MovieChat Forums > Lincoln (2012) Discussion > Hilarious liberal reaction to this film

Hilarious liberal reaction to this film


Conservative values of Limited government, individualism,and equality have always been the core of the right wing. So of course it was the republicans that abolished slavery while the democrat elite preferred to have blacks work for them for nothing.

Yet the reaction to this film from the left has been amazing, with some people so up to their eyelids in liberal BS that they have to go through some really strenuous mental gymnastics to pretend that at some point the democratic and republican positions just magically switched.

Yet it was the democrats that fought to protect slavery, it was the democrats that introduced segregation and fought against civil rights, it was the democrats that started the KKK, hell as recently as 2010 a democrat senator was a former KK man. In fact not just a member, but a leader who started a new chapter and recruited 150 members. So all this BS about a magic ‘switch’ is just liberal guilt.

The truth is this, nothing has really changed, it’s just that the democrat elite preferred to have blacks work for them for nothing, they used to use real chains and slavery. Today they use welfare as chains to keep us dependent and use racial agitation issues to keep us angry and voting democrat.

And the biggest joke is when I point out these historical facts I get racial abuse from liberals calling me an Uncle Tom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n64OY6XaxSY&feature=player_detailpage

reply

Back then, the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives.

Conservative values of Limited government... have always been the core of the right wing.


Well, this movie certainly doesn't support the concept of "limited government", considering that it portrays Lincoln as a strong advocate for big government -- which he was. Lincoln wanted government to play a huge role in the lives of the people. Had he been a "limited government" president, he certainly would not have gone to the law-breaking measures that he went to in order to ensure that slavery be abolished.

reply

"Back then, the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives."

Utter nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k

reply

Simply using one source doesn't make something true, ESPECIALLY on the Internet. Check the library and read at least several books, not just one. Check what I write against other sources too. But this is what I know:

The Republican Party was founded by ANTI-SLAVERY ACTIVISTS (I would therefore label them liberal), but the Democratic Party doesn't have a simple liberal or conservative beginning. It was formed somewhat along the lines of today's Republican Party, but the Democratic Party split over the issue of slavery. I think the Democratic Party is one of the oldest political parties still in existence, although the politics of the party have changed. I think political history is fascinating, and I read what and when I can.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

reply

Which party was Strom Thurmond affiliated with up to 1964?

reply

And what happened during the Southern State strategy? The racists in the south switched parties in the 60's and went to the Republicans. Look, I understand that if you're a Republican, you wouldn't want to admit that you would be ideologically affiliated with a party that would hurt the rights of minorities in this country. No one wants to admit that. I'm sure the Southern Democrats didn't want to admit it in during the time of slavery. Unfortunately, The Republican party is part of that ugliness now (though not as severe). Just as the Democrats were in the time of Lincoln. Sorry, that's the way it is.

reply

Rich Southerners today are not as severe because the Constitution prevents slavery, with thanks to Lincoln, a Republican!

reply

If the Republican party of today resembled the Republican party of Lincoln's time, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. Do you realize that if Republicans held true to those tenets today, they wouldn't be fighting against same-sex marriage. Back then they were all about all citizens being equal in the eyes of the law. That didn't necessarily agree that they should be but they agreed that it was what the founders ultimately wanted.

reply

Bwahahahaha. So the racist democrats were actually republicans because they later switched parties? ? Now I've heard it all. Thanks for the laugh.

reply

Yeah the racists did, because the democrats decided to swindle the white southern working class out of their rights to individual freedoms in order to please the far-left in the north.

reply

... aaaaaand which party was Strom Thurmond affiliated with after 1964? And for the remaining 38+ years of his Senate career, over FOUR TIMES AS LONG as he had been a Democratic senator?

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

The Dixiecrat Party.

reply

[deleted]

Back then, the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives.


Not quite true. It's inaccurate to say that the two parties simply switched political platforms at some point in time and it's also false to say the parties have the exact same platforms/ideologies now that they did in the 1850s/1860s. I'll just leave you with this comment I made on a different, similar thread in the Lincoln forum:

Read the book Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996 by John Gerring, please, before spreading that sort of misinformation in the future. During the American Civil War era and Reconstruction, both parties were arguably conservative, just in different ways.

The Republicans during this time period, according to Gerring, were in the "National" epoch. They were conservative statists, advocating a strong federal government, social conservatism, big business, and neo-mercantilism. The Democrats, on the other hand, were in the "Jeffersonian" epoch, and were skeptical of a strong central government and of big business. They were also the party of white supremacy.

It should be noted that these platforms have evolved through the years, with the GOP entering the current "Neoliberal" epoch, where they became enemies of government, yet retained their pro-business and social conservative agendas. The Democrats went through the "Populist" and "Universalist" epochs (the latter is the one they're currently in), transforming from the party of white supremacy to the party of the inclusion of all minority groups.

reply

A very interesting and thoughtful post. I haven't read Gerring's book, but you're right that viewing things from a "liberal-conservative" perspective is misleading.

The Republican Party was definitely the more "liberal" of the two parties, by modern standards, if only for being broadly antislavery. You certainly not consider Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens or Ben Wade conservative by 19th Century standards. But they were, almost from inception, a creature of industrialists, which became more apparent after the Civil War.

I wouldn't say the Democratic Party was inherently anti-statist. Thomas Jefferson acted like the ultimate populist but how much of Washington/Adams' government did he actually reduce? Andrew Jackson mouthed such rhetoric but exercised extreme personal power. Among others, let's not forget overruling the Supreme Court re: the Cherokee Indians or the Nullification Crisis. The merits of either can be debated, but hardly the actions of a "small government" advocate.

Even more narrowly, the Democrats' proslavery wing had no problem with the State, say, promoting expansion (often by military force) or enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. "States rights" only came up as a convenient out when slavery was infringed or threatened.

I'm afraid that you underestimate the number of subjects in which I take an interest!

reply

You're probably right about everything, because Gerring's book mainly takes into consideration speeches, rhetoric, and party platforms when trying to examine these parties' ideologies (this is something the author admits, if I recall correctly). So, the actual actions of the parties' big shots sorta take a backseat.

While often-progressive on the issue of rights for blacks, I think the Republican Party in its "National" epoch was closer to "traditional" or "classical conservatism" that anything else, if I understand my political terms correctly. The Democratic Party (in rhetoric, at least) during this time was probably more conservative (or libertarian) in the sense of how Americans define "conservatism" nowadays.

That's just my interpretation, though.

reply

I just read an interesting book by Hans Trefousse called The Radical Republicans. It's an older work from the '50s but does a good job showing that even among the Radicals there was little or no consensus on any one issue except slavery. Labor/industry particularly seems to have been a big divide, as some like Stevens supported workers' rights while others were more traditionally pro-capitalist. And even then, the way slavery and later black suffrage should be dealt with did not achieve universal accord.

I'm afraid that you underestimate the number of subjects in which I take an interest!

reply

This is a very accurate point. No one today would say that Conservatives value individualism or equality.

reply

No one today would say that Conservatives value individualism or equality.


Ignorant comment. If you knew the first thing about conservatives, if you cared to actually talk to one instead of at one, you'd know that respect for individual sovereignty is the cornerstone of conservatism and the belief that individual sovereignty is diminished when the state gets larger and more oppressive. This is the problem in which we find ourselves today, I hasten to add. The trouble with progressives, it seems, is that they are so enamored of egalitarianism and moral relativism that they themselves are frequently guilty of trampling on free speech and property rights of those fellow citizens with which they disagree politically. The "Affordable Care Act" for one is just one such example. Forcing any individual to purchase, well, anything is to step on that individual's right to choose for himself or herself. Furthermore, ascribing modern notions of conservative or liberal beliefs to those that were or were not held 150 years ago in this country is a pointless and entirely self-serving exercise.

________________________________
You have my word as an inveterate cheat.

reply

Conservatives like to pick and choose when to trample on individual equality, and they do it to serve their self interests. Coming to my door babbling about religion is your god given right. An injured black woman comes to your door for help and when you shoot her in the face with a shotgun it's your right to protect your screen door and do whatever the hell you want with your guns.

And why the hell do conservatives not support marriage equality? There is no person on this earth that can logically explain that except to say it's because they think the gods in the sky don't like it. You pick and choose issues of individual freedom as a rule.

And of course governments force people to buy things. They do it all the time in every country on this earth. You pay for your roads, you pay for your schools, and you pay for the law enforcers that smack your wrists when your sovereignty ambitions get too cultish. One of government's most important roles is to force you to buy stuff so we can all live together in harmony and good health, especially when it is something that every person uses and is affected by. If you don't want to buy stuff for the betterment of your life and that of your fellow man then you need to head out into the desert or jungle and live by yourself because that's the only way you will ever accomplish that.

reply

And why the hell do conservatives not support marriage equality?


Oh, please. So, your issue with conservatives is that they, for the most part, don't support gay marriage? Personally, I don't care who you marry. Knock yourself out. But you've shown again with this particular gripe that you're ignorant about conservatives. Not all conservatives are religious, Christian or otherwise. There are any number of reasons for not supporting it.

And of course governments force people to buy things.


Actually, the government levies taxes on the half of us that actually PAY taxes for the purpose of maintaining public works and every other damn thing that pops in to their heads. That's not the same as passing a law forcing me to go and buy something for myself and my family.

If you don't want to buy stuff for the betterment of your life and that of your fellow man then you need to head out into the desert or jungle and live by yourself


That's my choice to make. Not yours. Not the government's. I prefer to make charitable contributions that I support, not have my money confiscated and redistributed to whomever the government sees fit. Want harmony? Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

________________________________
You have my word as an inveterate cheat.

reply

Everyone pays taxes to support public works you nitwit. You clearly don't know how this stuff works.
And, no, as a citizen of this nation you are obligated to pay taxes to support this nation and according to the constitution the government has the right to levy taxes for whatever purpose it deems fit.

reply

The "Affordable Care Act" for one is just one such example. Forcing any individual to purchase, well, anything is to step on that individual's right to choose for himself or herself.


You're a conservative and I'm a far-left liberal, but you know what, I agree with you 100% on that. In my view, the Affordable Care Act is an improvement in a number of ways over what we had before it, but a long way from what we really need: Medicare for all. Basically we need to get the profit motive out of the health care industry, just as we need to get big money out of politics.

Now I'm going to ask this sincerely, because I really don't know what your response will be: Do those views resonate at all with you?

By the way, you also said
[A]scribing modern notions of conservative or liberal beliefs to those that were or were not held 150 years ago in this country is a pointless and entirely self-serving exercise.
and I agree with you on that one too.

reply

According to the dictionary, "conservative" means "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." Therefor, it is obvious that the republican party was the liberal party at that time. The democratic party was so beaten after the civil war that they began taking more liberal stances. By the early 1900s they were the more liberal party, except in the deep south. As to conservative values:

Limited government as epitomized by the greatest expansion of the federal government in history under George W Bush?

Individualism as epitomized by the current republican party's kowtowing to the tea party which represents at most 10% of the republican constituency?

Equality as epitomized by the current movement in red states to suppress the voting rights of poor people?

reply

[deleted]

You really can't believe that the Republicans of the 1860 were conservative? Have you ever heard of the Radical Republicans? Being a radical is being an extreme LIBERAL. The idea that slaves were to be freed, given civil rights, given voting rights was a very liberal ideal of the 1860s. 1860s conservatism would've allowed the southern democrats to continue their reliance on slave labor and would've supported individual state sovereignty.

One of the greatest tricks ever pulled was the Democratic party pulling a complete 180 from southern racist conservatism to a party of progressive action. The modern say Republicans are more like the Democrats of the 1860s and the modern Democrats are more like the Republicans of the 1860s.

reply

As a conservative, I'll be vocal here. It's true...liberals or Democrats aren't colorblind and are for the poor/minorities. They thrive on them as victims. They want poor/minorities to stay poor and to remain "victims" because to them they don't "know any better" and only government knows what's best for them....they want more people/minorities to become poor. Without poor people, liberals/Democrats would be no more. This is why they hate success, they hate people who are independent from the government because they lose. They freedom and colorblindness. Everyone to them is categorized and are victims of the evil rich, racist conservatives. They want continuos victims, they want total dependency, they promote dependency because without it they wouldn't exist. It's all about control over everyone's lives and this is why they need people to stay poor and dependent on government. THis is why their policies aren't aimed at helping poor people/minorities become successful and independent, their policies are aimed at helping poor people stay poor and dependent on them. Any proof? Look at the New Deal....look at the Great Society/war on poverty.....look at DETROIT! These policies kept people poor, created more poor people and prevented people from achieving success and independence. The opposite of what they were supposedly for. liberals/Democrats are for the poor and they want minorities to remain victims.

reply

Yeah, I want to be paid less than my male coworkers.
I want people to look at my husband and think he is less than white males.
I want to be be paid less than a living wage and be dependent on others... even though I have never taken welfare money, I want it there just for the "takers" as it will destroy them from the inside with all the eating and heat providing.

It's all because playing victim is the best thing EVER.

Now please, take away my reproductive rights so I can pretend that I care. Also please keep my gay friends as second class citizens, because I actually hate them. I'm going to get back in the kitchen now, where I secretly want to be. Because I am a liberal and nothing I say is ever sincere.

I don't know how you infiltrated our secret Satanic meetings on Sunday mornings when the rest of you are at Church, but you got me. It's a huge conspiracy that we are all in on!

Muhahahaha!!! Hahahahha! Haha! HA! HAIL SATAN!

reply

If there was ever a reason for a like button on IMDB, your post is one.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

The government has little to do with how poor people are. One: that's up to the individual's choices. Two: corporations are the ones who want people to be poor. The top 1% owns over half the world's wealth, and they'll do everything they can to continue tipping that number in their favor.

What motivation would the government have for making people economically dependent on it? The government is budgeted, its surplus is used to produce for itself and therefore for the country as a whole. The government isn't budgeted for absolute profit. But what is motivated by profit, by making people dependent on them? Hint: it starts with a 'C'.

reply

Most poor people don't "choose" to be poor. If your born poor, motivation and effort alone won't get you out of poverty.

reply

Actually, most policies advanced and supported by Democrats has been shown to actually increase wealth for poor people and provide them the means to get out of poverty. The "austerity" promoted by conservatives does the opposite. Detroit was NOT run by liberals until it's economy had already tanked. The New Deal KEPT people out of poverty and actually helped create the middle class by providing educational and ownership opportunities for the poor.
You really must be one of this myopic middle class individuals who has mommy and daddy support you for most of your life. Otherwise, you would understand what is needed to get out of the poorhouse. Keeping social welfare from people(particularly children) who need is not going to help them achieve success and independence.

reply

The OP has got to be kidding. My grandparents were Republican like many older African Americans. They were Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt Republicans. And they hated the Dixiecrats. But with LBJ as a Democrat and with Reagen being a Republican most of the older black people moved over to the Democrats. That is when the party turned into the mean spirited racist reactionary party it is today. It had nothing to do with be hard working. My grandfather was able to retire from 2 jobs. He died because he could not work any more. It has nothing to do with money they had plenty of it. It had everything to do with the racism and the elitism the Republican party practiced. They made it sport to put down people of color and poor people even the working poor. So you do not have a clue about your own party.


My grandfather thought Richard Nixon was the greatest man who ever lived. Saying that I know if he was alive the shameless people in the Republican Party would break his heart. Call the Republicans of Lincoln the same as the Republicans of today is like saying a Chinese Communist was the same as a Soviet Communist. Or the Democrats in European countries are the same as Democrats here.

reply

Oh where to start. First of all...give me one example of where a conservative republican "made it a sport to put down people of color and poor people even the working poor". Just give me one example. If anyone was racist it was Woodrow Wilson Roosevelt (Democrat), who fired most of the blacks who held posts within the government, and segregated the Navy, which until then had been desegregated. He also stated it was in the best interests for blacks to be segregated. He also put German Americans in interment camps during WWI! Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) put Japanese Americans in interment camps! Who can be more racist and vile and UNCONSTITUTIONAL then that? History of racism and victimization has always been with the Democrats. Oh and Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt were also progressives in the same vain as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. And what is the real difference between the Soviet Communists and the Chinese Communists? Both Marxist human rights violators. And what really is the difference between American Democrats and European Democrats?? Both Socialists. Both big government, big spending, tyrannical believers. I don't see a big difference

reply

[deleted]

How so? Because they want to honor and abide by the Constitution? I don't get the hate for the Tea Party. They want a smaller, limited gov't! A gov't that is back to actually following the Constitution. And that's considered radical and bad for the Republicans?

reply

How so? Because they want to honor and abide by the Constitution?


If that's all they wanted then they wouldn't be controversial. It's the fact that they are riddled with gun nuts, anti-abortion extremists, anti-science Christian Taliban demagogues and outright white supremacists that makes them controversial.

I don't get the hate for the Tea Party.


That's because you're seeing them with rose-colored glasses.

They want a smaller, limited gov't! A gov't that is back to actually following the Constitution. [quote]

A "smaller, limited government" is a code word for a government that can't regulate corporations. This is at the heart of Republican ideology: the domination of big businesses over every facet of American life.

[quote]And that's considered radical and bad for the Republicans?


They are radical because they want to forcibly subject the majority of Americans who don't agree with their pro-corporate, religious extremist views to their brand of 19th century government

I don't want a small government. A small government would be powerless to stop big corporations from exploiting my work, destroying my planet's natural resources and exposing me and my family to deadly chemicals.

reply

Ok, I'll join in and come to bat for the Tea Party, because I also feel they undeservedly get a bad rep.

"If that's all they wanted then they wouldn't be controversial. It's the fact that they are riddled with gun nuts, anti-abortion extremists, anti-science Christian Taliban demagogues and outright white supremacists that makes them controversial."

These peoples' beliefs and sometimes actions are indefensible and objectively wrong. They are also not anything close to the actual beliefs of the Tea Party. From teaparty.org, the "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs" of the party are...

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Are there points there that are imperfect and easy to disagree with? Sure. I myself am a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but it bothers even me that the Tea Party would call gun ownership "sacred". That seems very strong and imposing, and I wish they would change their language. I have other problems with these beliefs, but seeing as I'm defending the Tea Party, I will let my opposition bring them up.

So while there is an unappealing, radical subgroup of the Tea Party, those peoples' beliefs come nowhere close to representing the beliefs of the party as a whole. You know what other party that describes? Pretty much all of them.

Now, the problem the Tea Party faces is that their verbal minority is louder and more heinous than most, so opponents of the party have easily been able to point the spotlight on that group and allow the country to view the entire party as a bunch of Redneck White Supremacist Abortion Hating Gun Nuts. This is a brilliant strategy for opponents of the Tea Party, and I don't have any problems with it, but it's always upset me that this play alone has encouraged millions of people to write off the views of an entire party. It seems akin to someone saying that they hate Dr. Seuss when their only points of judgment are the live action "Cat In The Hat" and "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" movies.

Final argument: The Tea Party is flawed, just like every other party in the country, but is not taken seriously for unfair reasons. If you know the actual values of the party and happen to disagree, I have no problem with you or your views. It's the people who know nothing about the Party, but decide to write it off anyway that bother me.

reply

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Who doesn't agree with 1, 2, 4, 7, & 12? You'd be hardpressed to find many.

3 depends on how we define 'strong' military. Wars no longer are fought by throwing thousands of men on a battlefield. Regarding newer technology like drone strikes, the States are fine. Too much of the budget is wasted on military as it is, at the expense of things like education. You can thank special interest groups of corps like Lockheed Martin seeking profit off the government and its citizens.

5 is already protected by the government and constitution. Just because people need permits and can't go around carrying their guns like it's the old West in most states doesn't mean they don't have gun rights.

8 is impractical. Ever heard the term 'spend money to make money'? Anybody who's played roller coaster tycoon knows it's true. It's a potential disservice to discredit (no pun intended) deficit spending without any further knowledge.

10 & 11 are laughable to anybody outside the States. Our tax rates are much lower than just about everywhere in Europe. Complaining about taxes is simply an egocentric sense of entitlement from baby-boomer Americans. They already get a *beep* of pensions, barely had to pay anything to get into college, and they're still complaining? Get real. And corporate power is becoming a huge issue. Reducing business taxes is the last thing America wants. Even small business taxes, which should only be engaged by people who know what they're doing. Any experienced entrepreneur will tell you not to take out a loan to start a business, either. In sum: if you're going to start a business, have the money to do it, and by extension, be willing to pay your due in taxes. If tea partiers truly advocated individual responsibility they would support that.

13 depends on how you define intrusive. They seem to have no problem telling gays they can't get married. Hypocrites.

14: I get as annoyed as the next guy when I'm dependent on people who can't speak English. But there are much more important things to be worrying about.

15 is impractical. Humanity is naturally liberal, always progressing. Family values (I assume they're insecurely targeting transgenders and gays here) will change, but it doesn't mean people still can't be happy.

Tea partiers are very impractical, misinformed, insecure, and delusional. Speaking for myself, my main gripe is their love of corporations but hate of the government. That is just so backwards.

reply

the problem is a lot of people know about the party, the party that is funded by special interests while claiming to be against the special interests they disagree with, the fact the party leadership has been purging local leaders that refuse to get on board the gravy train taking money and 'training seminars' from the Kochs through americans for prosperity and other massive super pacs, the fact that the tea party have been bussed by pro business special interests to protest in favour of things against their own core principals such as being in favour of oil subsidies and agricultural gagging orders that make it illegal for the public to be informed and then decide for themselves which business they wish to support.

the problem with the tea party is that they are co opted by special interests to the point former leaders within the movement who were cast out for not joining in with wetting their beaks are denouncing the movement, they put up candidates with extremist beliefs, so it cant be such a minority opinion of the movement as a whole, they push for crazy stuff and refuse to govern, and then they lie a hell of a lot, such as pushing for a government shut down for months then when it becomes unpopular claiming they wish Obama would end his shut down of the government.

tea party darlings are also a big problem. you had nut bag bachman who said Obama was arming terrorists but it was a good thing because if they killed enough people in the middle east it would trigger the end times, they had allen west, who calls war heroes that disagree with him unpatriotic, after he was kicked out of the military because he disgraced himself, carrying out mock executions and ordering beatings of detainees, then the tea party chose that guy to represent them, they have ted cruz filibuster against a bill that he then goes on to vote for, simply to get his name in the spotlight and help his fund raising, they keep having ted cruzs Cuban father say Obama should go back to Kenya, when his own son was born in Canada, but its ok, hes white, then ted cruz after being attacked on that issue in smear ads by republicans during the primaries claimed that it was liberals that had attacked him with smear ads, even though it never happened, not to mention they use Rafael cruz to throw out outrageous comments, then they say hey its his father, that doesn't mean he speaks for ted cruz, yet he is working for the ted cruz campaign, fundraising for them and introducing ted at speeches, so they use him to say what they want to say but cannot because it is sometimes crazy and hateful, they get what they wanted said, said while pretending to be unassociated so they don't take any heat for it. plus again the fact that tea party leaders are visibly intellectually dishonest, such as on that issue, they argued that Obama was not a US citizen, then argue that ted cruz is even if born abroad, because he has an American mother therefore could be born anywhere in the world and still be eligible for the presidency. well Obama definitely had an American mother so by the same logic even if he had been born elsewhere, would also be eligible, that is the problem with the tea party, they do mental gymnastics to make something ok if they do it and demonic if someone else does the exact same thing. or say, ted cruz, making speeches about a young boy saying he did not want a free lunch, he wanted one in a brown paper bag like the other kids, as if the child was asking to go hungry rather than receive that lunch, a story that was fictional and appeared in a book written by a guy in favour of school lunches who was making the point people are not moochers who just want free stuff, they would prefer to not have that stigma, they only take the lunch because they would go hungry otherwise.

that is the problem with the tea party, that don't just have a lot of crazy hateful members, they vote for those people, they protest big government then attack other groups for doing exactly the same thing like when they kept bashing occupy instead of saying we disagree with their goals but this shows there is a problem with the system as both sides have issue with it, they just kept on about how they must have deserved the cops coming after them and they were thugs, never mentioning the fact that the tea party was supported by the big business interests occupy was after, hence why they were immune from similar treatment, you had tea party protesters showing up armed with weaponry calling unarmed occupy protesters thugs for getting pepper sprayed. they are hypocrites on issue after issue, just like now with cliven bundy, trayvon martin was a thug for getting shot dead walking home unarmed, cliven bundy supporters are patriots for threatening innocent workers at gun point and carrying out death threats. that is why so many people discount and disrespect the tea party, because it ignores reality, bends the truth and uses any political trick possible, the tea party should of been protesting voter id laws instead of supporting them if they were truly for democracy and the rights of the ordinary citizen. they only care if that citizen would vote their way, its selective outrage over and over again.

reply

Some other guy wrote this:

'Limited government as epitomized by the greatest expansion of the federal government in history under George W Bush?'

Nah, it was FDR that did that, extending and worsening the depression in the process.

And 'deverginizer'- thanks for writing one of the stupidest things i have read in a while:

'I don't want a small government. A small government would be powerless to stop big corporations from exploiting my work, destroying my planet's natural resources and exposing me and my family to deadly chemicals.'

Well, sorry to break it to you, but it is a combination of big government and big corporations that are exploiting everyone now. Why an earth do you trust the government when the state and big business, banking etc. have been in cahoots with each other for centuries. It is you that is pro-corporate - you just don't even know it.

What has really happened is that bunch of pro-government, power-worshipping maniacs, have lied and distorted to the extent where they have got the majority onto their side; then they have used that majority to forcefully expand government, and extort citizens through the threat of force - just what the Constitution was to protect against (the tyranny of the majority).

The Federal government WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE BIG BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS KNEW IT WOULD DESTROY LIBERTY AND NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY IN SUCH A LARGE COUNTRY. The Constitution effectively enshrined a confederation between the states, who were meant to retain most of their sovereignty. Now everything is administered by a central power with no accountability as the citizen is crushed underfoot by the vast complexity of it all.

'We need government to protect us from everything!!'

No you don't.

reply

[deleted]

Did you know LBJ once said "I'll have those n***ers voting Democrat for the next century"?

reply

Kingbingo, You speak the truth.

reply

Can you honestly say that you see any of the Republican values you mentioned in today's Republican party? If they still exist, they don't even crack the 10 ten priorities for the Republican party nowadays.

Also, the civil war is seen as a war between north and south, not Republicans and Democrats

reply

That being said,you could call it a war between the Haves and the Have Nots.Don't get hung up in terms.If you land on earth from Mars ,you might not understand the language on Earth fully so to simplify,you could name the parties ruling the Government the Colorado Mountain High and the Oil Slick Greasers. It's a matter of perception.Just because the Republicans were something 150 years ago doesn't mean they still are. It's been "hilariously agreed" the Reagan would no longer be welcome in the Republican Party today,much less an icon for the party.And yet Democrats still don't like him.
My choice was formed by common sense.My family fled ,first,from the Nazis,and then from the Russians,who were allies with the Americans.I never forgot that.I was hunted by an ally of the country I was forced to flee to.I would rather the USA had said to Russia," leave these people where they are." My crime? I had a Jewish mother and my father had been drafted into the German Army.Rather than let us leave peacefully,Russia was now invading and my father was Hungarian and had been called "home." My mother "never liked Ike" but we became Democrats.

reply

Please learn actual history, it will keep you from looking so hilariously silly.

reply