To Anyone who thinks Republicans are Racist

[aggressi0n]

So you want me to actually make an argument? I felt you didn't deserve one, but hey, you asked for it.

Stupidity is omnipresent; no matter what, you will encounter it everywhere. To generalize in the face of the United States in such as statement is as valid as placing it in the deeds of another; what you say isn't always true.

Liberals, "MTV babies", and anarchists will always exist. What you assume isn't necessarily valid; in fact, it's invalid thanks to reason. Intuitively, we assume cognizance of the human morality and competence, and it is only actively that we can begin to believe the opposite. It is the underestimation of competence, the activity against intuition that forces us to grow weak; by allowing dissipation into equilibrium can we solve this.

At first, your argument seems completely absurd, and a closer observation reaffirms that statement to a new level. Let us analyze your statement, or your qualification that Thomas Jefferson owned 187 un-willing servants, bounded in their chains and essentially stripped of their lives, families, belongings, and freedom. Let us re-analyze our causality in this; perhaps we can assume the same about Brutus and his followers who so indignantly believed in democracy, yet struck down the mighty paragon of such idealism; sure, a dictator, but who can argue against his defense against threats to adverse tyranny, and his expansion of idealism? Upon analyzation of Thomas Jefferson, imposed and forced servitude amongst the oppressed class was unavoidable - what could have happened, is that Thomas Jefferson could have not owned slaves, not owned a plantation and not grown rich - in this case, democracy would have possibly not existed at all; no reasonable man in the Constitutional Convention would allow a poor boy into their secret dealings, possibly a British spy - instead, tyranny could have possibly continued by King George III; what we do not know is impossible to assume. Not only that, a developing nation was weak, fragile; slavery was a heated issue which could not be discussed at a time where basic rights were not even developed - war against Britain hadn't realistically ended until years after Jefferson's presidency (into Madison, which ended the War of 1812). Jumps could not be taken, or would have resulted in huge fallices of democracy, such as the Whiskey Rebellion, and the like - events and antigovernmental actions even larger, and on a greater scale.

Reanalyzation of your facts only would make a common man mad. Lincoln was not a whig. There is no way - NO possible way that Lincoln was a whig. Sure, the Republicans shared some ideas with the whigs, but the amount of which they shared with the Whigs possibly equalled the amount the party shared with the Democrats; no less the difference lie in significance. What we cannot assume, also, is that Lincoln was the leader of the Republicans - he, for sure, was not, as he was very moderate; the Republicans wanted far stricter action against slavery than Lincoln proposed.

One last fallacy in your argument is that you believe the Democratic party of the 1800s and early 1900s is the modern Democratic party, and the same for the Republican party. Your argument could not be further from the truth. Historical analysis proves that the Democratic party of today was the Republican party of the American past (1800-mid 1900s) and the Republican party of today is the Democratic party of the past. Why is this? Look at the conservatives of the past. From 1829 (Jackson's election) to 1859 (Lincoln's election), we had Democratic presidents. Post-Civil War brought abought inward conservatism, and faith in the conservatives of Rutherford B. Hayes lessened, until we grew into the Progressive Era, which could quite possibly be considered more Democratic than Republican (today).

Reconsider your argument, for it is more incorrect than your causation; and believe me, your rationale causes me fear, and I begin to lose faith in humanity.[/b]

You and your damn thesaurus, don't deny it, you keep using a damn thesaurus for every word. Your first Paragraph is just a whole bunch of words, dissipation for one means

1. The act of dissipating or the condition of having been dissipated.
[/b]

Dissipate means

1. To drive away; disperse.
2. To attenuate to or almost to the point of disappearing: The wind finally dissipated the smoke. See Synonyms at scatter.
3.
a. To spend or expend intemperately or wastefully; squander.
b. To use up, especially recklessly; exhaust: dissipated their energy. See Synonyms at waste.
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly.
v.intr.
1. To vanish by dispersion: The dark clouds finally dissipated.
2. To indulge in the intemperate pursuit of pleasure.[/b]

by allowing dissipation into equilibrium can we solve this.[/b]

None of those fit in their its pretty obvious your using the thesaurus(quite badly I must say.)

have resulted in huge fallacies of democracy[/b]

Fallacies used wrong, you probably changed it from blunders.

Anyways to your first kinda rebuttal, he inherited the slaves from his mother and father-in-law(could be the other way around) in 1774, 1 year 3 months before the start of the Revolutionary War, that wouldn't have effect the revolution at all.

Abraham Lincoln was a Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

You don't even know anything about politics do you? Why would we if we were the opposite of Lincoln call him a icon and claim to be the Party of Lincoln? Then there is also Lyndon B. Johnson who gave them their Civil Rights.

[lutz]

You and your damn thesaurus, don't deny it, you keep using a damn thesaurus for every word. Your first Paragraph is just a whole bunch of words, dissipation for one means
Dissipate means

None of those fit in their its pretty obvious your using the thesaurus(quite badly I must say.)
Fallacies used wrong, you probably changed it from blunders.

Anyways to your first kinda rebuttal, he inherited the slaves from his mother and father-in-law(could be the other way around) in 1774, 1 year 3 months before the start of the Revolutionary War, that wouldn't have effect the revolution at all.

Abraham Lincoln was a Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

You don't even know anything about politics do you? Why would we if we were the opposite of Lincoln call him a icon and claim to be the Party of Lincoln? Then there is also Lyndon B. Johnson who gave them their Civil Rights.[/b]

Pretty obvious I'm using a thesaurus? lol... Do you say that to people on the street?
Really, find a thesaurus with a caliber that can mimic symbolism as well as the representation of the intangible. Anyways, enough with your false witch hunts, accusations, and outcries of ignorance.

First of all, dissipation represents the equilibrium by chemical compounds, in which they tend towards entropy, essentially symbolizing the "well-rounded" individual, which is used quite often, and is essentially common knowledge (and by this I place your knowledge in the realm of uncommonly found stupidity). "Fallacies of Democracy" is a term coined by an individual in an essay concerning the September 11th attacks which I read awhile ago, which, in here, I used to describe the fallacies of democracy in the late 18th and 19th century. I used artistic freedom in applying a term from someone else to a broader sense; I also wrote a political essay named "Democratic Fallacies" as a term paper six months ago. But you really wouldn't care, of course - self-explanation is merely an action that can be so closely related to a conversation with a wall - pointless, as the disparity in intelligence, most notably on the level, is extraordinarily high. You will find I use the word "fallacies" quite a bit, as it is a "direct hit" at what democracy is - a contradiction (a steady, yet perfectly balanced one). If you want to discuss my idealisms, that's another topic. This isn't the first time I've used it, and it won't be the last.

My first paragraph began with an allusion and continued in the form of Walter Cronkite's televised newscast on February 27, 1968 about Vietnam, largely because Walter Cronkite symbolizes the end of the era of the "intelligent newscast", referring to you, a victim of the modern media melee (and if you want to know where I got that phrase from, it's from a news release four years ago by the NEA - National Endowment of the Arts, describing the harmful effects of media on modern society. Fucking hell, it's like I'm writing an annotated bibliography). You can see his newscast here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i214f5-w19w.

Fact remains is that I read a lot. I get my sources from places that have influenced me. Dana Gioia, at the Stanford Commencement Ceremony 2007 (oh, big word there; it means graduation in this sense) fueled a lot of my insight. It's undoubtable that I used a thesaurus there, isn't it? I use my mind as a caldera of ideas, and a storage of things I experience and read, to be recalled in the future when necessary, and I formulate my own ideas based on this "tabula" (yes, I believe in the tabula rasa, if that is what you think), morphing and mixing my experiences to create myself.

Anyways - you clearly did not comprehend a single word in my argument, largely because the substantiation by which I place the authority of my argument. Lincoln is an icon for the Republican party because he was the individual who brought fame (and also, accordingly, notoriety) to the Republican Party. He brought it to the perspective of all people in the United States, and the basis essentially was created in 1850-1860. However, if you bothered to analyze the beliefs of the Republican party in 1850 and on, you would notice a significant contradiction to the modern Republican party - the idea of "conservatism", in which we so unyieldingly hold the name so attached to today.

Lincoln wasn't a whig. Period. The whig party died when Taylor died. Fillmore was useless.
Lincoln's presidency was a combination of his whig experiences with the status quo; it is definately certain that his whig experience in the past influenced him, but by no means is it viable to reach a conclusion as to say Lincoln was a complete whig.

Oh, by the way, I looked at your mention of Lyndon B. Johnson and laughed.
Great Society failed. Don't argue with the person who literally spent 2 months researching about the Great Society.
Johnson didn't give them the rights. Brown vs. Board of Education and years of tolerance did. Johnson did little to nothing significant. He may have gotten credit, but he was essentially useless.

[festo]

I like turtles

[lutz]

Wow, I just analyzed my own essay for you.
That's kind of sad.

[PatricioRey]

Its V talking... V for Vlutz

[JesusBuffs]

Noone wants a history lesson from someone still in grade school. If you want to suck george bush..go do it..and leave us out of it. K?

[lIIIIIIIIIIl]

never argue with chinks...

[TunaFishyMe]

I like turtles[/b]

me too

[0000000]

the republican party of today shares almost no values with the historical republican party. The only real republican left is Ron Paul, and you can see for yourself how the party try to ostrasize him.

Republicanism stands for: small government, low taxes, foreign isolationism, civil liberties and separation of church and state. The only thing of those the Bush goverment stands for is low taxes. If you support Bush, then you are not a true republican i'm afraid. Most of Bush's fan base is not political, it is corporate and religious lobby groups and the bible belt.

[BabyBash]

never argue with chinks...[/b]

lutz uses his brain and I use my ebonics

[Ruthvik2.0]

lutz uses his brain and I use my ebonics [/b]

rnt u a chink too?

[aggressi0n]

For one thing, your stupidity, is so high you should get kicked in the head to see if it goes away.

Pretty obvious I'm using a thesaurus? lol... Do you say that to people on the street?
Really, find a thesaurus with a caliber that can mimic symbolism as well as the representation of the intangible. Anyways, enough with your false witch hunts, accusations, and outcries of ignorance.[/b]

Your stupid k. It's obvious 2 people obvious noticed the thesaurus.

First of all, dissipation represents the equilibrium by chemical compounds, in which they tend towards entropy, essentially symbolizing the "well-rounded" individual, which is used quite often, and is essentially common knowledge (and by this I place your knowledge in the realm of uncommonly found stupidity). "Fallacies of Democracy" is a term coined by an individual in an essay concerning the September 11th attacks which I read awhile ago, which, in here, I used to describe the fallacies of democracy in the late 18th and 19th century. I used artistic freedom in applying a term from someone else to a broader sense; I also wrote a political essay named "Democratic Fallacies" as a term paper six months ago. But you really wouldn't care, of course - self-explanation is merely an action that can be so closely related to a conversation with a wall - pointless, as the disparity in intelligence, most notably on the level, is extraordinarily high. You will find I use the word "fallacies" quite a bit, as it is a "direct hit" at what democracy is - a contradiction (a steady, yet perfectly balanced one). If you want to discuss my idealisms, that's another topic. This isn't the first time I've used it, and it won't be the last.[/b]

That book writer is a retard, America is a Republic not a Democracy.

My first paragraph began with an allusion and continued in the form of Walter Cronkite's televised newscast on February 27, 1968 about Vietnam, largely because Walter Cronkite symbolizes the end of the era of the "intelligent newscast", referring to you, a victim of the modern media melee (and if you want to know where I got that phrase from, it's from a news release four years ago by the NEA - National Endowment of the Arts, describing the harmful effects of media on modern society. Fucking hell, it's like I'm writing an annotated bibliography). You can see his newscast here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i214f5-w19w.[/b]

Liberals are the victim, I watch FOX which is fair no stupid ass 4 tards vs a Republican which every time they speak they tell them to shut up. You are the victim.

Anyways - you clearly did not comprehend a single word in my argument, largely because the substantiation by which I place the authority of my argument. Lincoln is an icon for the Republican party because he was the individual who brought fame (and also, accordingly, notoriety) to the Republican Party. He brought it to the perspective of all people in the United States, and the basis essentially was created in 1850-1860. However, if you bothered to analyze the beliefs of the Republican party in 1850 and on, you would notice a significant contradiction to the modern Republican party - the idea of "conservatism", in which we so unyieldingly hold the name so attached to today.[/b]

For one thing, a lot of Liberal authors call Lincoln a terrorist. This stuff with they were different a long time ago is true, of course you got to change your attitude to fit the world around you.

Oh, by the way, I looked at your mention of Lyndon B. Johnson and laughed.
Great Society failed. Don't argue with the person who literally spent 2 months researching about the Great Society.
Johnson didn't give them the rights. Brown vs. Board of Education and years of tolerance did. Johnson did little to nothing significant. He may have gotten credit, but he was essentially useless.[/b]

Brown Vs Board of Education was about schools not other things just Schools. If you knew Lyndon Johnson you would also know he was a Democrat and it was sort of a trick question=). Also Lyndon Johnson hated the KKK, while the democrats defended it.

Republicanism stands for: small government, low taxes, foreign isolationism, civil liberties and separation of church and state. The only thing of those the Bush goverment stands for is low taxes. If you support Bush, then you are not a true republican i'm afraid. Most of Bush's fan base is not political, it is corporate and religious lobby groups and the bible belt.[/b]

The Republican party was created in 1854, it has no ties to the Republican-Democrat Party Thomas Jefferson created, due to the fact the Republican party was created as a Anti Slavery movement. You also know nothing about Separation of Church and State, for one you may be shocked to know that the Bible was used as a text book. Bush can't do anything to make it small government.

Ron Paul is no body who deserves nothing, the only true Republican running is Duncan Hunter, hes the only one who deserves to be President, the rest lie. Duncan Hunter cares about America so much, supports the Iraq war and when he's in office and his sons still in the Military that will shut up all the anti-war hippies saying that the President is just sending people to die and he would never send his children, but it probably won't cause then they will say he hates his son and wants him to die so he's gonna stay in Iraq because he wants his son to die.

[JesusBuffs]

lol what a fag...who gives a shit? this country is full of lies and media influenced bullshit...end of story.

oh and btw...the origional kkk was a good thing...dunno why anyone would be against it..unless they were bums

[Shurt]

For one thing, your stupidity, is so high you should get kicked in the head to see if it goes away.

Your stupid k. It's obvious 2 people obvious noticed the thesaurus.
That book writer is a retard, America is a Republic not a Democracy.

Liberals are the victim, I watch FOX which is fair no stupid ass 4 tards vs a Republican which every time they speak they tell them to shut up. You are the victim.
For one thing, a lot of Liberal authors call Lincoln a terrorist. This stuff with they were different a long time ago is true, of course you got to change your attitude to fit the world around you.
Brown Vs Board of Education was about schools not other things just Schools. If you knew Lyndon Johnson you would also know he was a Democrat and it was sort of a trick question=). Also Lyndon Johnson hated the KKK, while the democrats defended it.[/b]

Yup, and lutz is the stupid one. Happy English!

Oh, and the last bold statement isn't even a argument against what lutz said.

[aggressi0n]

Yup, and lutz is the stupid one. Happy English!

Oh, and the last bold statement isn't even a argument against what lutz said.[/b]

He both of his replies are just big words used in assumptions with no fact.

The book he read is a Fallacies of Democracy wrote concerning 9/11 attacks. Yet he read it even though a person with a brain would know that the USA is a federal constitutional republic, a democracy is something that goes against civil liberties and the majority can be tyrants against the minority.