Please, No Rebel Flags at the Tulsa Rally, Mr. President

Juneteenth | Nikos1121

[nikos1121]

Please don’t spoil the message. Campaign staff please go thru the lines and ask that no rebel flags are flown. Anti-Trumpers are sure to have them there to stage for the media. Be smarter than the other side.

[Vaden]

EAT. S*IT. AND. DIE.

You pathetic pu**y.

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "I guess you’re simply too ignorant..."

I will certainly agree there's a lot of ignorance on display here today.

ek_hornbeck: "...to recognize the fact that A. Democrats in the 1800’s, e.g. Andrew Jackson, J.C. Calhoun, and later Grover Cleveland, were the exact opposite of what Democrats are today, and (more importantly)"

And we can begin with this claim, along with others who say Democrats were the "constitutional conservatives" of their day.
It's nonsense.
From Day One, those who became Democrats opposed ratifying the US Constitution, opposed the Federalists and the Federal government.
Sure, at the time they claimed it made Federal government too powerful, then they claimed to be "strict constructionists" -- but, just as today, "strict construction" was only intended for their opponents.
Once Democrats were in power, they did whatever the h*ll they wanted, by whatever subterfuge was necessary.

ek_hornbeck: "B. by joining in the crusade against Southern heritage, you (and not Confederates) are on the same side as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and today’s Democrats.
How does it feel being a puppet of Al Sharpton?
He applauds your hatred of the stars and bars too."

My goodness, what a crock of garbage-talk that is!
We, sir, are the Republicans, inheritors of the original Federalists (i.e., Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Pinckney, Jay, Madison) & Whigs (Webster, Clay, Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln).
Our party created & ratified the Constitution, Republicans fought to preserve the Constitution, the Union and (by the way) free the slaves.
While we were at it, we also ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

You, sir, are the descendants of G.D. Democrats, the people who opposed and fought to destroy our country, from Day One, and still do!
Now you wannabe Republicans, or rather, you wish you could make Republicans into G.D. Democrats like yourselves.

Well, sorry sir, but it's just not going to happen.
If you want to be Republicans now, then you have to give up your old Democrat lies.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "All those here drunk on Levin and Shapiro and D’Souza are gutted brains."

Levin, Shapiro and D'Souza are conservative Republicans.
You sirs, are not.

At best you're old-time Dixie-crats.
At worst... I don't even want to think about it.

[BroJoeK]

By the way, if you doubt my description of old-time Democrats, then consider this June 1860 quote, recently posted by rustbucket -- fair to say, no supporter of Civil War Unionists:

"'Stumbling on the Truth' – column 5). ”Gen. Lane, a great favorite with some of our Southern Democrats by whom he is familiarly known as “Old Joe,” made a speech in the Senate on Thursday, in which he declared:”
'It is the fault of the Democratic party in dodging truth, in dodging principle, in dodging the Constitution itself, that has brought the trouble upon the country and the party that is experienced to day.' "

Democrat General "Old Joe" Lane's family came originally from Virginia, Lane was born in North Carolina then moved to Kentucky, Indiana and finally, Oregon, where he became the Governor & Senator.
Lane was highly respected by Southern Democrats and in 1860 was nominated as John C. Breckenridge's Vice President, supported secession and left politics when Confederates seceded.

Fair to say Lane is here referring to the Northern Democrats of Stephen Douglas.
Nevertheless, when Lane left the Senate in March 1861, it was after accusing Tennessee's Democrat Senator Johnson of having "sold his birthright" as a Southerner, for opposing secession.
Johnson (Lincoln's future VP & then President) responded that Lane was a hypocrite because he so staunchly supported a movement of active treason against the United States.

Democrats are the party of treason, then as now.

[wardaddy]

Wipe Rich off your chin Bro

[rustbucket]

BJK, I posted that newspaper snippet you quoted on Homer J. Simpson's long series of newspaper posts about the period before the Civil War. Simpson usually posts articles from the New York Times, which has its own slant on everything, then and now. I thought it would be good to post things from other newspapers pro and con the various issues of those days on Simpson's threads. Simpson welcomed my contribution, so I have been doing it the last few weeks.

On the Simpson threads I post things from period newspapers back then that I agree with and things I don't (without indicating which I agree with and which I don't), to show both sides of the issues and opinions back then. You quoted one of the newspaper articles I quoted that featured the opinion of one guy of that time about the Democrat Party. History is history, and I think for the best understanding of the issues of that time you should look at both sides. Both sides have their good arguments and their bad arguments.

On the Civil War threads that show up pretty often on FreeRepublic, I take the side of the South. I strongly believe the South had the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and that Lincoln did a lot of unconstitutional things. IMO, Lincoln provoked the war to prevent the ruination of the Northern economy that would be caused in part by the Morrill Tariff which increased northern tariff substantially after the Confederacy had already proposed its own tariff be essentially the same as the 1857 US tariff, the same that the US was using before the Morrill Tariff.

With respect to the Democrat Party back then, I have in the Civil War threads posted this old quote of the time about the Democrat Party:

"The great boast of the Democratic party, has been, that it has met and beaten back the party of centralization, since the formation of the Union"

To some extent that is what the Republican Party in my lifetime has tried to do, though often unsuccessfully.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket quoting from circa 1860: "The great boast of the Democratic party, has been, that it has met and beaten back the party of centralization, since the formation of the Union"

Right, that's what they claimed.
In reality, Democrats then as now never had a problem with "centralization", so long as they ruled it!
"Centralization" just like "strict construction" was a weapon they wielded against political opponents -- Federalists, Whigs or Republicans, then ignored entirely once they'd won political power.

By the way, I'm sure you know, I always enjoy your posts, even when I disagree.
Thanks for doing it.

[ek_hornbeck]

The bottom line is this: you support taking down Confederate monuments; BlackLivesMatter and Antifa support taking down Confederate monuments.

It's quite telling that you don't have even the modicum of honesty to admit that you and they are on the same side of this issue.

If you want them as allies in your cause, so be it. Just don't then turn around and complain when the people you applauded for tearing down a statue of Jefferson Davis take their crusade further and tear down statues of the Founding Fathers because (according to your Black racialist allies) they were "racists" and "slavers."

[ek_hornbeck]

Levin, Shapiro and D'Souza are conservative Republicans

In the same way that Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are/were "conservative Republicans." They're every politically correct liberal's version of what an acceptable "conservative" should be like: they may disagree with the Democrats on an issue or two here and there, but they're completely non-threatening to the liberal order.

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "The bottom line is this: you support taking down Confederate monuments; BlackLivesMatter and Antifa support taking down Confederate monuments."

Naw, the real bottom line is that you, sir, are a G.D. Democrat, like other Democrats at war against your country from Day One.
You hate the USA and the only political party which founded & still defends it -- Federalists, Whigs & now Republicans.

The real bottom line is that I don't particularly care about Democrat monuments -- Democrats put them up, Democrats can take them down, it's not a Republican responsibility.
So you have an argument with your fellow GD Democrats -- talk to them, don't talk to me, I'm not responsible for your messes!
Of course they should do it lawfully, and if I really cared about your stinking monuments, I'd be out defending them, which is where you should be, sir, not just posting stupid accusations online.

ek_hornbeck: "It's quite telling that you don't have even the modicum of honesty to admit that you and they are on the same side of this issue. "

Naw, what's really telling is that you don't have even the modicum of honesty to admit this argument is between you and your fellow GD Democrats, and Republicans have nothing to do with your nonsense.

Look, I'm happy if you Democrats want to put up statues to your own anti-American heroes, go ahead, it's a free country.
And I'm just as happy when you GD Democrats want to tear down your old statues in favor of some new ones, that's your privilege.

Of course I don't like it when you guys tear down my heroes -- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, even Columbus!.
But it does at least dramatize how much you Democrats have hated the USA from the beginning.

ek_hornbeck: "If you want them as allies in your cause, so be it.
Just don't then turn around and complain when the people you applauded for tearing down a statue of Jefferson Davis take their crusade further and tear down statues of the Founding Fathers because (according to your Black racialist allies) they were "racists" and "slavers.""

Naw, they're not my "allies", they're your responsibility, Mr. GD Democrat.
When they attack American symbols, they only demonstrate yet again how much you people have hated the USA, from the beginning.

[rockrr]

Are the Lost Cause Losers still flapping their jaws? The rally is over!

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "In the same way that Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are/were 'conservative Republicans.' "

Nonsense, those people never claimed to be conservative Republicans -- instead, they were "kinder & gentler" or "compassionate".
Sure, Romney claimed to be "severe", but that was only in comparison to Massachusetts Democrats!
By stark contrast, Levin, Shapiro and D'Souza are all out fighting the good conservative Republican fight.
Of course you hate them, because you're not one, you're a GD Democrat -- Southern Democrat, Dixie-crat, God-knows-what-crat, but in to true sense a Republican.

ek_hornbeck: "They're every politically correct liberal's version of what an acceptable "conservative" should be like: they may disagree with the Democrats on an issue or two here and there, but they're completely non-threatening to the liberal order."

Right, which is why when a truly conservative Republican, like a Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, comes along, he wipes the floor with those "moderate" brown-nosers.
But in every Donald Trump rally speech I've watched, he reminds his followers early on that we are the party of Lincoln.
And Lincoln was the ultimate Republican disrupter, threatening to your old GD Democrat order.

[ek_hornbeck]

Naw, they're not my "allies"

Don't be so modest. Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright could cut and paste your remarks about the Confederacy and those who honor it as part of their speeches, and nobody would notice much of a difference.

[wardaddy]

Dayum
That left a mark

Wouldn’t you like to know who these asswipes truly are...

Jonah Goldberg

Rich Lowery

[ek_hornbeck]

And we can begin with this claim, along with others who say Democrats were the "constitutional conservatives" of their day

You actually made an unwitting factual statement - just as a monkey on a keyboard is bound to come up with something coherent once in a while.

It's quite true that 19th Century Democrats (including Democratic-Republicans) were not "constitutional conservatives," because as anti-Federalists they felt that the constitution gave the Federal government too much power.

The big divide between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists-Whigs was that Democratic Republicans (and Jackson/Calhoun Democrats) believe in a plural United States of America, while Federalists/Whigs and later Lincoln Republicans believed in a singular United States of America.

Jefferson played no role in drafting the Constitution and as an anti-Federalists was not happy with it. It's rather ironic that people who honor Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence (and who talk about localism and state's rights) have so much hatred for the logical outcome of his philosophy, which is a Confederation of States.

Of course, all of this information falls on deaf ears with someone like you, who is utterly in capable of thinking beyond party affiliation. Dinesh D'Souza's juvenile propaganda worked masterfully on you - it's so much easier to think in terms of R vs. D rather than in terms of the actual political debates that framed the parties 170 years ago vs. today.

[ek_hornbeck]

Wouldn’t you like to know who these asswipes truly are... Jonah Goldberg Rich Lowery

The Goldberg-Lowry-D'Souza-Kristol types have a lot less clout in the Republican Party than they had 20 years ago. Back then, they could peddle their politically correct pap as what an official "conservative Republican" should believe, and pull strings to censor the opposition from major publications and cable networks. Over the years of PC chickens coming home to roost they've been proven wrong on so many issues that even most (unfortunately not all) of their former fans have stopped paying attention.

As I've said before, the best thing about Trump's Presidency isn't any particular policy or order on his part, but rather how it has helped shift the Overton Window on a lot of issues that used to be taboo for the GOP.

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "Don't be so modest.
Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright could cut and paste your remarks about the Confederacy and those who honor it as part of their speeches, and nobody would notice much of a difference."

Naw, why would they?
Just like you and your GD Democrat ancestors, they want to destroy the USA by any means necessary.
Like all Democrats, their motto is "rule or ruin" -- if we can't rule you, we'll ruin you.
So Democrats put up those anti-American statues, now other Democrats want to tear them down.

Why should that concern Republicans?

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "You actually made an unwitting factual statement - just as a monkey on a keyboard is bound to come up with something coherent once in a while."

Now you're just parading your own ignorance, mocking yourself.

ek_hornbeck: "It's quite true that 19th Century Democrats (including Democratic-Republicans) were not "constitutional conservatives," because as anti-Federalists they felt that the constitution gave the Federal government too much power."

By "Democrats" I refer to the entire historical tradition beginning with anti-Federalists who evolved to the Jeffersonian anti-Administration faction, then Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats, sometimes known as "the Democracy".
From the beginning they opposed ratification of the Constitution and the Federalist administration, on grounds it made "central government" too powerful.
But that only lasted until they themselves came to power in 1801.
Then every unconstitutional thing Democrats had accused Federalists of doing, they did, and others besides.
Turns out, then as now, Democrats were totally happy with "centralization" so long as they ruled it.

ek_hornbeck: "The big divide between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists-Whigs was that Democratic Republicans (and Jackson/Calhoun Democrats) believe in a plural United States of America, while Federalists/Whigs and later Lincoln Republicans believed in a singular United States of America."

If I remember correctly, historian Shelby Foote claimed the Civil War changed the United States from a plural to a singular term.
But studies of documents have shown that both plural (the US are) and singular (the US is) senses were used from the beginning and throughout the 19th century.
It only became exclusively "the United states is" after 1900 when both the US Supreme Court and Congress switched.

Indeed, for an example, what could be more Republican than the 13th Amendment?
And yet it too refers to the United States as plural.
So your whole idea is just more Democrat nonsense.

ek_hornbeck: "Jefferson played no role in drafting the Constitution and as an anti-Federalists was not happy with it.
It's rather ironic that people who honor Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence (and who talk about localism and state's rights) have so much hatred for the logical outcome of his philosophy, which is a Confederation of States."

I always say that Jefferson was a, ah... "complicated" figure, encompassing striking contradictions.
But Jefferson always fully understood the stark difference between material causes listed in his Declaration of Independence versus those merely "at pleasure" reasons used to threaten secession even in his own day.
Jefferson opposed unilateral secession at pleasure.

ek_hornbeck: "Of course, all of this information falls on deaf ears with someone like you, who is utterly in capable of thinking beyond party affiliation.
Dinesh D'Souza's juvenile propaganda worked masterfully on you - it's so much easier to think in terms of R vs. D rather than in terms of the actual political debates that framed the parties 170 years ago vs. today."

That's just total nonsense because our political history is indeed divided into long-term parties -- those (Federalists = Republicans) who wrote, ratified and defended the US Constitution, versus those (Democrats) who opposed, attacked and waged war against it, from the beginning.
Sure, over the centuries different groups have moved from supporting one party to the other (& sometimes back again), but the parties themselves have always been what they originally were -- pro-American Republicans and anti-American Democrats.

Oh, sure, you want to argue that "some Democrats" like, say, Franklin Roosevelt, were "pro-American" because he lead the fight to win WWII.
But that was only after he spent eight years punishing American capitalism and extending the Great Depression, true signs of a Democrat, and then only declaring war after the US was massively attacked.
FDR was another, ah... "complicated" figure.

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "As I've said before, the best thing about Trump's Presidency isn't any particular policy or order on his part, but rather how it has helped shift the Overton Window on a lot of issues that used to be taboo for the GOP."

And yet... and yet: in every political rally I've seen Trump announces that Republicans are the party of Lincoln, period, no excuses, no modifications.
Lincoln was the original Republican disrupter president, a back-country rube they called "Ape" Lincoln, he had a very hard time finding both civilian and military leaders who understood his policy was to, ahem... "win, win, win".

Trump is Lincoln for our time, and you GD Democrats just need to get over it.

*** rockrr, what do you think, am I being too hard on these clowns?

[wardaddy]

You got your ass handed to you

Quit crowing , you’ve got nothing to crow about besides being bested by ek

You’re no conservative whatsoever....I smell neocon stench ...always have

Rockrr to his credit however wrongheaded on Dixie is pretty conservative at times and I can’t help but notice

You’re just here jacking off your south hatred while we lose civilization

Hope it was worth it bro..