What's the problem with conservatives being called "cons" as they call liberals "libs"?
Liberals are called "libs", and no one is having a baby. It's an abbreviation for both, taking the first 3 letters of each and adding an 's' if you're wanting it plural. I NEVER have read where a lib is offended. Yet, often I read from conservatives that they are offended. Some identify it as derogatory. I don't understand that. And of course a few have even said it is racist. That makes me laugh. (I think many would call cutting your lawn racist!) Personally, I don't feel like writing out 'conservative' every time I refer to the group. In addition, why do conservatives think it's ok to call liberals 'libs' if they don't want to be called 'cons'??
Why do conservatives call Obama "Buckwheat"?
Because he's black, and you know how cons like to stereotype all black people.
Why do liberals always call those who disagree with Obamas policies, racists?
I agree. Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence. Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish. Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with. On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does. As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial. There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before. Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud. o_O
Where is the evidence for the so-called "Southern Strategy" that progressives often reference?
The historic Democrat Party fought civil rights, defended slavery, and founded the KKK. The so-called "Southern Strategy" that progressive minions claim caused the parties to "switch" NEVER HAPPENED. It is a lie without ONE shred of evidence... to this end, I challenge ANY National Socialist in or outside the fascistic progressive wing of that party to produce the hard facts and tangible evidence of that preposterous claim. Why won't any progressive take this challenge? I wager because NO hard facts of this widespread myth exist. All that this amounts to is a fairytale used by the DNC to race bait and reinforce their campaign tactic of disunity. The truth is that during and after the LBJ administration the formerly racist (and in many cases EVEN MORE racist than ever) DNC began a campaign to exploit the poor for votes known as the Great Society. Certain minorities, having recently been oppressed and made incapable of holding wealth by this SAME party came into the economy with nothing NS tended to populate this lower-income demographic the Great Society was targeting. Despite their bigotry, the ALL-WHITE Democrat leadership began to see the Blacks as a potentially useful voting block and began targeting them and foisting the false narrative of a so-called "Southern Strategy" in order to rally the same hate, fear, and distrust from Blacks and low-income whites that their KKK efforts had produced in southern whites a scant few decades before... and turn the races upon one another... all the while playing both sides to distraction while offering even more socialist solutions for their invention of wealth "discrepancy" between the "class". This all this rhetoric including the race baiting borrowed wholesale from their fascistic socialist counterparts in Europe. If there is a wealth of (or any) evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me with those HARD FACTS (not baseless conspiracy theory links). Well... I'm waiting.
Can S.E. Cupp really be a conservative when she is so servile to whatever the democrats want?
I assume you are basing this on what the current Republican Party likes to call conservative and there in lies the problem. The current crop of so called conservatives are nothing of the sort. S.E. Cupp is more or less what conservatism was. Before the religious reactionaries hijacked the title for their own ends.In addition the system that the constitution lays out is one that depends on compromise and the existence of multiple parties not two. The US constitution did not establish or enshrine a two party system nor did the founders want one.n 1780, John Adams wrote that the “greatest political evil” to be feared under a democratic constitution was the emergence of “two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” George Washington, in his farewell address, described the “spirit of party” as democracy’s “worst enemy.” It “agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”"There is nothing I dread So much, as a Division of the Republick into two great Parties, each arranged under its Leader, and concerting Measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble Apprehension is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil, under our Constitution." from John Adams to Jonathon Jackson 2 october 1780“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”George Washington, George Washington's Farewell AddressThe functioning of the Governmental system laid out for us depends on compromise, not hard party lines and the demands of “my way or the highway” So in that spirit S.E. is acting responsible and evaluating positions and making choices which is exactly what every person in this country should do instead of just adopting a party line and sticking with it even if the ship is sinking under them.
Why do conservatives always complain about liberals pulling the race card?
That guy you hear on the phone there is actually pretty exemplary for his side of the political-aisle.
Were Democratic Liberals just as racist as Republican Conservatives in the 1940's in America?
I think to answer this, you only have to look at the actions of FDR, one of the most prominent Democratic Liberals at that time.1. The FDR administration rounded up and deported Hispanic American citizens in large numbers.2. FDR enforced regulations that made it illegal to hire African Americans, which created an employment gap between African Americans and White Americans which did not exist before FDR and still exists until this day.3. FDR forcibly confiscated businesses and property of Japanese and Italian Americans. His administration rounded up as many as 150,000 of these people and put them in internment camps.The policies of FDR were the most racist of any president in the last 150 years. The Democratic Liberals supported him all of the way.Republican Conservatives of the time still supported the Republican Party legacy of civil rights advances. Republican Conservative President Calvin Coolidge was a proponent of Howard University and other Black Colleges. Republican Conservative Senator Robert A. Taft proposed “fair employment” and civil rights legislation in attempts to undo some of FDR’s damage. His biggest achievement was the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 - Wikipedia , also known as the Taft-Hartley Act.So, in the 1940s, the Liberal Democrats were supporting Jim Crow and racism of all types. The Conservative Republicans were trying to preserve the legacy of Lincoln and expand civil rights.