"Jesus Would Not Approve Of Abortions" President Carter

[keck553]

Generalizations are always false.

Something to chew on.....

That said, if half of democrats think abortion is murder, what kind of character does it take to vote for a party who's platform includes premeditated murder as a value?

[Reynolds357]

True.

And then they became Republicans.

What Republicans are pro-slavery?

[Free Indeed]

What Republicans are pro-slavery?

I'm hoping not very many of them....but I live in South Carolina, and still today here pro-slavery comments from some (not all) Republicans.

At the time of the Civil War, the Republican Party was the progressive party, and the Democrats were the conservative, states rights party. When the northern Dems added civil rights to the party platform, the southern conservative Dems bailed, and formed the States Rights Party (Dixiecrats) that was pro-segregation. They were eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, and now form that party's base.

Theodore Roosevelt was the last progressive Republican leader. He and his supporters opposed the conservative movement, and left the GOP to form the Progressive Party (a/k/a Bull Moose Party). The Bull Moose were absorbed by the Democrats. That's basically how the two parties simply switched names, with Lincoln's Republicans being today's Democrats, vice versa.

[slightlypuzzled]

I can remember when there were liberal an conservative sides in both parties, but since the late sixties/early seventies that has changed. It was then that the liberals began to roost in the Democratic party and force the more conservative element out. Texas politics has spun this way over the last forty years, and I have observed it all. So, who knows, the same could happen in reverse...

As a Christian I do not follow either party, just the issues and the 'personalities'. Happily, Jesus Christ will be the same today, tomorrow and forever...praise God for that!!!!!

[Colight]

We are even to love one another as he loves us. Even Hitler as per another post.

Love thine enemies.

If you take them in it's like heepings hot coals on their heads. That sounds cruel to me.

Love them after you defeat them..

[Free Indeed]

Love them after you defeat them..

I really don't think that's what the Lord meant by that.

[HoboTone]

I'm hoping not very many of them....but I live in South Carolina, and still today here pro-slavery comments from some (not all) Republicans.

At the time of the Civil War, the Republican Party was the progressive party, and the Democrats were the conservative, states rights party. When the northern Dems added civil rights to the party platform, the southern conservative Dems bailed, and formed the States Rights Party (Dixiecrats) that was pro-segregation. They were eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, and now form that party's base.

Theodore Roosevelt was the last progressive Republican leader. He and his supporters opposed the conservative movement, and left the GOP to form the Progressive Party (a/k/a Bull Moose Party). The Bull Moose were absorbed by the Democrats. That's basically how the two parties simply switched names, with Lincoln's Republicans being today's Democrats, vice versa.

Did you just make the claim that pro-segregationists form the base of the republican party?

[keck553]

I really don't think that's what the Lord meant by that.

Certainly God wants us to show mercy to the defeated

_

[Reynolds357]

I'm hoping not very many of them....but I live in South Carolina, and still today here pro-slavery comments from some (not all) Republicans.

At the time of the Civil War, the Republican Party was the progressive party, and the Democrats were the conservative, states rights party. When the northern Dems added civil rights to the party platform, the southern conservative Dems bailed, and formed the States Rights Party (Dixiecrats) that was pro-segregation. They were eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, and now form that party's base.

Theodore Roosevelt was the last progressive Republican leader. He and his supporters opposed the conservative movement, and left the GOP to form the Progressive Party (a/k/a Bull Moose Party). The Bull Moose were absorbed by the Democrats. That's basically how the two parties simply switched names, with Lincoln's Republicans being today's Democrats, vice versa.

Well aware of the History, but we never let historical fact get in the way of good rhetoric. The Democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK. The Republicans are the party of abolition and civil rights.

[NHL Fever]

Well aware of the History, but we never let historical fact get in the way of good rhetoric. The Democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK. The Republicans are the party of abolition and civil rights.

It's much more complicated than that, as KT explained. Your explanation is completely misleading. As he mentioned, the areas of the country that voted Democrat in the past are the ones that vote Republican now. The names basically changed, and this is throroughly documented. The areas of the country who elected Lincoln are the ones that elect Democrats today, and the areas that were viciously opposed to him and went to war with Lincoln, are the ones that vote Republican today. The cultural traditions and social views that defined those differences still define those difference today, although the entire spectrum has shifted to be more modern. If you look at a map of who supported slavery in earlier times, it looks like a map of who voted for G.W.Bush in 2008. That doesn't mean those people truly support slavery today (although a minority still do), but it does mean those cultural differences are still at work. Please don't obfuscate history because you want it to mean something it does not. Lincoln was on the progressive side of politics in his time, not the conservative side. Obviously progressive in that time was something very different than today because it was hundreds of years ago, but the point remains he represented the progressive block, and the majority of the population who today come from the democrat-voting regions.

[Reynolds357]

It's much more complicated than that, as KT explained. Your explanation is completely misleading. As he mentioned, the areas of the country that voted Democrat in the past are the ones that vote Republican now. The names basically changed, and this is throroughly documented. The areas of the country who elected Lincoln are the ones that elect Democrats today, and the areas that were viciously opposed to him and went to war with Lincoln, are the ones that vote Republican today. The cultural traditions and social views that defined those differences still define those difference today, although the entire spectrum has shifted to be more modern. If you look at a map of who supported slavery in earlier times, it looks like a map of who voted for G.W.Bush in 2008. That doesn't mean those people truly support slavery today (although a minority still do), but it does mean those cultural differences are still at work. Please don't obfuscate history because you want it to mean something it does not. Lincoln was on the progressive side of politics in his time, not the conservative side. Obviously progressive in that time was something very different than today because it was hundreds of years ago, but the point remains he represented the progressive block, and the majority of the population who today come from the democrat-voting regions.

NHL, it is not "much more complicated than that." I am simply debating like a liberal would debate. The Democrats were the party of the KKK and slavery and come hell or high water nothing will ever change that.
My minor was in post reconstruction U.S. history. I know all about the "re-alignment of the parties" I am just making a point.

[Free Indeed]

NHL, it is not "much more complicated than that." I am simply debating like a liberal would debate. The Democrats were the party of the KKK and slavery and come hell or high water nothing will ever change that.

And nothing can change the fact that the KKK are *Republicans* today. It was also the *conservatives* who were the party of the KKK and slavery, regardless of what they actually called their party. And it was always the progressives who opposed them.

[Free Indeed]

Did you just make the claim that pro-segregationists form the base of the republican party?

Here in South Carolina, absolutely yes...the same can be said for much of the south. The south's Republican leaders are the ones who fought for segregation in the 1960's.

[HoboTone]

Here in South Carolina, absolutely yes...the same can be said for much of the south. The south's Republican leaders are the ones who fought for segregation in the 1960's.

Thank you for clarifying. I worked on the campaigns of several Republican legislators here in Michigan. I can assure you they are not segregationists, neither are their constituents. Most of them are men of faith who run on platforms of Pro-Life, Traditional marriage, and fiscal responsibility. Calling Conservatives "segregationists" is a cheap tactic that didn't work in 2010, and wont work in 12, either.

[Reynolds357]

And nothing can change the fact that the KKK are *Republicans* today. It was also the *conservatives* who were the party of the KKK and slavery, regardless of what they actually called their party. And it was always the progressives who opposed them.

Most of the Klansmen I have dealt with are libertarians or Nazis.