Which party ordered the military to let the blacks into the white schools?
Which party destroyed mens reputations calling them gay and cross dresser. Men who were routing out communist don’t forget. Now this party is for thier(gay) cause throwing them unthoughfull and hatefull policy that is in the end hurting their cause.
Which party freed the slaves and which wanted to keep them slaves.
Which party wanted to hold up civil rights even though their president wanted them. Which party voted for civil rights even tough it wasn’t thier president, but whithout whose votes civil rights never passes.
Which party has created a whole society of people dependant on them just so they could get their votes.
Which partys policy is actually taking us backwards back to segragation because they preach so much hate to keep their votes.
Which partys policy called containment was the exact opposite of what they called it. Every single policy was to benefit of communism and not this country.
Which party collapsed communism. Which part said that the way Reagan was going about it would cause WW3 and the exact opposite happened.
Which party left the Cubans who wanted to overthrow Castro and communism in Cuba and then left them to be slaughtered by Castro. Which then did almost lead to WW3. Now they call the guy a hero for the way he stopped the Russians from putting missles in Cuba actually braught about the crisis. I think the republicans would have ssupported BOP and therefore missles would have never got that close.
Which party calls Oli North a criminal because all he wanted to do was stop the spread communism on our back door. When the democrats wouldn’t support it, he funded it himself by means of another benefit to this country in having Iraq and Iran stalemate each other.
It should read questions. And I’ll take a shot at one of them.
IIRC, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. But you must understand two things. First, Lincoln’s motivation for freeing the slaves was not purely altruistic. He stated that his ultimate goal was the preservation of the union. The Emancipation Proclamation was a calculated move to draw support for the North from European powers, a move Lincoln would not have made if it would have set back his attempts to reform the union. The Proclamation was also not enforceable at the time it was issued, and applied only to states “in rebellion”. Second, a lot has changed in 150 years. The Republican party is not the same as it was during the time of the Civil War. Using the actions of a member of the party over a century ago to show the superiority of the party today is quite ridiculous.
I’m sure your other questions will be dealt with as easily as this one.
I would laugh at them, and ask them to get out of my party. While most or all of these statements have some basis in fact, they’ve been bastardized by partisan ignorance to such a degree that I wouldn’t want to associate myself with them.
Example:
There’s no sense in debating a slander like that, I’m afraid. I would simply throw the person a few books on Korea, Greece, et al and hope they would eventually learn how to read.
Unfortunately, the folks who tend to believe tripe like that in the OP are usually folks who feel reading is strenuous exercise.
“Relax and forget everything and have a great time. I will devote my weekend to keeping track of all relevant events so that you won’t have to. … I will do all your reading, and I will tell you what to think about it.”
–Rush Limbaugh
Both parties deemed Ollie North a criminal. (He was convicted on three counts of obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, operating U.S. initiatives in violation of U.S. law, and participating in a cover-up. The conviction was later vacated because of an immunity agreement – not because he was found innocent.)
Zoe, I mostly agree with your answers, but will quibble on a couple.
Your second sentence and appletreats’s questioning of Linconln’s motivation are beside the point. Lincoln and the Republicans deserve full credit for freeing the slaves and for supporting blacks during Reconstruction. In those days, the Southern Democrats were the reactionaries on the race issue. Most black voters recognized that and voted Republican.
Sadly, the Republicans gave up their enlightened POV over a period of time, culminating in Nixon’s disgusting “Southern Strategy.” Fortunately, starting in the mid-1950’s, the Democrats picked the leadership of civil rights.
The Republicans deserve full credit for their achievements in the 19th century. The Democrats deserve full credit for their achievements in the 20th.
If by “guilty”, you mean that many people think he actually committed the crime, then Ollie North may have been guilty.
I agree that the Court’s overturning of the conviction doesn’t mean the North was found innocent. He could have been re-tried. But, it sure means that he wasn’t found guilty. Legally, North has not been convicted. He does not have a criminal record.
Could you rephrase the second question? I really can’t tell what you’re driving at.
Regarding which party created a whole society dependent on them- one could argue that the millionaires of the US are dependent on the Republicans to help them drain the treasury.
Can you provide an example of Democrats preaching hate?
Can you provide an example of a Democratic policy that benefitted Communism?
The Reagan supposed victory over Communism is a false premise. There is no evidence that the Soviets attempted to match the US arms buildup, rather the system collapsed due to its own inefficiency and Gorbachev’s unwillingness to use force to stop the revolution.
JFK did well to avoid in keeping the US from invading Cuba. Mr. Bush would have done well to restrain himself similarly in Iraq. The missiles were sent to Cuba by Mr. Kruschev, not Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. North was not entitled to subvert the will of Congress and pursue his own foreign policy. A lot of people of both parties would classify his activities as criminal.
North was found guilty. There was no question as to whether he actually lied to congress. It was just found that his immunity agreement protected him from punishment.
Surely no one actually believes that Dems sit in darkened rooms, their fingers steepled as they cackle menacingly while giving handouts to the poor. “Mwaa ha ha! I’m giving them a fish instead of teaching them to fish! Now they’ll have to vote for me!”
What a load.
Fact is that Dems traditionally support greater spending on education than Repubs. Thus, Dems actually foster independence through education, which in addition to being a goal unto itself, is the single best way to fight poverty. And that’s a point I whole-heartedly agree with.
I think this refers to the allegations that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser. At least the first two sentences are. Either that, or Roy Cohn.
Except that Roy Cohn was gay. He died of AIDS, IIRC. So I think it is Hoover, and the expected answer is that Democrats were the ones who destroyed Hoover’s reputation by accusing him of being a cross-dresser.
I think the last sentence would read
if it were in English.
The implication is that Democrats are being hypocritical by using accusations of homosexuality to attack Hoover, and then turning around and claiming that homosexuality is a cause that should be supported.
I think.
I have no idea if whoever accused Hoover of being gay was a Democrat or not. And I don’t believe the accusations were particularly convincing. But AFAICT, that is what the OP is saying.
Huh? Did I enter the twilight zone here? Didn’t you write the OP for this, Homer?? You THINK that Shodan got what YOU were trying to say right? You don’t KNOW??
Of all the confusing threads I’ve seen on this board, this one ranks up there with the classics IMO…
So, the point here is that Democrats are demonic entities from the bowls of hell and that only through embracing the true illuminating way of the Republicans shall we thrive and become enlightened?
I never knew that things were so simple! Thanks for clearing that up.
On a much more important note, what do you mean that you think that is what it means. You are the author of the OP, are you not (or did you want to cite the source of the writing?)
