Several Democrat Party success stories are mentioned in this essay.
A sample:
The Trail of Tears (1838)
The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921)
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972)
Japanese Internment Camps (1942)
The irony is that the Democrat Party wraps itself in a mantle of "Holier Than Thou", accusing the Pubbies of all sorts of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia.
It's what the shrinks call "projection."
HT: Zippers
There is no such thing as "the Democrat Party."
ReplyDeleteCare to refute the facts, you fucking piece of garbage? Die in a hose fire, Jim.
ReplyDeleteHouse fire. But you're still a piece of trash.
ReplyDeleteDad29, where is your Christian condemnation regarding Anony's comments that Jim ought to die in a "hose [sic] fire"? Get back to us on that one.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the Michelle Malkin's of the world support Japanese Internment, the Theodore Beales' of the world believe women "ruin everything" and should be stripped of their right to vote, and the Jerry Falwell's of the world think the anti-Christ is Jewish.
And, of course, our expert historian Dad29 conveniently forgets that:
the Trail of Tears resulted from a number of people who happened to be white--not Democrats--who sought to physically remove Indians from their land despite state and federal treaties;
the Tuskegee Experiments were conducted by black and white scientists--not Democrats;
-and-
that secessionists and members of the KKK were defending custom, convention, and continuity, which
according to Russell Kirk are fundamentally conservative principles. Am I stating or implying Kirk is a secessionist and a racist? No. But he certainly would defend the actions of these individuals and groups on the basis of his political ideology.
Besides, Dad29, the Palmer Raids were meant to root out suspected communists, right? You bitterly support Joseph McCarthy's tactics, but not Palmer, which were similar in nature? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Ultimately, to accuse (D)'s or (R')s or conservatives or liberals as "worse" when it comes to a particular behavior or attribute specific events exclusively to political affiliation is indeed exhibiting projection...and confirmation bias.
Carry on, Dad29, carry on.
The democrat party did all that is mentioned in the article and then some. But hey, if you control the message, you control the followers.
ReplyDeletethe Trail of Tears resulted from a number of people who happened to be white--not Democrats
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. A Democrat gave the order to make it happen.
the Tuskegee Experiments were conducted by black and white scientists--not Democrats
Irrelevant. A Democrat gave the order to make it happen.
(By the way, I didn't bother to mention the Democrat Wilson's order to segregate the Armed Forces, either....)
custom, convention, and continuity, which
according to Russell Kirk are fundamentally conservative principles.
Kirk never advocated immorality as part of the above. You wish to confuse "advocacy" with "allowing attrition", which are two very different things entirely.
You bitterly support Joseph McCarthy's tactics, but not Palmer, which were similar in nature?
Actually, I joyfully support Joe McCarthy's tactics. "Criticizing the Government" is not even REMOTELY the same as espionage for the enemy (Stalin) or working for him (treason) excepte in the fevered "mind" of a Lefty--such as you.
I've actively and harshly condemned GWB's "Patriot Act" crap, and await Obozo's proposed abrogation of same.
But I'm not holding my breath.
One more thing the democrat party is successful at.
ReplyDeleteLying about the mess they leave behind.
There is no such thing as "the Democrat Party." It doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteTo Dad29...
ReplyDelete"Irrelevant. A Democrat gave the order to make it happen."
Regarding Jackson--A politician who happened to be a Democrat, heeding the calls of his (white) constituents, defied the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. Again, the actions of the Jackson Administration were not isolated because state and federal officials--Federalist and Democrat-Republican, Whig and Democrat--had violated treaties without consequence. By the way, it was Congress, with Jackson enforcing that act, that passed legislation to forcible remove the "Five Civilized Tribes" from their ancestral lands.
You fail to understand that at that point in history, whites--which included Democrats--generally believed they were justified to take such action against heathens and savages; most believed God ordained them as the rightful heirs to tribal land. Moreover, the "Indian Question" was considered by southerners as a states rights issue; that is, they could dissolve the boundaries of Indian nations within their borders without federal consent.
Regarding Tuskegee--The U.S. Public Health Service, led by Taliaferro Clark and Oliver Wenger, was responsible for these experiments, NOT Democrats.
"Actually, I joyfully support Joe McCarthy's tactics."
The rights of American citizens were directly violated under the direction of Uncle Joe the Republican (e.g. illegal wiretaps, illegal obtaining of financial records, illegal seizure of property without warrants); so, if you "joyfully support" his crusade because he was hunting for communists (the enemy of the U.S. at that time) then using your own reasoning, you should have no problems with the Obama Administration hunting for terrorists (the current enemy of the U.S.) using those same tactics.
"Kirk never advocated immorality as part of the above. You wish to confuse "advocacy" with "allowing attrition", which are two very different things entirely."
I don't wish to confuse anything. Kirk is explicitly clear when he states that property and freedom are inseparably connected and that society must alter slowly. Kirk insisted that slavery could not have been dispelled by punitive legislation or northern intimidation; with the passage of time, it would simply pass away. Had this conservative approach been taken by the Lincoln Administration, the evil of human bondage would have been allowed to fester and eat away the moral fabric of the United States. Kirk detested slavery, of course, but not to the point that he would set aside his principles and advocate national intervention in the matter.
Dad29, so where's YOUR condemnation of Malkin, Beale, and Falwell? I won't hold my breath.
By the way, Dad29, amazing how like Pavlovian dogs you automatically assume that I'm a liberal just because I challenge your "expertise". Sorry to disappoint, but I'm an American. That's my tribe.
Ultimately, to accuse (D)'s or (R')s or conservatives or liberals as "worse" when it comes to a particular behavior or attribute specific events exclusively to political affiliation is indeed exhibiting projection...and confirmation bias.
Carry on, Dad29, carry on.
The U.S. Public Health Service, led by Taliaferro Clark and Oliver Wenger
ReplyDeleteAnd the President was....? The Congress was controlled by.....?
A politician who happened to be a Democrat, heeding the calls of his (white) constituents, defied the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
Not only a racist warmonger, but in defiance of SCOTUS. Such a fine Democrat he really was!!!
he was hunting for communists (the enemy of the U.S. at that time) then using your own reasoning, you should have no problems with the Obama Administration hunting for terrorists (the current enemy of the U.S.) using those same tactics.
In fact, Obozo, following the lead of FDR, deliberately EMPLOYS both Marxists and Muslim extremists in Government positions.
By the way, McCarthy never murdered US citizens without a trial after simply "declaring" them to be "imminent" threats.
You and I agree about Kirk's position on the evil of slavery.
Of course, you cannot prove this: Had this conservative approach been taken by the Lincoln Administration, the evil of human bondage would have been allowed to fester and eat away the moral fabric of the United States.
....any more than one can prove ANY counterfactual.
Finally:
illegal wiretaps, illegal obtaining of financial records, illegal seizure of property without warrants
A Bing search does not turn up credible accusations of such. Of course, one can also ask "By whose standards were they illegal?"
Either way, please come up with documentation.
I don't worry about second fiddles such as Malkin or Falwell. You can fret all you like about them; evidently you have time to waste.
Nor do I call the Democrat Party leadership "worse"--except when they deserve it. Obozo is worse than Carter, for example.
Happy to know you're an American! Someday you'll rid yourself of the social disease known as 'relativism,' and be a healthy one, too!
There is no such thing as "the Democrat Party leadership" because there is no such thing as "the Democrat party". It doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteFuck you, Jim. You can't refute the points, so you stick to parsing.
ReplyDeleteI would kill myself if I were you, you worthless California faggot.
The U.S. Public Health Service, led by Taliaferro Clark and Oliver Wenger...
ReplyDeleteAnd the President was....? The Congress was controlled by.....?
Dad29, FDR (and Congres)s had no link to the experiments, which began AFTER he was inaugurated. Just because this terrible tragedy occurred under FDR does NOT mean he is directly responsible. Talk about revisionist history. Besides, you have used my argument when defending the RCC when it's priests molested little boys. That is, you have made it clear that the Vatican hierarchy should not bear the primary responsibility, that the incidents were localized.
"Not only a racist warmonger, but in defiance of SCOTUS. Such a fine Democrat he really was!!!"
I only thought libruls used the battlecry of "It's raaaaaccisst". Again, Jackson was a product of the times--most white people, especially Christians, thought they were superior to other groups of people and therefore could do what they wanted to them.
You must have failed history at Marquette.
"In fact, Obozo, following the lead of FDR, deliberately EMPLOYS both Marxists and Muslim extremists in Government positions."
Says who? Regardless, your point is not germane to gist of the post.
"By the way, McCarthy never murdered US citizens without a trial after simply "declaring" them to be "imminent" threats."
Moral relativism on your part, eh? McCarthy, and other Republicans, "murdered" the reputations of thousands of Americans with unsubstantiated accusations, whose lives were significantly disrupted. Furthermore, the conversation is about SHARED tactics between McCarthy and Obama, not whether one or the other did something different.
"A Bing search does not turn up credible accusations of such. Of course, one can also ask "By whose standards were they illegal?""
I wouldn't expect anything less...you're a toadie. The standards we use is something called the Constitution. I doubt you will even acknowledge the authority that McCarthy had as a committee chairperson to order the FBI to conduct investigations on suspected communists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29terkel.html?_r=0
http://books.google.com/books?id=VnQduXa4JdoC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=mccarthyism+wiretaps+by+fbi&source=bl&ots=SBcSGs2VoL&sig=5y_4LUEUodXnER2b43eUakstqKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C9kqUc-lKMiorAH2_IDQDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mccarthyism%20wiretaps%20by%20fbi&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
"Of course, you cannot prove this: Had this conservative approach been taken by the Lincoln Administration, the evil of human bondage would have been allowed to fester and eat away the moral fabric of the United States."
One can make credible arguments, using evidence in support of that position.
It was smart on your part (for once) to not contest the fact that Kirk (and other conservatives of his ilk) may find something morally reprehensible, like slavery, but outright refuse to abandon their dogma in order to rectify that immoral act through federal involvement. Very telling, indeed.
"I don't worry about second fiddles such as Malkin or Falwell. You can fret all you like about them; evidently you have time to waste."
Yet, you find ways to cite them and/or advocate their positions, right?
I bet you have a 60 foot projection screen in your rec room.
Ah, yes, the deranged anony at 10:13 p.m. strikes again.
ReplyDeleteDad29, care to condemn his/her words, or are you going to tacitly endorse his immoral statements?
Republic party.
ReplyDeleteNow y'all can say "f you" to me, too.
Rush wannabees.
Democrat Party is a term of endearment just like Teabagger. It's just not as vulgar which speaks to the character of the respective members.
ReplyDeleteMore false equivalences, which speaks to the ignorance of ... uh, you.
ReplyDeleteSame KKK Dem's from the 1920s-70s now identify as Republikans. It took them 100 yrs to get over Lincoln kicking their ass and freeing their slaves. Party labels change but the conservative values remain the same.
ReplyDelete