Typical bullshit teabagger revisionist history

[craigmatic]

Run time: 08:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwJMeiXqWY   Posted on YouTube: March 08, 2011 By YouTube Member: AllAmericanAmps Views on YouTube: 2393   Posted on DU: October 04, 2011 By DU Member: craigmatic Views on DU: 1130

 
For the last few days I've been going back and forth arguing with these retarded teabaggers on youtube on the real history of the democratic party. Most of them don't even realize the parties switched positions over the decades. These idiots really are deluded into thinking that somehow the republicans are the party of diversity.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

1. Tell us about the Southern Strategy

Oops.

[Generic Other]

2. Better to look at who ultimately defended racism and who did not

Was Lincoln a CONSERVATIVE? Freeing the slaves was not defending the status quo. It was quite progressive actually. Would today's GOP vote to end slavery? Their insistence that we all accept minimum wage, non-union jobs with no security or benefits suggests they would never cast a vote in defense of the working man--slave or free. Would Lincoln be a Democrat today? That is the relevent question. Because we know the kind of people who would be Republicans and they are not like Lincoln.

Would today's GOP join Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's congregation today? Or would they denounce him as an extremist like they have Rev. Wright, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jesse Jackson? I think we know the answer.

Would today's GOP stand with Southern Democrats who quit the party and became Republicans like Georgia governor and GOP senator Lester Maddox shown here brandishing a pistol and pick ax handle to keep blacks out of his restaurant? He switched to the GOP because the Democratic party disavowed his racist behavior and beliefs.



Would a Republican switch parties today as racist Democrats once did rather than support the Civil Rights Act? Did Strom Thurmond leave the Democratic party and become a Republican because he hoped they would better help him preserve his bigoted worldview?

Would the GOP support equality for women in the workplace today? Both parties opposed women's right to vote for decades, but it was Republican legislators that refused to ratify the 19th Amendment in some Southern states until the 1970s and 80s. By that time, their counterparts had fled the Democratic party and joined with their like-minded brethren in the GOP where they were busily working on eroding any other rights women had won including the right to choose. In fact Southern Dixiecrats fled the party in droves right into the arms of the GOP. They abandoned the party that had evolved to include immigrants, minorities, social liberals.

Would the GOP stand with the working man and woman who fought their bosses and formed unions to strike for better conditions? Would they create social programs to help the poor, invest in education, social security?

No. Of course not. They would divide people with these specious arguments about which party was more liberal in the past, which party was more caring and compassionate, which party more concerned about social justice. But the real question is which party is like this today? That's what matters, and that's where they fall dreadfully short. Just as they always have, no matter what they call themselves. Not too hard to tell the difference between the real and the fake. By their actions they are known.

[craigmatic]

3. I completely agree.

[iemitsu]

4. me too craigmatic, generic explains the flaws in this presentation

accurately.
america's two party system has seen both parties flip-flop on many positions over time.
the "party of lincoln" as the republican party has long been dead. some republicans may think of themselves that way but the party leadership left lincoln in the dust 100 years ago.
during most of the last century the democratic party has been the party of labor and the working man. it has not always had a stellar record concerning ethnic americans but it has been way more sympathetic toward ethnic issues than the republican party.

[kenfrequed]

5. indeed

As a matter of fact at the formation of the republican party they were intensely progressive and favored land reform and granting farmers lands to farm. They were accused of "red republicanism" and were thought of being advesarial to large trusts and monied interests in addition to being against the spread of slavery.

Does the republican party still favor breaking up big agribusiness and giving the people free land? Does the republican party favor cancelling the debt owed on crooked mortgages and just giving people their homes?

[Enrique]

6. why does his history end in 1964?

:shrug: