Those "tolerant", naive, violent liberals strike again!

[kbohip]

Nothing to see here, just more of the same hypocrisy from the left.

Tyler Drum, a 21-year-old homosexual aide to Democrat state Senator Irene Aguilar, was fired on the spot from his position in the Colorado Senate because he allegedly visited the office of a fellow college aide who happens to work for a Republican.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5337

I can hear them fabricating a story right now as to why this is definitely NOT the reason he was fired. Maybe he was a secret gay undercover Republican agent infiltrating their ranks.

[thewanderer]

You know you can't trust those kinds of people, Libidiots.

[JustinC939]

I suppose if you can paint everyone with a broad brush based on an isolated incident. I guess I could do the same with 1,000,000

[kbohip]

I suppose if you can paint everyone with a broad brush based on an isolated incident. I guess I could do the same with 1,000,000

Why wouldn't I paint them all the same? It's what they've been doing to the right for decades is it not? It's just so fun to point out how hypocritical they are and how the liberal media chooses to cover up stories such as these.

[thewanderer]

Why wouldn't I paint them all the same? It's what they've been doing to the right for decades is it not? It's just so fun to point out how hypocritical they are and how the liberal media chooses to cover up stories such as these.

Libidiots have talked trash, called names, made up crap and just flat lied about republicans, conservatives or anyone that disagrees with their communist agenda for YEARS. Yet when anyone says anything about them, they start screaming we are not nice people. LOL
I know libidiots and individually they are honest people, but get them into politics and they don't have enough sense to pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the sole.

[thewanderer]

Borrowed from http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/florida...being-renamed/

Is it too much to ask for historical accuracy?


It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

[otoc]

Borrowed from http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/florida...being-renamed/

Is it too much to ask for historical accuracy?


It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

OMG. And where did those Jim Crow dems go after Johnson sold them out? Yup, the GOP. And now we have the rest of the story...

Southern strategy
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6][7] in the late 1960s.[8] The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[8]

In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for ignoring the black vote and exploiting racial conflicts.[9][10]

[baghdad bob]

and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...ts_Act_of_1964

By Party

The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61 percent-39 percent)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80 percent-20 percent)

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68 percent-32 percent)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82 percent-18 percent)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63 percent-37 percent)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80 percent-20 percent)

Switches in position:

"Yea" to "Nay": Earl Wilson (R-IN), Bob Wilson (R-CA), and Charlotte T. Reid (R-IL)

"Nay" to "Yea": John Jacob Rhodes (R-AZ), J. Edward Hutchinson (R-MI), and Charles Weltner (D-GA).
By Party and Region

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (seven percent-93 percent)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (zero percent-100 percent)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94 percent-six percent)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85 percent-15 percent)

The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (five percent-95 percent)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (zero percent-100 percent)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98 percent-2 percent)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84 percent-16 percent)

bb

[myv65]

IMHO, the only thing I see our two major political parties "agreeing on", is a concerted effort to polarize the citizenry. It pulls our focus off their abominable job running our country. Each side seems interested in little more than tipping the scales to garner a fraction over 1/2 the vote, and their method of choice is to portray the other side as evil incarnate. True examples of bi-partisanship have gone the way of the dinosaur, and the media is only too happy to assist. Neither the politicians nor the media care about the country's bottom line, only their place in office and their ratings.

I guess I'm feeling particularly cynical this evening. . .

[kbohip]

IMHO, the only thing I see our two major political parties "agreeing on", is a concerted effort to polarize the citizenry. It pulls our focus off their abominable job running our country. Each side seems interested in little more than tipping the scales to garner a fraction over 1/2 the vote, and their method of choice is to portray the other side as evil incarnate. True examples of bi-partisanship have gone the way of the dinosaur, and the media is only too happy to assist. Neither the politicians nor the media care about the country's bottom line, only their place in office and their ratings.

I guess I'm feeling particularly cynical this evening. . .

Meh, it's the way I've felt since 1992, so you're way ahead of me! I agree completely with your post btw.

[otoc]

^^^
I find the progression of topic interesting and heartening. It's gone from a highlight of a single and poorly documented instance of liberal intolerance ( he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and has posted repeatedly that he was available for interview apparently to no avail, btw) to someone being showed the pwn in terms of racist democrats, to the real issue of polarization---which is nothing new.

What is new is the ability of people disconnected by distance, sharing an opinion, and being connected. This forum is an example in more than one way.

While polarization is nothing new, nor is the media having a bias something we've only recently experienced. Just look at past political campaigns, news coverage, or OpEds.

Call me an optimist, but these are things I'd rather focus on...

Sens. Warren, Coburn propose more disclosure on federal settlements

WASHINGTON -- Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tom Coburn on Wednesday introduced legislation requiring federal agencies to disclose more information about settlements that end government investigations, such as whether the money paid by companies is tax-deductible.

The bipartisan bill -- Warren is a Massachusetts Democrat and Coburn an Oklahoma Republican -- reflects widespread concern on Capitol Hill that banks such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other companies often cut deals to avoid potentially steeper penalties and court costs for violating federal laws.

Those deals sometimes aren't as costly to the companies as they appear, the senators said.

"When government agencies reach settlements with companies that break the law, they should disclose the terms of those deals to the public," said Warren, who has been outspoken in criticizing the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators for reaching deals instead of going to trial.


http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#ixzz2pzvRDrFz

Of course there's no denying things are quite polarized these days. It wouldn't surprise me if either Warren or Coburn took flack for this association.

[tucker]

IMHO, the only thing I see our two major political parties "agreeing on", is a concerted effort to polarize the citizenry. It pulls our focus off their abominable job running our country. Each side seems interested in little more than tipping the scales to garner a fraction over 1/2 the vote, and their method of choice is to portray the other side as evil incarnate. True examples of bi-partisanship have gone the way of the dinosaur, and the media is only too happy to assist. Neither the politicians nor the media care about the country's bottom line, only their place in office and their ratings.

I guess I'm feeling particularly cynical this evening. . .

Do you remember when the United States was a unique country in the world known for its exceptionalism?

Now most of the exceptionalism is gone and the remaining is on life support.

Why is it the far left wants the United States to be plain vanilla with no topping?

The community organizer in the White House said he was going to fundamentally change the United States and he has done that.

Do you think the United States will ever regain the unique exceptionalism it once had?

I think it's gone forever.

[thewanderer]

OMG. And where did those Jim Crow dems go after Johnson sold them out? Yup, the GOP. And now we have the rest of the story...

There have been numerous instances of Wikipedia being changed to suit the last mods idea of what the truth is, I don't trust it. Johnson sold them out? Where did you get that idea? He and the democrap party passed what they wanted. Remember: "This will have those ni##### voting demoncrat for two hundred years". Pretty prophetic, I would say.
I was alive in the fifties and sixties, the democrats controlled everything, the federal government and a lot of the statehouses. Why do you think there is such talk about how many states are voting in more conservative people now?

[otoc]

There have been numerous instances of Wikipedia being changed to suit the last mods idea of what the truth is, I don't trust it. Johnson sold them out? Where did you get that idea? He and the democrap party passed what they wanted. Remember: "This will have those ni##### voting demoncrat for two hundred years". Pretty prophetic, I would say.
I was alive in the fifties and sixties, the democrats controlled everything, the federal government and a lot of the statehouses. Why do you think there is such talk about how many states are voting in more conservative people now?

Your original post, one from a right wing blog that offered no documentation and which you seem to accept had a time frame from way before the 50s and 60s. I too was around, living in the south, and remember Ike in the 50s as much as a child can. Lbj, was replaced by Nixon, and in spite of the single soundbite you offer us from a complex president, what you cant dismiss is his record on the less fortunate, his well known ability to get political support, and the civil rights and voter bills he was instrumental in passing.

Sure, the kkk was formed by the dixie dems in the 1800s, and if memory serves me correctly, they are all dead, we've had quite a few republican runs in congress and the executive since, the south has been predominately gop since Johnson got the civil rights bills passed, and yes, there was a resurgence of 'conservative' values after the black guy got elected. Whats your point here, besides ignoring the wiki link of the gop apologizing to black voters for a failed strategy? That this nation is changing to one that is conservative where voting rights are deminished, where religion replaces science, where womens rights are erroded, where the gop loses moderates to the well financed work of tp organizations, where funding levels from the 50s are the goal, as well as reconstructed laws from the same time are introduced?

I hate to say it, but the gop is locked in a losing strategy that will fail in a matter of time, and this thread topic, intolerant liberals, is nothing more than a misdirection of what the gop has continually stood for of late. Sure, we can find individuals from either extreme of the political spectrum to place on a pedestal of example of the whole. But you and I both know it isn't the correct way to evaluate a problem.

Or specifically, to the point of your original post, the one where you chose to paint democrats as based on their history. It doesn't work in terms of today. Things change. Political problems are solved in terms of the now (if solution was even thought of in terms of the original thread post).

Like it or not, the racists of the old democrats ( I presume your original point) on the most part shifted parties. Some in the south still hold onto the old south. But it is the minority.

Hey, I don't deny a minority viewpoint can't have an impact, good or bad. But it should have a plan that deals with actual solutions to current problems viewed in a global way. Something this conservative minority just hasn't figured out. How to work within the system creating change instead of incessant whining about needing to end things.

[tucker]

^^^ Carl Marx 2016 Campaign!!!!





UN-Friggin' believable!!!

"Change You Can Believe In"