Shared publicly  - 
Ashley Barnett Smith's profile photoDrew Nicholson's profile photoFred Horein's profile photoNathaniel Fries's profile photo
Um I dont know where to begin. There are a lot of just blatant lies but lets start from the beginning. What did Democrats do to African-Americans enslaved them, then fought to keep them enslaved then made laws that treated them as second class citizens and then blocked Civil Rights for 100 years. Those are historical facts. Womens sufferage was also lead by Republican women. This is stupid I cant believe someone would post such ignorant idiocy. Democrats caused segregation by the way. It was also Republicans that started the stupid EPA (not our finest hour) And I could go on and on.
+Rod Eccles Where exactly does it say "Democrats" in that image? It talks about Liberals and Conservatives.
+Rod Eccles back in the day, the Republican Party was a lot different. Yes, it was formed in large part to champion civil rights and fight slavery, but that is no longer the case. The Republican Party of today is made up of conservatives that have consistently blocked the very things Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned in this quote. Abraham Lincoln and his allies are dead: measure the Party by their current members instead.
It says liberals and we know what the meaning of Liberal is today and I also know that back during the presidency of Lincoln, Republicans were called liberal but also the poster states that its Liberals vs Republicans. And in no way did Liberals pass Civil Rights it was Republicans. Maybe they were RHINOS that passed the EPA but not so with a lot of the other stuff.
Conservatives oppose change. That's kind-of what conservative really means.

But some of those things aren't liberal policy (social security and medicare, for example).
+Rod Eccles You keep saying "liberal" and "republican as if that's what's being discussed. It's "liberals" and "conservatives".
ODG, you guys dont know history. Repubs and Conservatives are all about change. Change for the better and away from liberal policies. If Liberals had their way I would still be a slave or even in worse condition on a Cherokee reservation (Trial of Tears part is due to liberal policies) This is history folks. good grief.
+Nathaniel Fries ACLU is on crack with that one. How can Ron Paul be great for civil rights when he's proud of having people like Don Black (a former grand wizard of the KKK) support him? And don't get me started on the racist stuff he let those newsletters print in his name. No, I don't dare trust anyone with a history like that to protect civil rights.
+Fred Horein -- how can Barack Obama be good for civil rights when he allows the detention of individuals without due process, and more importantly the assassination of U.S. citizens without the same?
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (former Republican candidate, now Libertarian Party candidate) both outperform Obama.

By the way, some people hold that fundamental human rights come from property rights, and the forced integration of businesses is a violation of property rights. So they believe that in allowing government to violate property rights in one case sets a dangerous precedent that would lead to future violations of property rights, and by extension, human rights. This is Ron Paul's position on the matter, as I understand it.
For what it's worth he supported getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
Excuse me, Change from what??? All the Conservatives did is say NO,NO,NO, to the American people. Have you forgotten the destruction of America by the Republican Administration?? What political party will squandrel their country's treasury by going to two wars just to prove their arrogance??? Yet they still won't admit that they cause the recession in this country. How much money they give away to Pakistan, Afgahnistan and Iraq while the American people suffer from unemployment and economic destruction???? They said they will get Osama BIn Laden. They said they will get all The Al Qaeda leaders. Eight years and billions of dollars, did they???? Ob ama accomplished all of that in a short time. What do you say now???
+Rod Eccles uh... whose history? I won't argue that Obama isn't all that hot on civil liberties, but I don't know any liberals who want people to be slaves.
The way things are going, I can see the Democrats taking back Congress. We can't afford to hire the party who say NO, NO,NO, NO, to the American people. We can't allow the wealthy corporations run this country also, that's not Democracy.
The only slaves right now are the middle class and the poor. That's all the doing of the Republicans who sheltered the wealthy corporations.
+Nathaniel Fries a large percentage of what you're blaming Obama for is actually the result of Congress and exceptional circumstances. Obama is far from perfect, but I still believe that he is doing the best he can given the circumstances. Also, I am not one of those people that think fundamental human rights come from property rights: it's the other way around for me. Which means that civil rights as a whole trumps property rights, and worrying about property rights is a poor excuse for opposing the Civil Rights Act.
+Armando Lioss -- Paul doesn't alienate African and Hispanic American voters. In presidential polls that ask the race of those polled, Ron Paul outpolls all of the other Republican candidates among ethnic minorities. This would be impossible without strong support from those two minorities, as they make up the majority of them. Curiously, in a head-to-head poll against Obama, Ron Paul takes 20-25% of minority voters. There's several videos on YouTube discussing why.

+Fred Horein -- he has veto power. He can veto, make his case in favor of liberty, and try the process again. Vetoes aren't regularly overridden -- take Gary Johnson, who vetoed 750 bills and only had 2 overridden, or Ronald Reagan, who vetoed 39 bills and had 9 overridden.
As for CRA, that is his only given reason for opposing it. Presumably if that part had been removed, he would have supported it. And making a case based on human rights is not a "poor excuse".
+Nathaniel Fries Um, the NDAA (to use a recent example of what you're talking about) had a veto proof majority. All Obama could do was issue a signing statement and make his objections known, which he did. And yes, placing the property rights of a few over the civil liberties of many is a very poor excuse.
+Fred Horein -- but it does apply to U.S. citizens, and Levin has not refuted his comment. I don't buy that argument.
+Nathaniel Fries again, Obama didn't ask for the NDAA to apply to U.S. Citizens (assuming it does, which I do not believe). Did you even read the article I linked? It quotes the Senate Arms Service Committee mark up that Levin was supposedly referring to: "As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Force." Simply put, I refuse to judge Obama's policies based on a selectively edited 68 second YouTube video, especially one of somebody other than Obama speaking.
Add a comment...