Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me ... Eh ... Slavery

Anyone wishing to learn about the Civil War equivalent of the "our soldiers are terrorists" NDP and other leftist moonbats should Google "Civil War Copperheads."

Libs were on the stupid side of all the great questions,

Slavery, segregation, and affirmative action/ hiring quotas,

Adding another big one, communism, which many of the Lib/Dem fools still embrace in spite of all empirical evidence that it failed.

the lefties have been on the wrong side for a LOOOONG time.

Just like they won't like the next President of the USA, a black female! go figure.

George A. Custer was a Democrat. He planned to run for President, but he met Crazy Horse first.

I'm no Democrat, but I think it's only fair to point out that the Republican party platform in 1940 stated quite baldly:

"The Republican Party is firmly opposed to involving this Nation in foreign war.

We are still suffering from the ill effects of the last World War: a war which cost us a twenty-four billion dollar increase in our national debt, billions of uncollectible foreign debts, and the complete upset of our economic system, in addition to the loss of human life and irreparable damage to the health of thousands of our boys."

Even right wingers get lost occasionally.

And this is news? These knuckleheads have been at it since before the declaration of independence. Nothing new here! "CLinton Lied, and three thousand plus died, to include Ron Brown, vince foster, etc.....

Shelby Foote quotes a statement by Clement Vallandigham (a leading Coppherhead) about Lincoln that John Kerry might have said about George W. Like John Kerry, Vallandigham suffered an accidental self-inflicted wound. Unlike Kerry, Vallandigham died from his. Truly, God is great!

Vallandigham's pictures show him with that now all too familiar little moonbat smile, of the ethically conceited who know that whatever damage they cause will fall on others, not on themselves.

Yes, the Democrat position on the US Civil War was almost identical to the current Democrat position on the anti-terror war.

penny: "Adding another big one, communism, which many of the Lib/Dem fools still embrace in spite of all empirical evidence that it failed."

??? I don't think even Joe McCarthy would have made a ridiculous claim like that.

The Democrats WERE the conservatives during slavery and for most of segregation. The Dems were the slaveowners in the south, who used violence, intimidation and biblical justification to maintain slavery. The Republicans contained the abolitionist movement, which was an extremely liberal position to take at the time (Anti-slavery Quakers were treated with the same contempt as pro-gay liberal churches are today). Thus, if you think the "liberals" were on the wrong side of the slavery question ...

Cy: what's your point?

Personally I abhor both the Republicans and the Democrats. There's really little difference between them.

I don't think even Joe McCarthy would have made a ridiculous claim like that

I wouldn't either. He died decades before Communism ended with a thud. So, burned on that one, what's your next shot at punditry?

The point is too many conservatives distort history by claiming the pre-Goldwater Republicans as their intellectual kin when in truth the original Republicans were the liberal "moonbats" who were fighting for group rights ... to a much greater degree than today's donut-shop intellectual liberals. It's a very dishonest claim. What "conservative" party in the 1800's would have regularly consulted with Booker T Washington about appointing black Americans to political positions?

cy - you are correct: a)Lincoln was a Republican and b)the South would have wallowed in segregation longer if not for the Republicans in the 1960's Congress. It was Southern and fellow Democrats who opposed Civil Rights legislation. Democrats, almost always a day late and a dollar short, tend to hijack history in their revisions. Leaning on their socialist roots in this century, duplicity comes naturally to them. Clinton is busy squelching ABC's docu-drama as we speak - another historic Dem re-write unfolding.

exile - "There's really little difference between them"???

Well, maybe between Coke and Pepsi, politcal parties are a little more complex, but, of course, other than your rather vapid one-liner, we'd be delighted to hear more factual details on statement. We're all ears.

History redux, the Democratic Party...again the party of treason.

"We now have two parties of people in this nation, traitors and patriots. Hereafter, I wish to be numbered among the latter." Ulysses S. Grant, writing to a friend in 1860. (Later to become Commanding General of the victorious US Army and later still, a Republican President.)

Kevin, The fact was the US was itching to get involved and was actively helping with their "lend lease program" of war ships, ammunition and war supplies long before their excuse came along, Pearl Harbour.

"I don't think even Joe McCarthy would have made a ridiculous claim like that I wouldn't either. He died decades before Communism ended with a thud. So, burned on that one, what's your next shot at punditry?"

Let me put it another way.

Here's your claim:
"Adding another big one, communism, which many of the Lib/Dem fools still embrace in spite of all empirical evidence that it failed."

Here's my point:
The idea that "Lib/Dems" embrace communism would have been too ridiculous even for McCarthy.

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't addressing the "in spite of ..." ending to your claim, since 1) surely everyone knows when McCarthy died and 2) it's merely a secondary gloss on your main point - that "Lib/Dems" embrace communism.

I'll try to remember in future that I can't count on a reasonable reading and I'll try to make everything tediously explicit.

Thanks for the explanation, Cy. It's a good point.

"exile - "There's really little difference between them"

penny: "Well, maybe between Coke and Pepsi, politcal parties are a little more complex, but, of course, other than your rather vapid one-liner, we'd be delighted to hear more factual details on statement. We're all ears."

I didn't think this required explanation. They are both liberal (in the philosophical/historical sense) parties. They share a common ideology, in other words. Consequently, there has been little difference in their policies over the years. Most of the world considers political parties to be significantly different when their ideologies are significantly different. That isn't true of Republicans and Democrats. Both hold essentially the same ideology.

But I don't think there's any point in this discussion since you, apparently, believe the Democrats to be marxists!

In truth, there really aren't that many differences between Democrats and Republicans. When you break it all down, the Democrats believe that domestic issues are of the highest import and the Republicans place international issues in that position. It doesn't mean that Democrats don't seek popular acceptance outside of their country (or co-opt the childhood of party leaders abroad) or that Republicans could care less about the American people (the large scale aid to Katrina victims wasn't funding to another country). What you have are two groups with similar ideologies that focus them differently. Democrats believe they should personally fix people's problems through taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and the Republicans give tax credits to charitable contributions that feed, clothe and house the poor and downtrodden. The main divide is how much the government should be involved in the aspects of your everyday lives, micromanagement versus macromanagement. All in all, it boils down to management. There is a Coke-Pepsi quality to the issue, and like any other simple analysis, there will certainly be more behind than a simple label would allow. But, hey, I like Mountain Dew (a Pepsi product) and Coke and am certain I'm not the only crossover (maybe some like Pepsi and Sprite?), and that fits for mixing your voting on the local, state, and federal levels. But now I am rambling....