statment like the ones made here about any other group would be refered to as bigoted. I don't hate people just for disagreeing with me. I don't hate people period. I get frustrated when people pass judgment without listening and labeling as has been done here. It is ignorant and agin, hateful.

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 8:47:47 PM
 

A few notes for you.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
Exerts:
And let's not let the "fair and free" press off the hook. Back when Jim Crow and segregation were "the law of the land" in the South, the press served as cheerleaders for all those kind, compassionate Democrats as they lovingly lynched black people by the hundreds on a yearly basis.

That's what has happened to the political party that I belong to – the Republicans. For decades the Party of Lincoln has been under almost constant assault for being "racist" and "openly hostile" to blacks.

However, nothing could be further from the truth – but you would never know it by the party's spineless, practically nonexistent defense of its record on race and civil rights.

From the days of Lincoln until the present, blacks have had no better friend, party-wise, than the Republicans. Since its inception in the mid-19th century, the GOP has built an exemplary record on civil rights, particularly if you want to use the Democrat Party as a comparison.

The party's first president, Abraham Lincoln, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the height of the Civil War, squelching any chance that the European powers of the day would intervene in the conflict in favor of the Confederacy. With the stroke of his pen, Lincoln destroyed the last real hope the Confederacy had for a victory.

Soon after the war ended, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection and due process and addressed blacks' right to vote.

;;;;;;;;;;
And let us not forget that during the same period it was Democrats throughout the United States who organized and ran America's premier terrorist organization – the Ku Klux Klan.

;;;;;;;;;
In Woodrow's mind, though, "democracy" applied to everyone except those annoying little dark-skinned people in America who are always clamoring for civil rights. In 1913, Wilson introduced segregation into the federal government.

Yes, dear readers, the man who is worshipped as the utmost "progressive" (where and by who have you heard that term used lately?) of his time allowed federal officials to segregate "toilets, cafeterias and work" areas of various federal departments.

;;;;;;;;;
It was left to Wilson's successor, Republican Warren G. Harding to scrap the segregation policy. And Warren G. didn't stop there. In 1922, Harding delivered a bold speech in Birmingham, Ala., (A Democrat stronghold that was later known by blacks as "Bombingham") in which he called for black equality. Up to then, no U.S. president had ever spoken so forcefully about civil rights.
;;;;;;;;;

In 1957, Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, called out his state's National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the city to escort nine frightened black teens into the school past riotous mobs inflamed by Faubus' defiance of a federal court order. Faubus was a Democrat. Eisenhower was a Republican.

;;;;;;;;;But of late, Democrats are not trying to keep black children out, but in. In public opinion polls on school choice, blacks overwhelmingly favor vouchers to rescue their children from failing schools. No one knows better the damage that poor schools can do to their children's future and communities than blacks. Republicans are in favor of school choice. Democrats aren't.

Also in more contemporary times, President Bush appointed two blacks to the highest positions in government ever occupied by blacks in America. Today, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are very powerful, influential members of the Bush administration. Powell, in fact, is fourth in the succession line for the presidency.

Oh, by the way, do you know who is third in line? Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Old "Sheets" himself. The same Byrd of the "white niggers" comments on March 5, 2001, and who was a member of the KKK. And Sen. Byrd was not just any old member. No, sir. He was a "grand kleagle" – a recruiter!

;;;;;;;;

Don't be a mindless pawn. The two parties are no different. When the day is done they cut deals together and the good go one way the bad another and they were both red and blue on both. There is no ballance until we have a third party. Conservative and liberal the put here is a subjective view. The government should stay out of anything that is of a personal belief. Screw liberals and conservatives on both sides that dissagree. That is the first amendment. Government stays out of the church.

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 9:43:32 PM
 

Re: Lincoln

Republicans used to stand for the good, obviously, but the key word is "used" to. There was a "switch" that you don't seem to be registering in your monologue here. If President Lincoln were alive today, he would assuredly be 100% Democrat, fighting the bigotry, racism, and hatred of the opposing Party. To say otherwise is to misunderstand the situation entirely.

by Kate Wilson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 11:47:53 PM
 

You seem to not get it.

Both sides, in office, are indifferent to anything but getting elected. One side is no more or less evil than the other. For the most part, they all sell thier soul in the name of the party. The rest of us are lest to figure out who's alterier motives will best serve the country. It's a crap shoot. They both change sides all the time.

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 7:11:36 AM
 

Also thought you might want to know...

""There was a "switch" that you don't seem to be registering in your monologue here.""

That was nhot my "monologue'. It was written by a very educated black man. Lincoln would not be a Democrat any more than Rev. Martin Luthar King would have. The Democrats were the land owners and though the people voteing for them may have changed, they have not. Republicans are Corperate elite, Democrats are Racial elite. Lincoln and King would more than likely be independents or Libritarians, or even Green party.

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 3:27:17 PM
 

Was Jesus Hate Filled?

Jesus (a.k.a. the Prince of peace, and love) pointed out many Evil people/groups and he also said what made them Evil; thus, I reject any premise that automatically brands someone as hate-filled just because they are pointing out the the Truth about people/groups. Now if he were lying, then you'd have a point. Republicans are rotten to the core.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 1:44:07 AM
 

OK THEN!

"I reject any premise that automatically brands someone as hate-filled just because they are pointing out the the Truth about people/groups."

I'm sure Hitler would agree. This is just a new form of Macarthyism. If someone doesn't agree with you, label them as evil. Don't open anything to discusion. What do you think this is, a democracy?

by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 12:23:12 PM
 

Right on the money

You forgot this kind: Blind, deaf, and dumb. :)

by Kate Wilson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 7:56:46 PM
 

FANATICISM FOR THE IDEAL TO UNDERMINE IT IN REALITY

Your eight kinds of conservative are not mutually exclusive categories. For example, it is possible to be both bigoted and authoritarian. In fact, many conservatives have all eight of the characteristics you listed.
As for a previous commentator who denounced your comment as hate filled, I spit with hate for people who act as fanatical supporters for what our country pupports to be founded on while destroying everything our country pupports to be founded on. I became politically aware during the (Joe) McCarthy era and I am all too familiar with these types.
For example, one of the principles our country pupports to be founded on is freedom of speech. Yet, if you even speak in favor of fluoridation of water, some of those people wanted to haul you before House committees, denounce you as a communist and imprison you on some pretext. The most loud mouthed, ostentatious support for the principles the U.S. purpported to be founded on while whipping up fanaticl, mob support for the verbalized principles to crush their reality.
Another example is John Murtha's House speech against the Iraq War. I disagree with his fighting in the Vietnam war but neither I nor anyone else would be justified in calling him a coward since he voluntarily put himself in great danger, albeit for a cause I disagree with. So when a Republican member of the House baited him with "Cowards quit but patriots never do," I wished I had been a member of that House so I could have rose and said: "You know, you people have gotten so far beneaath contempt that even the Space Shuttle couldn't lift you up to within sight of the underside of contempt!"
The ideals of free speech, innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial, etc are noble ideals which should have been more fully implemented. But we should not forget that this country which professed such noble ideals is founded on the violent theft of the territory it exists on and the genocide of its previous owners, as well as the kidnapping of yet another race who were brought here in chains to build much of this country's wealth.
The ideals are wonderful but if I ever see any of this liberty and justice for all that they told me in elementary school prevailed in this country, I might start being patriotic about it.
Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 307 comments) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 10:45:29 PM
 

Response to Draygin2004

Draygin2004, 

For you to say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans reflects a startling lack of knowledge about modern politics.  Progressives and conservatives are diametrically opposed on most political issues today.  In fact, that's why political issues remain unresolved today.  If both sides agreed on an issue, it would no longer be an issue.

You talk about the positions of the parties in the 1800s as if that reflects today.  Obviously, the Republican Party was more progressive than the Democratic Party during the time of President Lincoln, but the two parties have long since switched places.  The Democratic Party is much more progressive than the Republican Party today.   

by Ashu M. G. Solo (15 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 11:21:18 PM