When Republicans understood the values of democracy

[Grizalltheway]

As much as you're a card-carrying teabagger, Z!

He's right and your shit about wealth distribution coming from the public tit is just the kind of radical, scare tactic guano you and your Conk cohorts live by and will eventually die by. You want to maintain your cushy desert mansion with the three Escalades and the Olympic-size pool with 14 Mexican gardeners bowing and curtsying at your every whim.

Your people have failed us and the time has already begun in which your type will be brought to justice.

And the revolution WILL be televised, bitch! On Al Jazeera, too!


"Honey? The ground motion detection system is indicating that either a niqqer or a wetback has stepped on the property back by the Maserati garage. Will you please phone John McCain about it?"

LMFAO - this one gave me a hernia

Agreed-strong humorous post of the year contender.

[D1B]

LMFAO - this one gave me a hernia

Agreed-strong humorous post of the year contender.

Man, it's good to have the Cap'n back. We should all take a monthly collection to donate to him so he doesn't have to get a job, and can post stuff like this more often.

I swear I tore an oblique laughing at this one.

[free7694]

On this week's episode of "RINO: The Theodore Roosevelt Story":

TR runs for president in 1912 as the nominee for the progressive Bull Moose party and advocates for the redistribution of wealth as much as anyone this side of Barack Obama.



Roosevelt a real Republican, that's a good one.

[Ibanez]

fify

Sorry, Teddy R. was no conservative.
In today's terminology, he is Obama light, or a John McCain type of Republican. Good in a few aspects, but horrible in many others.

This is actually accurate. It seems that around the turn of the 20th century the Republicans and Democrates "swapped" platforms, theoretically speaking. If you consider the majority of the "states rights" politicians of today, back in Lincolns time they would've been Democrats, for example. It's not exact nor is it ture in every case but it is an interesting observation of the shift in our political history.

[kalm]

On this week's episode of "RINO: The Theodore Roosevelt Story":

TR runs for president in 1912 as the nominee for the progressive Bull Moose party and advocates for the redistribution of wealth as much as anyone this side of Barack Obama.



Roosevelt a real Republican, that's a good one.

He recognized that entrenched wealth is no more deserving than the working class, and that it can hurt democracy. Perhaps he didn't leave his party, his party left him.

[GannonFan]

Sorry, Teddy R. was no conservative.
In today's terminology, he is Obama light, or a John McCain type of Republican. Good in a few aspects, but horrible in many others.

This is actually accurate. It seems that around the turn of the 20th century the Republicans and Democrates "swapped" platforms, theoretically speaking. If you consider the majority of the "states rights" politicians of today, back in Lincolns time they would've been Democrats, for example. It's not exact nor is it ture in every case but it is an interesting observation of the shift in our political history.

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

[Ibanez]

This is actually accurate. It seems that around the turn of the 20th century the Republicans and Democrates "swapped" platforms, theoretically speaking. If you consider the majority of the "states rights" politicians of today, back in Lincolns time they would've been Democrats, for example. It's not exact nor is it ture in every case but it is an interesting observation of the shift in our political history.

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

Lincoln would be for any party that excluded others, he was not a fan of blacks (just look at his own speaches and meeting minutes from before and during his presidency). But I agree with you.

[Baldy]

This is actually accurate. It seems that around the turn of the 20th century the Republicans and Democrates "swapped" platforms, theoretically speaking. If you consider the majority of the "states rights" politicians of today, back in Lincolns time they would've been Democrats, for example. It's not exact nor is it ture in every case but it is an interesting observation of the shift in our political history.

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

I'm sure all of the founding fathers would be totally disgusted to see what their Republic has turned into.

[GannonFan]

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

Lincoln would be for any party that excluded others, he was not a fan of blacks (just look at his own speaches and meeting minutes from before and during his presidency). But I agree with you.

Now you're stretching into citdog territory. Lincoln clearly was not of the opinion that Blacks were in any ways equal to whites, but that doesn't mean he wanted to have a political party that excluded others. That's just extrapolation and interpretation on your part. And Lincoln was still a product of his times - in an era where a good number of people thought Black slavery was not only ok but the natural order of things, Lincoln, even with his own racial views, was pretty progressive. The context of his times, or any historical figure, is pretty important.

[GannonFan]

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

I'm sure all of the founding fathers would be totally disgusted to see what their Republic has turned into.

I agree with that, but that's to be expected - 200+ years have seen an incredible amount of changes. Pre-industrial people would be without words looking at our society today.

[Cap'n Cat]

That's certainly the case when you consider labels that have been around for more than 2 centuries. Jefferson would be appalled at what the Democratic Party is today, just as Lincoln would the Republicans. Different times.

I'm sure all of the founding fathers would be totally disgusted to see what their Republic has turned into.

Respectfully, Brothers Baldy and Ganny, I disagree. Their eyebrows would certainly be raised by many things, especially Internet porn and skyscrapers, the sad state of the Republican Party and superhighways.

They would also commend all the Progressives throughout history for recognizing the flexibility we've attached to the Constitution, given all the challenges they couldn't ever dream of.

In addition, I believe they would be dismayed at all the churches on every fvcking corner in America, exclaiming, "This is not what we meant by 'religious freedom'." Then, again, they would be heartened by the decline in American church attendeeism.

[Baldy]

I'm sure all of the founding fathers would be totally disgusted to see what their Republic has turned into.

Respectfully, Brothers Baldy and Ganny, I disagree. Their eyebrows would certainly be raised by many things, especially Internet porn and skyscrapers, the sad state of the Republican Party and superhighways.

They would also commend all the Progressives throughout history for recognizing the flexibility we've attached to the Constitution, given all the challenges they couldn't ever dream of.

In addition, I believe they would be dismayed at all the churches on every fvcking corner in America, exclaiming, "This is not what we meant by 'religious freedom'." Then, again, they would be heartened by the decline in American church attendeeism.

Good one Cappy.

[Cap'n Cat]

THANKS!

You know, you Conks are invited to leave and found your own country. For all the flag waving you do, you shur do a lot of bitching with it.

[D1B]

Respectfully, Brothers Baldy and Ganny, I disagree. Their eyebrows would certainly be raised by many things, especially Internet porn and skyscrapers, the sad state of the Republican Party and superhighways.

They would also commend all the Progressives throughout history for recognizing the flexibility we've attached to the Constitution, given all the challenges they couldn't ever dream of.

In addition, I believe they would be dismayed at all the churches on every fvcking corner in America, exclaiming, "This is not what we meant by 'religious freedom'." Then, again, they would be heartened by the decline in American church attendeeism.

Good one Cappy.

He's right Baldy. Founding fathers lived 200 years ago. The world has changed.

[Baldy]

Good one Cappy.

He's right Baldy. Founding fathers lived 200 years ago. The world has changed.

Principles don't change.

Unless, of course, you're a revisionist "progressive".

[Baldy]

THANKS!

You know, you Conks are invited to leave and found your own country. For all the flag waving you do, you shur do a lot of bitching with it.

Says the Complainer in Chief.

[D1B]

He's right Baldy. Founding fathers lived 200 years ago. The world has changed.

Principles don't change.

Unless, of course, you're a revisionist "progressive".

Agree, both sides of this debate have valid and flawed arguments.

[Cap'n Cat]

Principles don't change.

Unless, of course, you're a revisionist "progressive".

Agree, both sides of this debate have valid and flawed arguments.

Neither has flawed arguments, they're all valid. Just mine are more valid than his.

[kalm]

Who gives a shit what happened 200 years ago. There were no Republicans B.R.