OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, if those who don’t want health care shouldn’t have to pay for it, what about those who don’t want to pay for war (or to feed the military industrial complex)? Is there a way for us to opt out?

How about the socialism that is the military?

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, if those who don’t want health care shouldn’t have to pay for it, what about those who don’t want to pay for war (or to feed the military industrial complex)? Is there a way for us to opt out?

How about the socialism that is the military?

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, if those who don’t want health care shouldn’t have to pay for it, what about those who don’t want to pay for war (or to feed the military industrial complex)? Is there a way for us to opt out?

How about the socialism that is the military?

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, if those who don’t want health care shouldn’t have to pay for it, what about those who don’t want to pay for war (or to feed the military industrial complex)? Is there a way for us to opt out?

How about the socialism that is the military?

[briansd1]

Allan and Aecetia, if those who don’t want health care shouldn’t have to pay for it, what about those who don’t want to pay for war (or to feed the military industrial complex)? Is there a way for us to opt out?

How about the socialism that is the military?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.[/quote]

I agree with you, heere.

I’m not a ideological purist. I’m practical.

What’s important is that Lincoln and Kennedy did the right things.

Yes, LBJ was a bigoted Texan. But a good one. 🙂

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.[/quote]

I agree with you, heere.

I’m not a ideological purist. I’m practical.

What’s important is that Lincoln and Kennedy did the right things.

Yes, LBJ was a bigoted Texan. But a good one. 🙂

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.[/quote]

I agree with you, heere.

I’m not a ideological purist. I’m practical.

What’s important is that Lincoln and Kennedy did the right things.

Yes, LBJ was a bigoted Texan. But a good one. 🙂

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.[/quote]

I agree with you, heere.

I’m not a ideological purist. I’m practical.

What’s important is that Lincoln and Kennedy did the right things.

Yes, LBJ was a bigoted Texan. But a good one. 🙂

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.

For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.

JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.

My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!

However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.[/quote]

I agree with you, heere.

I’m not a ideological purist. I’m practical.

What’s important is that Lincoln and Kennedy did the right things.

Yes, LBJ was a bigoted Texan. But a good one. 🙂

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters [/quote]

When the grassroots of the Republican party are Palin supporters and Rush listeners from the “real” America and the Red States, one can’t help but make fun of them. They are the worker bees of the party which likely doesn’t provide them with medical insurance, much less dental insurance.

I’m not talking about the leadership of the Republicans. I’m referring here to the people going door-to-door, passing out passing leaflets, demonstrating and repeating what they hear in church.

Look in the mirror and examine yourself, I would say to them.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters [/quote]

When the grassroots of the Republican party are Palin supporters and Rush listeners from the “real” America and the Red States, one can’t help but make fun of them. They are the worker bees of the party which likely doesn’t provide them with medical insurance, much less dental insurance.

I’m not talking about the leadership of the Republicans. I’m referring here to the people going door-to-door, passing out passing leaflets, demonstrating and repeating what they hear in church.

Look in the mirror and examine yourself, I would say to them.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters [/quote]

When the grassroots of the Republican party are Palin supporters and Rush listeners from the “real” America and the Red States, one can’t help but make fun of them. They are the worker bees of the party which likely doesn’t provide them with medical insurance, much less dental insurance.

I’m not talking about the leadership of the Republicans. I’m referring here to the people going door-to-door, passing out passing leaflets, demonstrating and repeating what they hear in church.

Look in the mirror and examine yourself, I would say to them.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters [/quote]

When the grassroots of the Republican party are Palin supporters and Rush listeners from the “real” America and the Red States, one can’t help but make fun of them. They are the worker bees of the party which likely doesn’t provide them with medical insurance, much less dental insurance.

I’m not talking about the leadership of the Republicans. I’m referring here to the people going door-to-door, passing out passing leaflets, demonstrating and repeating what they hear in church.

Look in the mirror and examine yourself, I would say to them.

[Author]

Posts