Expose The Hypocrisy

Expose The Hypocrisy

June 16, 2007
So Ignorant Of History
by Matt Margolis at 01:06 AM

ODub says, "Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women's rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights."

Let's see.

Which party opposed giving women the right to vote? The Democrats.

Which party opposed the civil rights act? The Democrats.

Liberals. So ignorant of history.

UPDATE: Ian exposes more ignorance and hypocrisy.

 Track   del.icio.us   digg it   IM   Facebook

Comments

Liberal does not equal Democrat, Republican does not equal conservative.

As a general rule, conservatives are less interested in social change or government action. So yes, conservative tendencies *did* lose.

Posted by: dulles at June 16, 2007 09:51 AM


Matt. Such a clueless revisionist.

It was Kennedy who signed the civil rights act, with a Democratic congress. Ever hear of the Southern Strategy? I wonder which party initiated it in response to the civil rights act?

Women's suffrage? It was mostly bipartisan, with the progressive strains of both parties advocating it. Democratic president Wilson signed the 19th amendment.

But the operative word you are misquoting is "conservative." Conservative != GOP, and liberal != Democrat. Not in the present, and certainly not historically.

Posted by: winnowhead [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 16, 2007 02:17 PM


"It was Kennedy who signed the civil rights act, with a Democratic congress. Ever hear of the Southern Strategy? I wonder which party initiated it in response to the civil rights act?"

that must have an interesting signing ceremony, since the civil rights act was signed in 1964...

winnowhead, you must be really, really, ignorant of history.

Posted by: KCJ at June 16, 2007 05:15 PM


I find it tiresome that in 'debating' a topic, people spend so much energy arguing over the accuracy of small details that could be easily verified, and ignore the heart of the argument. Such is the way with most political debate on this site, I've noticed. I would suggest that people read a bit more.
Civil Rights Act of 1964



Kennedy (a Dem) was, of course, instrumental in his input, development and advocacy during the construction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and had he not been assassinated, certainly he would have signed the law. As it were, his successor, Johnson (best known for the 'Great Society' that did more to address the tangible problems underlying the civil rights issue than any previous act in history), signed the law.

The CRA of 1964 was a dramatically powerful beefing-up of the weak Civil Rights Act of 1957, signed by President Eisenhower (a Republican), which did little but offer lip service to addressing the mistreatment of African-Americans.



The idea that one might associate the term "conservative" with a party of radical activists in itself demonstrates not ignorance, but a deliberate mis-use of the language designed to confuse and distract. Conservatism historically simply involves limiting the role of the Federal Government. It does not embrace a particularly moral ideology. And calling people names does nothing to further one's case, but simply lowers one's dialogue to the level of an adolescent outburst.






Posted by: NikFlorida at June 16, 2007 07:46 PM


[Does this commenter really think that making stupid insults to the writers here won't result in him being banned]

Posted by: Nirvision [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 17, 2007 12:58 AM


When you make a claim and back it up with zero evidence, it really does nothing but make yourself look foolish.

Posted by: Colin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 20, 2007 10:22 AM


Though I know you know better, thats precisely why I said "conservative" and not "Democrat". Conservative Democrats blocked those advances. Conservative Democrats left the party when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and they went to the Republican party which became the party of conservatism and the legacy of discrimination. You know this Matt, but maybe your readers are dumb enough to believe your revisionist history.

Posted by: Oliver Willis [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 21, 2007 06:36 PM


Conservative Democrats like Robert "KKK" Byrd?

John F. Kennedy was a tax-cutting anti-communist Democrat. So, he must have been a conservative too.

Would you say JFK was conservative Oliver?

Posted by: KCJ at June 21, 2007 06:52 PM


Conservative Democrats like Robert "KKK" Byrd?

Robert "KKK" Byrd ... who recently received a 100% rating from the NAACP. It's funny how the only racists conservatives can't stand are the ones who see the error of their ways. I really can't imagine why that is.

Posted by: The Poor Man at June 22, 2007 12:12 AM


What about tax-raising, commie-negotiating, and Hezbollah-appeasing Ronald Reagan, huh? Some conservative he was! KCJ, looks like you got dittoed on the head one too many times.

"But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960."

--John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960.

Posted by: Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy at June 22, 2007 05:09 PM


Is this the best liberals can do? It's amazing that in order to keep their hold on the black vote, they have to align conservatism with bigotry. Meanwhile racist policies of the liberal agenda like affirmative action are somehow passed off as pro-equality.

Democrats are so quick to forgive their racist past and racist leaders like Robert "KKK" Byrd because "he apologized." Wow, there's honor for you. Al Gore's father was a segregationist, too.

And let's not forget the racists of today's Democratic Party. The Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the left.

And how about the Democrats anti-Christian bigotry? Somehow that is given a pass by the political left.

It's easy for a liberal today to clump pro-segregation Democrats of the past with conservatives, but such claims are really pathetic when you consider how Democrats selectively embrace portions of their party's history, and try to oust other portions as conservative factions.

There's nothing conservative about bigotry. Bloggers like Oliver Willis try hard to equate the two, while excusing the bigotry of the left's leaders of today.

Posted by: KCJ at June 24, 2007 12:11 PM


I love this game. Let's count which party had the most racists 30 years ago, pretend it was the 'other guys', and stick our heads in the sand about the state of affairs today. I live in the south, and I know it'll come as a shock to most, but the issue is still very much with us today.

There's a local joint down the road that is run as a 'private club'. I hear they make a mean pork sandwich. They don't let black or hispanic folks in. Whites only.

I've never been in, but I know some folks who go there regularly. Without exception, they all are big supporters of one of the two big political parties.

I'll give y'all two guesses as to which one. First one doesn't count.

Posted by: siasl at June 25, 2007 09:06 AM


You Republicans should be very careful about claiming too loudly that you're not predjudiced against black people.

You could wind up losing the South if people start believing you.

Posted by: kiche at June 25, 2007 09:41 AM


I think the key phrase here is "ignorant."

It was Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans -- people we call "conservatives" --- who were the ones who for decades blocked Civil Rights legislation.

Civil Rights was only made possible through the efforts of northeastern liberals, and JFK and LBJ who were ... wait for it...

Democrats.

And those Southern Democrats, who opposed it, are now solidly -- that's right -- Republicans.

The fact that almost 9 out of 10 blacks vote Democrat, and the fact that the South is almost entirely GOP should be instructive to someone who's not a complete idiot.


Posted by: Blue Texan at June 27, 2007 09:53 PM



Post a comment




Remember Me?



(NOTE: You must get this correct, otherwise, your comment will be rejected.)

(you may use HTML tags for style)