Democrats: Party Of The Rich

[rollwave]

Well looky here. John Kerry has raised $175 million . That's more than Bush raised in 2000. Billionaires are flocking to Senator Flip Flop's campaign in an attempt to buy the White House. George Soros, Steve Jobs, Lee Iaccocoa, Warren Buffett, Barbera Streisand, and the rest of the Hollywood crowd are giving it up for the Dems. I thought the Dems were supposed to be the party of the downtrodden? Typical Democrat hypocrisy. They also claim to be the party that has helped African Americans too. Yet it was Republican Abraham Lincoln who led the Civil War that freed the slaves against Southern Democrats. It was Democrats in the South that oppressed Blacks for 100 years after the Civil War. Politicians in the South were almost exclusively Democrats. And to top it off, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It was LBJ's Great Society that created welfare and housing projects that destroyed Black families. There's another great liberal idea for you. Black illigitimacy soared after the Great Society programs were enacted. Yet they are able to claim to be the party of the minorities just as they accuse Republicans of being the party of the rich.

Oops! I forgot another prominent billioaire: Theresa Heinz Kerry.

[Alex H]

Republicans: Party of the Would Be Rich If Only I Can Fuck Over Enough People.

[Illuminati]

One word - Sources?

[clocker]

Two words- so what?

Is it a surprise to you that Prsidential politics is a high stakes game?

If raising big bucks and consorting with the rich is a "bad thing" then I suppose you consider Bush to be worse...he has raised considerably more than 175 million.
And HE does it under the guise of "conducting Presidential business" so the public gets to pay for it.

[Rat Faced]

Although I'd agree there really isnt much difference between The Democrats and The Republicans these days (Just look at how they vote in Congress/Senate).....

You show an alarming lack of knowledge of History rollwave.

The "American Civil War" was started for economic reasons, not because of Slavery. The only reason that Slavery became an issue was due to the Black Americans wishing to fight for the Unionists.

It wasn't even, strictly speaking, a Civil War...

The Southern States paid most of the Federal Taxes and when they decided to leave the Union (which, as a Voluntary Union, they had every right to do) they became in effect an independant nation.

The Union therefore invaded the Confederacy... One country against another.

Abraham Lincoln also stopped Slaves being released immediatly.

After General David Hunter issued an order declaring free all the slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, President Lincoln quickly overruled him and used the occasion to press his own plan for gradual emancipation with compensation to owners.

Blacks were also pressed into service for the Union side (after some initially had to fight for the right to fight) and were paid considerably less than the white soldiers.

The original Emancipation declaration also, for some unknown reason, didnt include Maryland or the Union States... I think it was 6 years after the war that Slavery actually stopped in the Northern States, although it was never very common in the Union to start with.


As to the Democrats record on the Minorities:

The prison population under Clinton DOUBLED due to the Drugs Laws he implemented...most of this was for possesion of Drugs, not dealing.

The sentence for possesion of Crack (mostly used by Minorities) is THREE TIMES greater than that for possesion of Cocaine (mostly used by Rich White Boys)..


What type of party attacks its own voters?

Do you see Republicans come down hard on Tax Evasion/Avoidance?

Do you see them come down hard on Companies poluting the environment?

No, you dont...

On the other hand...you dont see Democrats coming down hard on these things either... The Minorities are an easy target for any Government.

[rollwave]

The problem with liberals is that most have zero knowledge of history. Ever hear of the Civil War? Abraham Lincoln? Who was the president during the Civil War? Answer: A. Lincoln, the first Republican president. What was major cause of the Civil War? Ever hear of slavery? The Great Society? Civil Rights Act of 1965? Try going to the library and reading some history books instead of relying in Al Frankin, Michael Moore, and the Nation for information.

[Rat Faced]

I do read History, often... I love the subject.

Yes, ive heard of "The Civil War"...and ive just told you why "STRICTLY SPEAKING" it wasnt one.

The North was, by and large anti-slavery...but it was legal and practised by a minority. The incoming Government was also anti-slavery...but did not try and emancipate the Slaves in the Southern States.. In fact, on March 2nd 1861 Congress passed:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

ie: One of the 1st acts of Lincoln and Congress was to amend the Constitution so that Washington couldnt force any of the States to abolish Slavery.


The Union was Voluntary, some states left... Unfortunatly they paid most of the Federal Taxes and the North was forced to invade or go Bankrupt.

They left because it had been declared that in "New Territories", slavery would not be allowed... Not because the US Government tried to force them to give up slavery.

They decided that this was one insult too much, after subsidising Northern Business Interests up until 1846 by way of Federal funding that they didnt get any benefit from but paid the majority of.... and now they couldnt have any influence in the settlement of the New Territories...

From Georgias own Declaration of Cause:

This question was before us.

We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution.

This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end.

This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.

We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it.

These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great.

The case of the South was impregnable.

The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

(Ive opened up this segment, which ws written as one paragraph..for ease of reading, however i have not changed any sentence or the context)


The 1st shots fired were by the new Confederacy, after the North refused to withdraw the Union Army out of South Carolina...and so they attacked Fort Sumpter on 12th April 1961.

In their eyes, this was a Foreign Army on their soil.

Yes, the Slaves were freed because of it... However it was Free Black Americans in the North, mostly Slaves that had escaped from the South...that made slavery a major issue. Until then it was just one of many...mainly economic.

Like i said, read the emancipation declaration by General Hunter... which named South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. ie: Slavery was still legal everywhere else. The last slaves in the South were released 2 years after the war had finished. The last in the North 6 years afterwards.

What has the Civil Rights Act of 1965 got to do with 19th Century History? Other than being influenced by it and events afterwards?


Lincoln took advantage of a situation, like any Good President would.

The Northern economy wasnt Slave Orientated..it existed, but nowhere near as much as in the South, whose economy was almost entirely Slave Orientated. It was disapproved of generally in the North...was one of those "minor issues" that pissed off the South, other than the huge Tax Burdon it was shouldering, which was disproportionate to the number of Representatives it had in Washington...it was getting fucked up the ass... (Remember that "No Taxation without Representation" Argument?....wonder where i heard that? Oh yeah,...reason for independance in the 1st place )

The Black Americans in the North were willing to fight, he gave them that right and [/B]made[B] slavery in the Southern States into "The Big Issue".


Yes, Lincoln was a great man....but not the Saint you picture him.

He slowed Congress down... They wanted to emancipate immediately, he didnt...he wanted it gradual and with compensation to the white owners. He also had no interest in the Slave Economy of the South, other than a dislike of it, when he came to office... He just didnt want it spreading, and pushed for its abolision in the Northern States...but NOT by Federal Act, he wanted each State to do what was in its own interests... This was actually the sensible approach, as to go the other way would have caused even more trouble.

[rollwave]

The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture. Without slavery there is no Civil War. The South was fighting to protect their way of life. After Lincoln's inauguration, Souther state started to ceceed one by one because they saw Lincoln as being an abolitionist who would end their way of life and take away their 'property.' Lincoln didn't immediately call for the end of slavery because he felt that stopping its spread would eventually kill it. Once the Confederacy( every one a Democrat) fired on Fort Sumter the war began. After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation of 1862. Lincoln would be killed 3 years later by a Democrat. True the war wasn't begun to free the slaves, but that was the end result. The South sure as hell was fighting to preserve slavery, even though the majority of soldiers didn't own slaves.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 18:07
The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture. Without slavery there is no Civil War. The South was fighting to protect their way of life. After Lincoln's inauguration, Souther state started to ceceed one by one because they saw Lincoln as being an abolitionist who would end their way of life and take away their 'property.' Lincoln didn't immediately call for the end of slavery because he felt that stopping its spread would eventually kill it. Once the Confederacy( every one a Democrat) fired on Fort Sumter the war began. After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation of 1862. Lincoln would be killed 3 years later by a Democrat. True the war wasn't begun to free the slaves, but that was the end result. The South sure as hell was fighting to preserve slavery, even though the majority of soldiers didn't own slaves.

Only because he was forced to back down from his 19th May 1862 proclamation of nullifying General Hunters' (A Democrat) Emancipation Edict of the 9th May.

So he re-proclaimed it (provisonally) on 22nd September 1862...

The proclamation wasnt until 1st January 1863, and excluded The Union States, Tennessee, southern Louisiana, and parts of Virginia.


You make it sound like he did it all off his own back, and all Slaves were freed...they werent, not even in the North.


If your going to use History in a debate...at least know the subject matter


Oh, and im not a Democrat....


Im a Constitutional Monarchist



I think all this shows is that whereas now The Republicans are to the Right and The Democrats to the Left...

150 years ago it was the other way around

[clocker]

Originally posted by rollwave@1 July 2004 - 11:07
The problem with you libs is you people get all caught up in minutiae and miss the big picture.

If by "minutiae" you mean "facts", then you're partially right.