Denying history is an incredibly stupid thing to do when there is documented evidence. Such as the specific Supreme Court cases that held New Deal laws to be unconstitutional. Such as:
- Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (1935) i......
:lamo
Talk about bait and switch arguments! Ignorance of history isn't the issue here (at least, not for me). The issue here is a familiar one: blind ideologues, like you, don't understand or read enough to know how to put history in proper context. In this case, you and I both know that you said "social programs". The New Deal was a series of legislative reforms that included mainstream social programs (like SS, labor laws, etc), as well as major regulatory reforms and financial/market reforms. Calling the NIRA, the RPA, etc. "social programs" is something that only a radical rightwinger (who views all federal government interference as such) would do. And, I'm sorry, but that's just dumb.
The New Deal's "social programs" were largely upheld in the courts. That's the point to be made here. We all know that there were many programs that were successfully challenged, but most of those involved banking regulations, business/market regulations, and the like. But the SOCIAL PROGRAMS that wingnuts have always opposed (i.e. SS, Housing Act, Wage/Labor laws, etc) were largely upheld in the courts.
.
Since when have Democrats ever promoted civil rights? Only the Republicans have ever voted for civil rights legislation, while the majority of Democrats have always opposed them. That is also part of the historical record if you care to visit the Library of Congress. So be careful about dismissing these verifiable facts, as I demonstrated above.
Again, READ a little history (since you obviously didn't live it). Geez...just MORONICALLY stupid comments and questions from you.
Take the Civil Rights Act of '64. About 60% of Democrats in the House supported it (i.e. 152 FOR, 96 AGAINST). In the Senate, about 70% of Democrats supported it (i.e. 46 FOR, 21 AGAINST). So, CLEARLY, you are a righty whose views are based upon emotions and the wingnut propaganda that you people are being fed daily. But that's not the real bottom line here. The FACT of the matter (with regard to support/opposition for Civil Rights) is that the divide was NOT along party lines, but along IDEOLOGICAL lines. In general, CONSERVATIVES (of both parties) have ALWAYS opposed Civil Rights, while LIBERALS (regardless of party) have supported Civil Rights.
The only thing that has changed over the last 50 years is that the two parties have been realigned along strictly ideological lines. The GOP is now home to almost ALL social conservatives who remain hostile toward African-Americans and other racial/religious minorities in this country. That why people like you,who would have been Democrats 50 years ago, call the GOP home today.
You mean like all the lynching and segregation [RIGHT WING SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES] did in the southern States? Or perhaps you need to be reminded of the [RIGHT WING SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES]-created Ku Klux Klan.
There, I fixed it for you...in terms that even you should be able to understand. Party ID, from a historical or academic perspective, is irrelevant. Understanding this was, and is, all about understanding IDEOLOGY. There were social conservatives in both parties during the Jim Crow era of our history...and they all aligned with opposition to civil rights and hostility toward African-Americans. The fact that Southern-style Democrats were dominant in the former Confederate states (and among those who sympathized with the "Lost (traitorous) Cause") was not a coincidence.
Even today Democrats staunchly support Affirmative Action, which is as demeaning to minorities and women as it gets.
No, it's not. You're (once again) mistaking your angry-white-guy views for those of society as a whole. The FACT is that AA is rarely a factor in the workplace. It's just that angry-white-guys (like you) amplify it as a way to stir up white grievance among other resentful and/or underachieving whites, like them.
Democrats are supporting the concept that minorities and women are so inferior that they require special government support to make a more balanced playing field. It doesn't get any more condescending than that.
LOL, nonsense. Yet again, you mistake your emotion-based opinions for acknowledged facts. You can't help it. That's your sense of entitlement showing itself, yet again. It's stupid, but you can't see it. With every remark, your "issues" are becoming more and more clear, for all to see.
