50 Cent Supports Hillary, Why?...

[btownmeggy]

All right, let's do this.

If anyone has a civil rights record to be ashamed of it is liberal democrats.

Yes, many historic democrats have civil rights records to be ashamed of---I wouldn't call them liberal.

The Republican Party, which has a conservative base, has:

Which TODAY has a conservative base.

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

2. Produced president Abraham Lincoln & a Republican-dominated Congress, who successfully worked with Great Britain to end the slave trade, end slavery in the District of Columbia, issue the Emancipation Proclamation, pass the land grant acts which allowed blacks admission to agricultural schools, and repealed the Fugitive Slave Laws.

Slave trade officially ended in the United States in 1808, before either of today's parties were founded. Slave trade ended de facto across the Atlantic around 1850, quite some time before Lincoln was President. But in general, yes, as I've stated through, early Republicans were a liberal, progressive group.

3. Stood against the Black Code Laws of the south.

Of course, early Republicans weren't perfect. They had their own Black Codes in the North. We're talking about the 19th century here, after all.

4. Introduced the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, banning slavery....and 14th Amendment granting due process to all Americans (despite Democrat resistance).

Yep.

5. Had to override presidential vetoes in order to confer rights on blacks and protect the Freedman's Bureau.

When?

6. Introduced & passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 so all Americans could have equal access to public accomodations.

It's funny, the two legislators primarily responsible for the passing of this act, Charles Sumner and Benjamin F. Butler, were long-time Democrats. Of course, during Reconstruction you COULDN'T really be in politics if you were a Democrat, so they became Republicans. It's funny, these two men could so easily alter their party identities. Of course, it happened on a nation-wide scale about 100 years later, so...

7. Produced supreme court judges who: (a) dissented from the Dred Scott decision, (b) overturned the notion of 'separate but equal' in Brown vs. Board of Education

You silly goose. Of course you know that Brown vs. Board of Education was unanimous.

8. Traditionally fought against the KKK and supported anti-lynching laws (only to be stopped by Democrats in the U.S. Senate)

For us today, the KKK is kinda a joke. It's hard to imagine just how incredibly influential it was in the early 20th century. It actually dominated many state governments, from Democratic Tennessee to Republican Oregon. (Haha, fancy that--Tennessee Democratic and Oregon Republican!? Things sure have changed haven't they?!)

9. Called for the desegregation of blacks/whites within the U.S. military

Of course, that happened under Truman.

10. Worked with businessmen to create schools in the south for poor black youth

That's very nice. To what are you referring?

11. Been instrumental in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed (because the one in 1875 was declared unconstitutional)

Yep. The Civil Rights Act section at the LBJ Presidential Library, which is right here in my city so I visit it frequently, is my favorite. I walk through it and I cry and cry and cry. What a huge turning point this was for the Democratic Party... and one that began to lose them their conservative Southern base.

1. Produced presidents who forcefully interred Japanese-Americans against their will - FDR. It took a Republican president to sign an act to compensate them for that - Ronald Regan in 1988.

INTERNED! Interred means buried. The Redress that you mention from 1988, of course, was pushed through congress by a Democrat--Mineta.

2. Produced supreme court justices which were openly members of the KKK - Hugo Black

And he was burnt in effigy by segregationists in his homestate of Alabama for his pro-civil rights record in the Supreme Court.

3. Produced governors which tried to used military force to keep blacks from having equal access to integrated high school - Orval Faubus. It took a Republican president to force his hand - Dwight Eisenhower.

Yep.

4. Produced senators which lead opposition to the lunch counter integration movement - Ernest Hollings

Haha, that's the guy who called Beavis and Butt-head "Buffcoat and Beaver"!.

5. Long supported segregation, especially by men like J. William Fulbright, who Bill Clinton admitted was his political mentor.

J. William Fulbright was a segregationist alright. He also created the Fulbright Scholarship, possibly the most prestigious scholarship in the US, promoting international study and unity. Fulbright was also a big proponent of the United Nations. He was simultaneously concerned with bringing people of different nations together, but keeping people of the same nation apart. Racism sure is a powerful thing, isn't it?

6. Produced a greater percentage of senators & house reps who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

I've never seen the voting records. Can you provide a link?

[btownmeggy]

3. Produced governors which tried to used military force to keep blacks from having equal access to integrated high school - Orval Faubus. It took a Republican president to force his hand - Dwight Eisenhower.

Yep.

During lunch, my sweetie and I were talking about Orval Faubus and he raised a very good point that I hadn't even considered: Dixiecrats as the harbingers of the great shift.

Dixiecrats polarized themselves from mainline Democrats first starting with Truman's integration of the military. The Civil Rights act was the second great converter for so many Dixiecrats (including my mother, who voted for George Wallace, she confessed to me over Christmas). However, for almost 2 decades they were just a radically conservative minority. The Democratic party was changing without them, and what Republican would have them? I'll tell you who: Barry Goldwater.

[Neoteny]

Wouldn't Strom Thurmond be a good example for this discussion? Or does bringing him up make me a dick? Or am I already a dick for being liberal?

[Neoteny]

Luns, I think you need to apologize to me for your acting like a baby, a jerk, and an imbecile.

(Lemme just say before you accuse me of further intolerable prejudice, babies and imbeciles are ok by me, but not combined with jerkiness.)

No, you apologise. You and your liberal magic circus run around these forums and yes, people like you, the world, with a smug, self-intellectualizing sententious moralizing tone looking down from your high horse to conservatives being outright rude and insulting every step of the way, masturbating your neurones by posting incoherent, calumnious, diffamating slander about conservatives and libertarians and passing it off as fact. Now I sink to the level of retaliating to you people, mainly because I'm young and rash, even though that's probably just what you want, but luns is endlessly patient with you people, and has always remained courteous on these forums. And you know what? You just crossed a line here. You can't go gallivanting around squealing your head off about racism and prejudice and bigotry as if a Klansman had just invaded your house and carted off the illegals you're hiding in your basement every time someone exhibits a vague right-wing tinge. You show some respect.

leftist varmint.

[/end rant]

This made me happy to no end.

[btownmeggy]

Wouldn't Strom Thurmond be a good example for this discussion? Or does bringing him up make me a dick? Or am I already a dick for being liberal?

Yep, the quintessential Dixiecrat cum Republican.

[luns101]

6. Produced a greater percentage of senators & house reps who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

I've never seen the voting records. Can you provide a link?

I'll probably not have enough time to respond to everything today, but many sites refer to Congressional Quarterly, June 26, 1964, pg. 1,323 as far as to this point of yours.

House of Representatives

Democrats - 152 for it; 96 against it (61%)
Republicans - 138 for it; 34 against it (80%)

U.S. Senate

Democrats - 46 for it; 21 against it (68%)
Republicans - 27 for it; 6 against it (81% although some round up to 82%)

[Napoleon Ier]

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

We're not conservative, we're liberal, as Milton Friedman points out. However, perhaps as the ultimate compliment to our ideals, that term was hijacked from us by the left in the anglo-saxon world. We don;t support the status quo of big government and the nanny state, we're authentic revolutionnaries : we want the individualto emerge from his state maintained plastic bubble and become a real man in the world, free to chase his own rainbow and become his own man, without the government breathing down on his neck or the oppressive authoritites standing on his shoes.

[Guiscard]

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

We're not conservative, we're liberal, as Milton Friedman points out. However, perhaps as the ultimate compliment to our ideals, that term was hijacked from us by the left in the anglo-saxon world. We don;t support the status quo of big government and the nanny state, we're authentic revolutionnaries : we want the individualto emerge from his state maintained plastic bubble and become a real man in the world, free to chase his own rainbow and become his own man, without the government breathing down on his neck or the oppressive authoritites standing on his shoes.

Everyone is that idealistic at your age, Nappy.

[Napoleon Ier]

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

We're not conservative, we're liberal, as Milton Friedman points out. However, perhaps as the ultimate compliment to our ideals, that term was hijacked from us by the left in the anglo-saxon world. We don;t support the status quo of big government and the nanny state, we're authentic revolutionnaries : we want the individualto emerge from his state maintained plastic bubble and become a real man in the world, free to chase his own rainbow and become his own man, without the government breathing down on his neck or the oppressive authoritites standing on his shoes.

Everyone is that idealistic at your age, Nappy.

Says the resident socialist.

[Guiscard]

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

We're not conservative, we're liberal, as Milton Friedman points out. However, perhaps as the ultimate compliment to our ideals, that term was hijacked from us by the left in the anglo-saxon world. We don;t support the status quo of big government and the nanny state, we're authentic revolutionnaries : we want the individualto emerge from his state maintained plastic bubble and become a real man in the world, free to chase his own rainbow and become his own man, without the government breathing down on his neck or the oppressive authoritites standing on his shoes.

Everyone is that idealistic at your age, Nappy.

Says the resident socialist.

Hang on, so am I 'nuu laborz' or am I socialist? They can't exactly exist on the same wavelength at the moment...

[Napoleon Ier]

If anyone has a civil rights record to be ashamed of it is liberal democrats.

Yes, many historic democrats have civil rights records to be ashamed of---I wouldn't call them liberal.

Of course she wouldn't...she's a liberal and doesn't want to be linked to the historical record of her party. She agrees that democrats have a horrible record on civil rights.

1. Founded itself in 1856 with the express purpose of ending the expansion of slavery.

Yep, they wanted to end slavery and modernize America. They were progressives. Modernizationism is not conservatism.

Again she dances around with the labels. I wouldn't disagree over the progressivism claim, but the problem is that democrats are trying to co-opt that title for themselves today instead of liberal. They have also redefined that term to grant rights for behavior with almost no restraints.

2. Produced president Abraham Lincoln & a Republican-dominated Congress, who successfully worked with Great Britain to end the slave trade, end slavery in the District of Columbia, issue the Emancipation Proclamation, pass the land grant acts which allowed blacks admission to agricultural schools, and repealed the Fugitive Slave Laws.

Slave trade officially ended in the United States in 1808, before either of today's parties were founded. Slave trade ended de facto across the Atlantic around 1850, quite some time before Lincoln was President. But in general, yes, as I've stated through, early Republicans were a liberal, progressive group.

Yet Lincoln had to sign a treaty with Great Britain in order to suppress it. The slave trade officially ended in 1808. The institution of slavery did not...hence, the reality of a Civil War with 620,000 known deaths. She's trying to diminish the fact that Lincoln had to sign legislation ending slavery in D.C. and then later, the Emancipation Proclamation. She's trying to co-opt that liberal/progressive label once again since her party tries to adopt the label today.

3. Stood against the Black Code Laws of the south.

Of course, early Republicans weren't perfect. They had their own Black Codes in the North. We're talking about the 19th century here, after all.

A half-truth...she's right about the North having black codes of their own, she's not telling the fact that lynching was associated with them in the south. Republicans passed federal legislation repealing state lynching laws from the south. 1871 - Republicans passed the Enforcement Act, protecting voting rights for blacks, it was repealed in 1894 when Democrat Grover Cleveland took office. The Republicans aren't clean on this issue, just less dirty.

4. Introduced the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, banning slavery....and 14th Amendment granting due process to all Americans (despite Democrat resistance).

Yep.

For someone who doesn't know historical fact, she sure is agreeing with me a lot. She finally was able to do so without additional commentary & spin.

5. Had to override presidential vetoes in order to confer rights on blacks and protect the Freedman's Bureau.

When?

The Republican congress overcame Andrew Johnson's veto in 1866. He saw the bill as unwarranted. If she's a teacher, she should know this. This is pretty basic stuff even taught at the high school level. I'm not trying to make fun of her, but that's a pretty basic thing required to be taught (at least in California public schools).

6. Introduced & passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 so all Americans could have equal access to public accomodations.

It's funny, the two legislators primarily responsible for the passing of this act, Charles Sumner and Benjamin F. Butler, were long-time Democrats. Of course, during Reconstruction you COULDN'T really be in politics if you were a Democrat, so they became Republicans. It's funny, these two men could so easily alter their party identities. Of course, it happened on a nation-wide scale about 100 years later, so...

So here she tries to diminish what Sumner & Butler accomplished because they used to be Democrats. Notice she doesn't disagree with my facts...just tries to add commentary to spin the interpretation of it. The fact is both men left the democrat party and joined the Republicans.

I wouldn't be so quick to diminish their accomplishment if I were her, after all, Democrats could try to claim they won the Cold War in the near-future based on the fact that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before switching over to the Republicans.

9. Called for the desegregation of blacks/whites within the U.S. military

Of course, that happened under Truman.

...and was actually enforced under Eisenhower. Once again, not telling the entire story. I must admit that Truman should get credit for signing the actual act though. He should also get credit for saying the following:

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America." (1911 letter to his wife)

"I went nigger chasing on Monday. Right through Central Africa: Vine St. There was no trace of that Nelson nigger." (1914 letter to his wife) There's a lot more than that but you get the picture.

10. Worked with businessmen to create schools in the south for poor black youth

That's very nice. To what are you referring?

Republican businessman Julius Rosenwald created approximately 5,000 schools for poor black children in the south. Other Republicans like Andrew Carnegie & George Eastman contributed $$ to the cause as well.

11. Been instrumental in getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed (because the one in 1875 was declared unconstitutional)

Yep. The Civil Rights Act section at the LBJ Presidential Library, which is right here in my city so I visit it frequently, is my favorite. I walk through it and I cry and cry and cry. What a huge turning point this was for the Democratic Party... and one that began to lose them their conservative Southern base.

She doesn't disagree with me. She just adds commentary.

1. Produced presidents who forcefully interred Japanese-Americans against their will - FDR. It took a Republican president to sign an act to compensate them for that - Ronald Regan in 1988.

INTERNED! Interred means buried. The Redress that you mention from 1988, of course, was pushed through congress by a Democrat--Mineta.

Oh no, I made a typo...therefore my point must not be correct!!! Notice how she conveniently leaves out the fact that Republican Alan Simpson helped get that bill passed through the Senate.

2. Produced supreme court justices which were openly members of the KKK - Hugo Black

And he was burnt in effigy by segregationists in his homestate of Alabama for his pro-civil rights record in the Supreme Court.

3. Produced governors which tried to used military force to keep blacks from having equal access to integrated high school - Orval Faubus. It took a Republican president to force his hand - Dwight Eisenhower.

Yep.

Once again, after initially saying I don't know what I'm talking about...she agrees.

4. Produced senators which lead opposition to the lunch counter integration movement - Ernest Hollings

Haha, that's the guy who called Beavis and Butt-head "Buffcoat and Beaver"!

...and again, doesn't disagree but changes the subject with a little humor.

5. Long supported segregation, especially by men like J. William Fulbright, who Bill Clinton admitted was his political mentor.

J. William Fulbright was a segregationist alright. He also created the Fulbright Scholarship, possibly the most prestigious scholarship in the US, promoting international study and unity. Fulbright was also a big proponent of the United Nations. He was simultaneously concerned with bringing people of different nations together, but keeping people of the same nation apart. Racism sure is a powerful thing, isn't it?

3rd times a charm. She doesn't disagree with Clinton claiming Fulbright, an admitted segregationist, was his political mentor. She adds commentary and leads off into a statement about philanthropy & the UN. She's trying to get the focus off of segregation.

7. Produced supreme court judges who: (a) dissented from the Dred Scott decision, (b) overturned the notion of 'separate but equal' in Brown vs. Board of Education

You silly goose. Of course you know that Brown vs. Board of Education was unanimous.

That's pretty convenient to not tell the whole story. The facts are:

1. The case was argued on behalf of the school districts against Brown by John W. Davis, the former Democrat candidate for president in 1924. (who lost to Calvin Coolidge)
2. The case was actually first heard in 1952. Fred Vinson, the Chief Justice, was probably going to be the swing vote (5-4) in favor of upholding Plessey vs. Ferguson and continuing "separate but equal". He didn't want to be the swing vote so he ordered re-argument for 1953.
3. Vinson died during the break. Eisenhower (encouraged by Herbert Brownell, Jr.) nominated & pushed through Earl Warren to be his replacement.
4. Warren was able to convince the other judges to arrive at a unanimous decision to overturn the concept of "separate but equal". He even got Stanley Reed (the last holdout) to join everyone else with the decision. THAT'S WHY IT WAS UNANIMOUS...WARREN PUSHED FOR IT!!
5. Herbert Brownell, working with Eisenhower, appointed judges within federal districts to enforce the Brown vs. Board of Education verdict.

Just in case a liberal will try to deny all this:

#1 - summary
#2 - Herbert Brownell
#3 - more in depth summary

DISCLAIMER: Napoleon Ier does claim to have written any of the above. This was a bare-faced copy 'n paste...but I just thought it was too good to waste on my inbox.

[btownmeggy]

Nappy, why do you keep saying "my argument" and "agreeing with me", when my I was responding to LUNS?

Also, why does the French Brit know so much about California public schools?

[apey]

SHE SUCKS A MEAN DICK!!!

that was monica under the desk all those years

[Napoleon Ier]

Nappy, why do you keep saying "my argument" and "agreeing with me", when my I was responding to LUNS?

Also, why does the French Brit know so much about California public schools?

He doesn't.

[Guiscard]

Hang on, so am I 'nuu laborz' or am I socialist? They can't exactly exist on the same wavelength at the moment...

Still waiting on his one, Nappy.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hang on, so am I 'nuu laborz' or am I socialist? They can't exactly exist on the same wavelength at the moment...

Still waiting on his one, Nappy.

Guiscard, everyone is that confused about their political stance at your age.

[Guiscard]

Hang on, so am I 'nuu laborz' or am I socialist? They can't exactly exist on the same wavelength at the moment...

Still waiting on his one, Nappy.

Guiscard, everyone is that confused about their political stance at your age.

Very good.

I'm just amazed as to the immense variety of political labels you've applied to me during the course of your pithy diatribes. Very few of them accurate, to be honest. You still, to this day, have no idea what my political opinions are. You know what I object to, but not what I believe in. So let the characterisation continue.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hang on, so am I 'nuu laborz' or am I socialist? They can't exactly exist on the same wavelength at the moment...

Still waiting on his one, Nappy.

Guiscard, everyone is that confused about their political stance at your age.

Very good.
I'm just amazed as to the immense variety of political labels you've applied to me during the course of your pithy diatribes. Very few of them accurate, to be honest. You still, to this day, have no idea what my political opinions are. You know what I object to, but not what I believe in. So let the characterisation continue.

You're a protectionist, which is not bad for someone who accuses others of being stuck in the 19th century .

Well...like I said: you're confused.

[Guiscard]

You're a protectionist, which is not bad for someone who accuses others of being stuck in the 19th century .

Well...like I said: you're confused.

Nope.

[Guiscard]

Any more ideas?

[Napoleon Ier]

Any more ideas?

Guiscard, your political stances are so screwed up I'm sure Dr. Fucking Freud couldn't tell me what or why you espoused them. So if you think I'm gonna be sat there during my Sunday trying to dissect your political opinions as if you were some great political guru, think again.

[Napoleon Ier]

Any more ideas?

Guiscard, your political stances are so screwed up I'm sure Dr. Fucking Freud couldn't tell me what or why you espoused them. So if you think I'm gonna be sat there during my Sunday trying to dissect your political opinions as if you were some great intellectual guru who's opinions it was vital to ascertain, think again.

[Guiscard]

[Guiscard]

Any more ideas?

Guiscard, your political stances are so screwed up I'm sure Dr. Fucking Freud couldn't tell me what or why you espoused them. So if you think I'm gonna be sat there during my Sunday trying to dissect your political opinions as if you were some great intellectual guru who's opinions it was vital to ascertain, think again.

I preferred the first version, I think, but either way, I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

In that case, I'd prefer it if you stopped throwing around terms like 'socialist', 'neo-marxist', 'nuu-laboorz' etc. etc. until you really have ascertained the content of at least some of the basics of my political views. Many on this site have a very good idea, believe me, as I have engaged in heated yet sensible debate with them. Believe it or not, Nappy, we can have sensible debates on this site. I've yet to see a single one where you haven't resorted to pathetic name calling.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

In that case, I'd prefer it if you stopped throwing around terms like 'socialist', 'neo-marxist', 'nuu-laboorz' etc. etc. until you really have ascertained to at least some of the basics of my political views. Many on this site have a very good idea, believe me, as I have engaged in heated yet sensible debate with them. Believe it or not, Nappy, we can have sensible debates on this site. I've yet to see a single one where you haven't resorted to pathetic name calling.

Your political views? Guiscard, they are based on the concept f the nanny state, which is where n00 laybor and neo-Marxism coincide. That's the beuty of you...you're an anomaly in that your opinions are a bizarre pastiche of all the worst elements of left-wing statist mentality.