Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Jeff Boler]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:



This weekend, the Attorney General of the United States, referenced law enforcement prosecuting journalists. He said:



Another amendment goes down to this Republican administration.

.....Someone forgot their medication this morning....

 

[Xue Sheng]

What would Lincoln think?

Sorry, I admit right here that I have not read this entire post. But the above quote, from the thread beginning, caught my eye.

I have a similar question; What would Washington think?

I claim neither party as my own, and both have been associated with good and evil. Currently we vilify the republicans. But apparently forget the party of the KKK is the Democratic Party.

What would Washington think; I tend to feel he would think it has gone the way he was concerned it would go. He did not feel that political parties were a good thing for the country. Basically he felt that people of any political party would vote for what is best for the party, which may not be the same as what is good for the country.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[michaeledward]

But apparently forget the party of the KKK is the Democratic Party.

Well there's an incindiary statement ... from which, I think you may be due some change to your two cents.

The Ku Klux Klan has, apparently, attempted to connect itself to many organizations over the years, and members have been from both parties. It was started by the Confederate Army after the lost the War of Northern Aggression.

All that aside; currently, the Congress is controlled by Republicans. The White House is controlled by Republicans. The Courts are controlled by Republicans.

Your phone is tapped.
Your phone company is allowing the government to access your account data in violation of the law, and their privacy policy.
Your newspaper is threatened when it prints news.
Your newspaper is owned, in all probability, by a multinational conglomerate in which it is a small profit center, without a civic responsibility.
You have no right of habeus corpus.

Seems some want to stand on the parade route, waving, whilst the emperor passes by, nude.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Well, let's see -- that Byrd fellow, who used to rank highly in the KKK... he's a Democrat, right?

Historically, the South voted Democrat because the South hated the Republicans, the party of Abolition. If one party could be said to be "the party of the KKK," it is more accurately the Democrats than the Republicans, for all that this is relevant today (which is to say, not much).

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, let's see -- that Byrd fellow, who used to rank highly in the KKK... he's a Democrat, right?

Historically, the South voted Democrat because the South hated the Republicans, the party of Abolition. If one party could be said to be "the party of the KKK," it is more accurately the Democrats than the Republicans, for all that this is relevant today (which is to say, not much).

Damn, I'm agreeing with Phil again

The historic beginning of the KKK was definitely pro-democrat to the extent, at the time, of some democrats covering up for the KKK and the killing of Republicans by the KKK that were running for office against a democrat.

Many of the current KKK members, if they vote at all and have not crossed over to the anti-government side, tends to be Southern Democrats.

As for "incendiary statement" this post is full of them. I could give you some about Republicans too. Neither side is even remotely close to pure.

But it is the Lincoln question that I am wondering about. And this may not apply, but Lincoln did say during the Civil War that if he thought he could maintain the Union by allowing slavery, he would do it.

His main focus was maintaining the union not abolishing slavery, so what would Lincoln truly think about all of this? Would he approve of it if he felt it would maintain the Union or the safety of the country? I do not know, but it is an interesting point to think about.

As I believe I stated, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I tend to have the same view as Washington about party politics. This leads me right back to.

What would Washington think?

 

[qizmoduis]

Well, let's see -- that Byrd fellow, who used to rank highly in the KKK... he's a Democrat, right?

Historically, the South voted Democrat because the South hated the Republicans, the party of Abolition. If one party could be said to be "the party of the KKK," it is more accurately the Democrats than the Republicans, for all that this is relevant today (which is to say, not much).

The party of Lincoln died when all of those KKK Democrats jumped en-masse to the Republican party in the face of overwhelming Democratic support of civil rights. They were welcomed by the modern GOP with open, eager arms. We suffer from that legacy today.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

BS!


An Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party

http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Weekly_Magazine/New_Articles/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Democrat/an_open_letter_to_the_democrat.html

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040508-115716-4941r.htm

"The Democratic Party acts as if they own black people," said Delegate Clarence "Tiger" Davis, Baltimore Democrat. "The state party is racist to the core."
Another insult, said Delegate Nathaniel T. Oaks, Baltimore Democrat, is that party leaders press black candidates more than white candidates to vote for tax increases, which could cause them to lose their seats in coming elections.
"I think the Democratic Party takes black people for granted," Mr. Oaks said. "I think what [the Democratic Party] does in the state is just a reflection of what it does as a whole on the national level."

 

[Phil Elmore]

The party of Lincoln died when all of those KKK Democrats jumped en-masse to the Republican party in the face of overwhelming Democratic support of civil rights. They were welcomed by the modern GOP with open, eager arms. We suffer from that legacy today.

I guess someone forgot to tell Mr. Byrd, then. Who was that fellow who raised the confederate flag over the Arkansas state Capital building? I seem to recall he was a Democrat, too.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I guess someone forgot to tell Mr. Byrd, then. Who was that fellow who raised the confederate flag over the Arkansas state Capital building? I seem to recall he was a Democrat, too.

Not every Dem or Southerner was is a Racist. Some wanted to have the Loose Confederacy that ran this country from 1776 until 1789, where the states had more authority.

I am not arguing that the Battle Flag does not have emotion tied to it on both sides of this arguement.

As to the KKK and Republicans, given how it seem to have shifted over time from Rural Dem to Rural Rep and most of the members of said org live in rural areas it is a relationship that many put together.

Yet like the Battle flag for the CSA, I think this is an issue of people who were one thing and ALSO had these other opinions or ways of life that people started to associated both together as being representative of each other as well.

 

[crushing]

The party of Lincoln died when all of those KKK Democrats jumped en-masse to the Republican party in the face of overwhelming Democratic support of civil rights.

That certainly would put Democrats in a different light if it were true. Plus, such simplicity would make studying history much easier.

Anyway, here are the vote breakdowns of the two major civil right acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Vote totals

The Original House Version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate Version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By Party

The Original House Version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Vote count

Senate: 77–19
Democrats: 47–17
Republicans: 30–2

House: 333–85
Democrats: 221–61
Republicans: 112–24


The parties did 're-organize' when it came to the 10th Amendment and the role of the federal government. Advocates for a strong centralized government did a good job of painting all those that favored state's rights as only doing so to preserve racial discrimination. Unfortunately, I'm sure some did.

crushing
A Former Republican

 

[Phil Elmore]

Not every Dem or Southerner was is a Racist.

Who said they were? Among the members of Congress who have formerly held office IN the KKK, however, is Mr. Byrd, who is... remind me again... a Democrat, right?

 

[michaeledward]

As I believe I stated, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I tend to have the same view as Washington about party politics. This leads me right back to.

What would Washington think?

The reason the question was posted in the original post is that the current day G.O.P. claim President Lincoln as an ancestor from which they derive their heritage. The Republican Party is self-described as 'The Party of Lincoln'.

I am unaware of any opposition party in modern day politics that claims to be 'The Party of Washington'.

Would Abraham Lincoln want to be associated with the party that authorizes monitored, without Judicial review, the communication of American Citizens? Detaining citizens without charge, without legal representation for undetermined amounts of time?

I am fairly confident that the original founders of the country would be against these actions. It is my understanding that many of the State delegations would not have ratified the U.S. Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was introduced and passed at the same time. And, while the Bill of Rights is a separate document, it is considered to be part of the Constitution in ways that other Amendments are not, usually.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Would Abraham Lincoln want to be associated with the party that authorizes monitored, without Judicial review, the communication of American Citizens? Detaining citizens without charge, without legal representation for undetermined amounts of time?

Uh... do you know anything about Lincoln or what he did with his power as president during the Civil War? I'm thinking he wouldn't have had a problem with it...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Your phone is tapped.

My phone is taped, doubtful. Do you honestly think that every American’s phone is taped? And do you realize the manpower, technology and equipment that would take.

Your phone company is allowing the government to access your account data in violation of the law, and their privacy policy.

I am not arguing a point here I am asking for clarification – Which law?

Your newspaper is threatened when it prints news.

By who?

Your newspaper is owned, in all probability, by a multinational conglomerate in which it is a small profit center, without a civic responsibility.

Which reinforces previous question, who is threatening them? They are huge businesses and contribute to a lot of political campaigns. Newspapers today are, and to be honest the majority of the news media, influenced by the Dollar and that is it. If it is not going to produce high ratings and get sponsors they want nothing to do with it. This is why international terrorism is reported and domestic terrorism is not. This is why you have sensationalized News. The days of Walter Cronkite are long dead; the media today is a business that that is all. Welcome to capitalism, sad but true.

You have no right of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences.

You are making a blanket statement here and applying it to everyone in the nation by saying “You have no right of habeas corpus.” There a lot of court officials that would disagree with you.

The reason the question was posted in the original post is that the current day G.O.P. claim President Lincoln as an ancestor from which they derive their heritage. The Republican Party is self-described as 'The Party of Lincoln'.

I am unaware of any opposition party in modern day politics that claims to be 'The Party of Washington'.

And you won’t. Washington was against political parties. My point here is this; if someone is a democrat generally they will vote for the democrat agenda and attack the republican agenda. If you are a republican you will vote for the republican agenda and attack the democrat agenda, regardless of the fact as to what may or may not be good for the country.

Same thing here if you start a post with “Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?” If you are a democrat you are going to use this to attack the republicans, if you are a republican you are going to defend republicans. The first line of the post is inflammatory and forces people to take up sides based on politics and does not look for an actual solution to the concerns posted. If in fact the worry is right to privacy, what are the Democrats currently doing to really protect it? What should we do to protect it?

And if you are using the Bill of rights as your basis both sides have violated it far beyond any intension the founding fathers had. Republicans are in power now, the Democrats will probably be in power next and they too will violate them in some way.

And I am a decendant of Frederick the Great, can I say this is a post of Frederick the Great

Would Abraham Lincoln want to be associated with the party that authorizes monitored, without judicial review, the communication of American Citizens? Detaining citizens without charge, without legal representation for undetermined amounts of time?

Honestly I do not know. He would have been willing to give up all rights granted to African Americans under the Constitution if he felt it would maintain the Union. How far is that from ignoring other rights granted to other Americans by the constitution?

I am fairly confident that the original founders of the country would be against these actions. It is my understanding that many of the State delegations would not have ratified the U.S. Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was introduced and passed at the same time. And, while the Bill of Rights is a separate document, it is considered to be part of the Constitution in ways that other Amendments are not, usually.

I am not as certain about this point as you are. I would like to think they would not be all to happy about it, but I would like to think there is a lot in Government today they would not be all to happy about, but I am not sure about that to be truthful. They were, for all intensive purposes, protecting the rights of land owners, which did not make up the majority of the population at that time. They however were all land owners. They would not have any idea about phones, computers and such, but I still do not know how they would truly stand on this in light of what is going on in the world today.

Now, I ask you, would you read Bill of Rights and answer this question; can you honestly tell me that the Democratic Party has never violated any of them? I am fairly sure the Republican Party has violated a few. Also I am equally as certain democrats can list the ones republicans have violated as well as the republicans can list the ones the democrats have violated.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[michaeledward]

Now, I ask you, would you read Bill of Rights and answer this question; can you honestly tell me that the Democratic Party has never violated any of them? I am fairly sure the Republican Party has violated a few. Also I am equally as certain democrats can list the ones republicans have violated as well as the republicans can list the ones the democrats have violated.

My point is ... today, now, the Republican Party hold the levers of Power in the Federal Government. Would you agree? If we can't agree that the power structure in Washington is currently under the dominion of the Grand Ole Party, then my points are mute.

In my opinion, this is not about what happened at the end of the Civil War. While others may wish to take the argument there. That is a tangent I do not want to participate in.

In the past, when Democrats controlled the levers of power, there may, or may not have been abuses.

There are some strong arguments in the political landscape today, about how the structure of the Congress was changed in the wake of the Gingrich revolution. House committees and rules were re-written to favor the majority party. Which, for the past 12 years, has been the Republican party.

Six years ago, a Supreme Court consisting of 7 Republican appointed judges halted the counting of ballots in Florida, giving the Electoral college to a Republican Presidential Candidate.

So, we have all three branches of the Federal Government with derivatives of the Republican Party.

What Constitutional breaches have we witnessed?

• An unending, undeclared war by the President of the United States.
• U.S. citizens detained without charge, without council, on American soil.
• Phone taps without the supervision of the FISA court for U.S. - International calls.
• Call record monitoring, without the supervision of the courts, of millions of Americans.
• An Attorney General of the United States stating that journalist can be prosecuted (Freedom of the Press) for publishing information deemed classified - regardless of whether that classification status is known to the reporter.

Oh, there are probably many more .... even throughout this thread.

Now, since this thread was started, just barely 6 months ago, it would seem that many of our fellow citizens' opinions have indeed turned against the Republican Party. These abuses and usurpations will not continue, apparently, unchecked. Or, maybe we're just pissed about $3.00. gasoline.

But, the point is that, today, in this country, those freedoms we claim to cherish are under attack. An Imperial President is steam-rolling over a compliant, complicit Congress.

It seems that the Courts may, eventually, bring some balance back into the system. But the checks may be too long in reaching the Courts, and be beyond being undone.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My point is ... today, now, the Republican Party hold the levers of Power in the Federal Government. Would you agree? If we can't agree that the power structure in Washington is currently under the dominion of the Grand Ole Party, then my points are mute.

In my opinion, this is not about what happened at the end of the Civil War. While others may wish to take the argument there. That is a tangent I do not want to participate in.

Yup they're in charge right now.

And I take it that you are not going to answer any of my questions and your point was to inflame not discuss or find solutions.

I leave you to your Republican bashing.

And as a point of reference, you brought Lincoln into it, not I, and that is the Civil war era.

One last thing.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana

 

[Don Roley]

In the past, when Democrats controlled the levers of power, there may, or may not have been abuses.

Nice of you to acknowledge that.

But of course, the abuses were not a century ago, nor were they done for some grand, Linconesque purpose. We only have to look at the previous Clinton administration to see gross abuses of power done for personal gain and the deomcratic party defending the Clintons for a great example.

Currently a lot of people talk about the potential abuses of the powers enacted since 9-11. But no one seems to be able to show where the republicans have used this power to benifit themselves. You can't say that about the Clintons.

There was that little-known incident where Hillaries' legal records were found just after the statue of limitations had passed and thus stopped an investigation in it's tracks.

And who can forget the way Bill lied under oath just to avoid some embarrasment. Common people who do so go to jail. But the defense put forward by a lot of the democratic party was that it did not raise to the level of a impeachable offense.

What about thoses hundreds of confidential/classified FBI files of the Clinton's political enemies that they found in the white house?

How about the way that the Clintons tried to use the federal system to send those in charge of the White House travel office to prison just so that they could give the lucritive job to a cronie of theirs?

And mind you, these were not acts that were done for the good of the country with the potential of abuse. This was taking the constitution and using it as toilet paper in order to line their own pockets.

And now it looks like the person that is the potential front runner for a democratic candidate for president is one of the folks who helped commit these abuses? I may not support Bush and a lot of what he does, but I will vote against Hillary and keep her out of the White House even if I have to book a special flight back to cast my ballot.

 

[michaeledward]

Currently a lot of people talk about the potential abuses of the powers enacted since 9-11. But no one seems to be able to show where the republicans have used this power to benifit themselves.

Duke Cunningham.

Katherine Harris.

Tom Delay.

Robert Ney.

Edit * * *

And this just in ... Dennis Hastert

 

[crushing]

In the past, when Democrats controlled the levers of power, there may, or may not have been abuses.

You honestly don't know if there were abuses by Democrats? I'm not sure if that gets a or a :rofl:.

Hold them all responsible! Not just the other guy's party.