Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 08-11-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TMA68
As corrupt as the Republican Party is, I reject the implication that the Democratic Party (at least at the federal level) is any better. To take just one example, consider the fact that the Dems controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for all of '93 and '94, yet during that entire time, no effort was made to legalize marijuana even for medical purposes. If they don't even support the right of terminally ill patients to injest a plant -- not some evil concoction developed in a science lab, but a plant -- under a doctor's supervision, then their political philosophy is obviously more authoritarian than it is anything else.

Todd Altman

Or they didn't dare face the fallout in the next election for being soft on drugs. I doubt their personal beliefs had much influence on this.

John Hancock · 08-11-2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ohwilleke
I agree. In the 1870s the Republican party was more like today's Democratic party than the Democrats then were. While religious forces were important in the early Republican party, it was the religious left and not the religious right that dominated the party.

Moreover, even into the 1920s, the Republicans were basically an economically conservative party and did not have the religous right trappings that it does now. The social conservatism that now defines the Republican party is basically a post-WWII thing, with Goldwater described by many as the first "modern" Republican.

It is worth remembering that during FDR's rein (from '33 to '45), that the Republicans came close to being wiped out entirely. At their low point after the 1936 election, FDR won the electoral vote 523-8 and the popular vote 27.8 million to 16.7 million (despite the absence of a major third party challenger to split the Republican vote) over the Republican challenger. The Democrats held 75 seats in the Senate, to 17 Republicans and 4 independents. The Democrats held 333 seats in the House to 89 for the Republicans and 13 for independents. FDR also has sufficient backing in his own party to deny success to anyone who pushed a bill he opposed. FDR vetoed 635 bills and was overrriden only 9 times.

Conservative factions resorted to desperate measures during FDR's reign because they had no political change at making an impact. Given their Congressional weakness (nearly unprecidented in American political history), ppposition to WWII would have gone nowhere without opposition from Democratics, and the Republican opposition to WWII came from the same New England and Mid-Atlantic anti-war political sentiments that drive Howard Dean in the Democratic party today. The North-South, Hawk-Dove divide in American politics has proven more persistent than the political parties themselves. The Republican party has gone from Dove to Hawk mostly because it has moved South.

The Republicans went twenty years without winning a Presidential election and each of the FDR elections were landslides (and even the famous Truman v. Dewey election was won by a safe margin of 3 million votes out of about 49 million cast). FDR never had less than 57 out of 96 Democrats in the Senate and had a filibuster proof majority for most of his tenure. The Democrats were the majority in the House for the entire FDR Presidency.

It is also a stretch to blame the Republican party for JFK's assassination.

What an outrageous fairy fucking tale! The Republican Party of Civil War were primarily the industrial interests of the northern states. The south and west were agrarian in nature. Most people of mid-income were farmers. The actual growth of centralized industry didn't begin in earnest until the end of the depression.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

John Hancock · 08-11-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Or they didn't dare face the fallout in the next election for being soft on drugs. I doubt their personal beliefs had much influence on this.

EXACTOMUNDO! :notworthy

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Gurdur · 08-11-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Hancock

What an outrageous fairy fucking tale! ...

There's a significant semantic, pragmatic and slang difference
between "fucking fairytale" and "fairy fucking tale".

Hubble head · 08-11-2003, 03:14 PM

Ditto on the OP.

The Republicans, going back over 100 years, have been for the most part responsible for an amazing track record of devious scandals and fear campaigns-Teapot Dome, McCarthyism, assinations, corporate hi-jinx, income gaps, reduced civil protections, Iran Contra (Which some say is starting back up again in a bigger way) S&L Scandal, ect.

Another interesting coincidence that keeps coming up somehow around "the worst moments in US History" is none other than my state of TEXAS. From the Spanish-American War (imperialistic landswipe) to Kennedy and the S&L scandal to the main players in the federal positions that were involved (Even LBJ) at these 'difficult' times I'd say Texas has a wierd way of getting in the picture.

Oh yeah, can't forget that oil was first struck here Jan 10, 1901.

John Hancock · 08-11-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
There's a significant semantic, pragmatic and slang difference
between "fucking fairytale" and "fairy fucking tale".

If you speak English as opposed to American Street.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Malachi151 · 08-11-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
I agree that Malachi151 is incorrect about the republican party in the past. Theodore Roosevelt, one of the very best IMO, could be considered the father of the modern progressive movement. It is the Republican party since Ronnie Raygun that has turned me into a Yellow Dog Democrat!

It didn't start with Reagan, it started at least with Eisenhower as far as presidents go, but the issues were building during the 1930s and late 1920s.

What, you don't have a problem with Nixon??

What about the Republican opposition to JFK, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff while JFK was in office that were promoting to the military that soldiers should be directed to vote Republican? It goes well beyond Reagan.

I'm talking about the Republicans after the Progressives, the guys after WWI. That's really after reconstruction, I should not have said reconstruction.

John Hancock · 08-11-2003, 04:03 PM

The conservatives were walking backward by Truman Admin. IG Farben bunch were still healthy and kicking they were very much a part of the reestablishment of intelligence services and Prescott became a senator!

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Tristan Scott · 08-11-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malachi151
It didn't start with Reagan, it started at least with Eisenhower as far as presidents go, but the issues were building during the 1930s and late 1920s.

That's your opinion.

Eisenhower and Nixon were relatively moderate politically. Tricky used the red business to propel him to prominence, but privately thought McCarthy was a nut. Sure Nixon was a Dick (heh), but he didn't do the damage to the working class in this country like Raygun did, and he was a hell of a lot smarter than Raygun in dealing with the USSR. Had Tricky been in office the Cold war would have ended the day Gorbachev came to power. I hated Tricky because he prolonged the Viet Nam war after running on the promise to end it.

Yes the idiot right were usually Republicans just like the idiot left are usually democrats. We all have our crosses to bear.

Quote:

What about the Republican opposition to JFK, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff while JFK was in office that were promoting to the military that soldiers should be directed to vote Republican? It goes well beyond Reagan.

I'm talking about the Republicans after the Progressives, the guys after WWI. That's really after reconstruction, I should not have said reconstruction.

Sure there were jerk-offs in the Republican party. They screwed TR when he left office in 1908, that's why he formed the Bull-Moose party in '12. But there were also some great liberal republicans, even in my lifetime. Everett Dirkson, Charles Percy and Nelson Rockefeller come to mind. I can't think of any liberal republicans since Reagan, a few moderates maybe, but not liberals.

What you are talking about JFK is politics. The Joint Cheifs didn't like him. They thought he was selling the country down the river to the commies.

John Hancock · 08-11-2003, 04:53 PM

Tristan Scott

Malachi151 has stayed pretty close to historical fact it is you that are injecting sheer opinion into this thread. Rockefeller? Shit think standard oil. JFK's CIA apointment to the head of the CIA in 1962. I'd suggest you do a bit of reasearch.

John Hancock
__________________
"Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 03:14 PM	#15
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	Ditto on the OP. The Republicans, going back over 100 years, have been for the most part responsible for an amazing track record of devious scandals and fear campaigns-Teapot Dome, McCarthyism, assinations, corporate hi-jinx, income gaps, reduced civil protections, Iran Contra (Which some say is starting back up again in a bigger way) S&L Scandal, ect. Another interesting coincidence that keeps coming up somehow around "the worst moments in US History" is none other than my state of TEXAS. From the Spanish-American War (imperialistic landswipe) to Kennedy and the S&L scandal to the main players in the federal positions that were involved (Even LBJ) at these 'difficult' times I'd say Texas has a wierd way of getting in the picture. Oh yeah, can't forget that oil was first struck here Jan 10, 1901.

08-11-2003, 04:03 PM	#18
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	The conservatives were walking backward by Truman Admin. IG Farben bunch were still healthy and kicking they were very much a part of the reestablishment of intelligence services and Prescott became a senator! John Hancock __________________ "Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

08-11-2003, 04:53 PM	#20
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Tristan Scott Malachi151 has stayed pretty close to historical fact it is you that are injecting sheer opinion into this thread. Rockefeller? Shit think standard oil. JFK's CIA apointment to the head of the CIA in 1962. I'd suggest you do a bit of reasearch. John Hancock __________________ "Fascism,should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.