I guess they'd have to continue the chart on the right all the way to mono-cellular life forms in order to include the democraps...
Posted on 09/07/2002 8:00:18 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist
Liberals have no real arguments – none that the American people would find palatable, anyway. So in lieu of actual argument, they accuse conservatives of every vice that pops into their heads, including their own mind-boggling elitism.
Nothing could be further from the truth and especially in the case of the web site Democrats.com-munists which is wholly devoted to political propaganda for the left courteous of former Clinton Administration officials. Their latest project seems to be a web site hacking at republicans with their creative suppositories like Evil GOP Bastards. Reluctantly I’m pointing it out in hopes that the republicans will stand up and fight the democrats rather than rolling over and move back to a conservative philosophy by starting with prescription drug coverage and proclaim it will not happen. Hope for the best and expect the worst.
The web site proclaims:
Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident. The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of oligarchic and corporate interests and absolutist religious groups.
The New Deal was nothing more than a communist conception that didn’t improve the living conditions of Americans. All children hear the words "FDR got us out of the Depression," just as they are taught that he led the war against tyranny. FDR was the champion of the common man, or so we are told. Roosevelt didn't get us out of the Depression. Six years after he was elected president, unemployment was about as high as it had been under Herbert Hoover. Even World War II didn't end the Depression. A depression is a big drop in production and people's standard of living.
By that measure, as economic historian Robert Higgs has written, the Depression did not end until after the war and FDR's death. People might have had jobs in munitions factories and the military, but those jobs did not improve their material well being. Consumer goods were rationed, and some things were unavailable altogether.
Nevertheless, in his futile effort to end the Depression FDR did bad things and left a terrible legacy of government control. He collectivized agriculture--a farmer could not grow more than his quota of wheat even for his own family's or livestock's use! (Many farm programs are still with us.)
FDR tried to make a cartel out of every industry through the National Recovery Act. Fortunately the Supreme Court stopped him. (When the Court stopped him too many times, he tried to pack it with sympathizers.) He introduced federal welfare that has fostered dependency ever since, creating multigenerational "families" of people on the dole.
FDR saddled America with that infamous Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. The economic and demographic defects of that phony "pay as you go" insurance system are now well known. What gets too little attention is the offensiveness of a pension program that forces workers and retirees to be dependent on government all their lives.
Is there a more un-American idea? Social Security is a fitting symbol of FDR. Since more young people believe in UFOs than in the integrity of Social Security, maybe the monument should be a flying saucer circling a rotting Social Security card.
The Roosevelt defenders will respond that at least he restored confidence in America after the Depression hit. More accurately, he sang them a siren song of meddling government. He took advantage of their depressed state to persuade them that government could make the important decisions in their lives. It can't and we see that more clearly than ever before. The original American ethic abhorred government power.
When the stock market crashed, Roosevelt told them it was caused by unbridled businessmen. It wasn't. Only one thing can explain an economy-wide crash: government meddling. During the 1920s the Federal Reserve created a boom with cheap money. The boom had to end sometime. When it did, Roosevelt (and Hoover before him) blamed the private sector and grabbed for power. His successors have given up very little of it.
The War in Vietnam? Yeah, I’m sure it terrified the bead wearing hippie leftists at Berkeley that America was actually fighting communism. I don’t exactly remember, but I thought the wrong side consisted of people like Jane Fonda that participated in interrogations and torture of American prisoners of war. The only regret liberals have about Vietnam was that the NVA didn’t sweep across America.
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.
Democrats are now for civil liberties? They have for decades worked as strongly as possible to infringe and ultimately destroy the right to bear arms. They want to pass Campaign Finance Reform and repeal freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. Mind-boggling elitism is an understatement.
The whole church and state issues comes down to liberals taking an establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution and manipulating it for their own self-interest to make atheism the state religion and prohibit any semblance of Christianity in a nation where the very founding document was based on the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Serious political debate evidently consists of randomly accusing your opponent of being a hateful bigot or having some vague ephemeral association with corporate crooks. Those are good arguments.
I stand with you 100%. Now, if we can squash the infighting among ourselves, maybe we can focus our attention of the atrocities of the Left and their lies.
At least I can hope.
I guess they'd have to continue the chart on the right all the way to mono-cellular life forms in order to include the democraps...
LIFE Magazine April 5, 1949
Red Rumpus
In the Beginning such people were prominent liberals who were lured into sponsoring or joining organization that seemed American enough at the time. When the Moscow-directed line emerged, numerous liberals quit. But others like those below stuck it out. Some of them were receptive to shrewd Communistic persuasiveness. Some in high positions stubbornly ignored their critics in the honest belief that there would eventually be a meeting of the minds. Still others cynically pursued personal ambition, thinking that Communists could help them along with their careers. Not a few became so notorious that they were accused of being actual members of the party. Some of those pictured here publicly and sincerely repudiate Communism, but this does not alter the fact that they are of great use to Communist cause.
Indeed membership would damage their special usefulness. Innocently or not, they accomplish quite as much as for the Kremlin in their glamorous way as a card holder does in his drab toil. The Communist-front organizations have been exposed often enough, however, so that by now the perennial joiner whose friends try to excuse him be is "just a dupe," is clearly a superdupe
From left to right: Top Row: Corliss Lamont, Writer, Philanthropist; Arthur Upham Pope, Authority on Persian Art; Susan B. Anthony II, Grandniece of Suffragist;
Row 2: Charles Chaplin, Movie Actor and Producer; Philip Morrison, Atomic Physicist; Olin Downes, Music Critic; O. John Rogge, Lawyer; Lyman R. Bradley, Professor of German.
Row 3: Thomas Mann, Novelist; Vida D. Scudder, English Professor Emeritus; Dean Dixon, Orchestra Conductor; Kenneth Leslie, Editor of "The Protestant"; Frederick L. Schuman, Political science Professor
Row 4: Harlow Shapley, Astronomer; William Rose Benet, Poet; Walter Rautenstrauch, Engineering Prf. Emeritus; F.O. Matthiessen. History Professor; Donald Ogden Stewart, Writer.
Bottom Row: Louis Untermeyer, Poet; George Seldes, Editor; Lilian Hellman, Playwright; William Howard Melish, Episcopal Clergyman; Gene Weltfish, Anthropologist.
<--- Last page from LIFE
http://www.theeinsteinfile.com/GALLERY/g5.html
This is eye-opening.
It is truly amazing how the Democrats can twist any law to suit their purpose. Of course that's not difficult for those who believe the end justifies the means. They're busy twisting and tweaking CFR as we speak. Thanks for the post. It's very informative.
But that's the point. It is a hate site.
Democrats.com, DemocraticUnderground.com, and our friends over at EVILGOPBASTARDS.com have a function: keep the Democratic Party's activist wing all ginned up so when some smoothtalking liberal with blow-dried hair and a gift for gab comes knocking, they'll go to the mat for the guy.
You do that by using Hate as a vehicle. Some Freepers are actually foolish enough to hate in return. Thankfully, most of us are not, as we know garden variety Democrats from all walks of life who are just like you and me. However, these activists are not just like you and me. They hate with a relish. It's a hate I haven't seen in a long time in this country. It does remind me of something, however....
These days the left is filled with mindless hatred and conspiracy theories. That is a good thing for us, of course, because the more frustrated the left gets, the more it displays its inner fascist core. And at bottom, that is what they are: fascists. They have a right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives because they are better than we are.
That's what fascism amounts to, and that fatal assumption is the foundation for the modern Left.
So then...
The proper attitude towards the Left Activists is one of undisguised contempt, mixed in with a bit of pity, but never hatred.
See, actual hatred should be reserved for the likes of Saddam and the Islamic Fascists of bin Laden's ilk. That's what these Democrats will never understand.
Rather, they will waste their time trying to prove that Prescott Bush was a Nazi hireling or somesuch nonsense, or that Bush really knew the September 11th attacks were going to happen, and let them happen. Or they'll go on about the Stolen Election (I like to say that when you start talking about the 2000 election to a room full of these people, it's like watching the Hitler Youth get off the train at Nuremburg-they get really excited.), and so on. And so forth.
And it's a real waste of time, something God never gives us any more of than He has decided upon in advance. But let them waste their time on conspiracies and hate. We have better things to do over here at FR. Better yet, we have better things to do than to read this bilge from one of the Rat hate sites.
So once again: let's not post this stuff over here anymore.
It is, after all, a big waste of time.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Leeches.
I trolled that site for about a week... then they banned me.
There is no discourse there. Only Bush and Republican bashing. I guess that's how commies operate.
But anticonservative web discussion is no more of a challenge to us than anticonservative talk radio--no real factor. Why? Because the niche for anticonservative discussion is filled by journalism. Journalists and other anticonservatives define "objectivity" as the opposite of "conservative," and conduct a jihad against any conservative being positioned as being objective.
The internet is the medium best suited for rational give-and-take, even more than talk radio. Slash-and-run tactics don't work so well when the audience can reread the attack and compare with the rational response. Superficiality is a crashing bore on the Internet venue, just as it is in talk radio. So I say, if (to a specific individual) you can't promote FR in particular, promote the Internet in general anyway. They just might figure it out on their own . . .
and unfurling the banner to read:
Anyone print some stickers with this yet?
Anyone know of a good pub near HWY 6 on Westheimer?
Just what/how would we FREEP?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.