I forgot to mention that Nixon created affirmative action and other liberal social programs you wouldn't associate with modern republicans. I think the tide really changed when GHW Bush was president.
He joined the Socialist Party (1910–17), but finally resigned because of its anti-war stance. Walling became convinced that US intervention in the war was needed to defeat the Central Powers. Walling became a member of the Republican Party, but quit in 1917 due to the party's opposition to the US entering World War I. The Socialist Party of America (SPA) was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899.[1] In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials.[2] The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America
I considered (still do) Ron Paul to be a Libertarian. He had a R next to his name, but didn't vote like a republican of his time.
William English Walling (1877–1936) (known as "English" to friends and family) was an Americanlaborreformer and SocialistRepublican born into a wealthy family in Louisville, Kentucky. He founded the National Women's Trade Union League in 1903. Moved by his investigation of a 1908 race riot in Springfield, Illinois, he was among the co-founders of the NAACP in 1909.[1] ... SOCIALIST REPUBLICAN.
http://inezmb.blogspot.com/2014/10/september-26-death-of-john-milholland.html September 26 - Death of John Milholland, Sr. in 1895 Last of the Lincoln republicans at the time of his death in 1925. 1st treasurer of naacp.
Good, we've found one member who was republican. Not all of them were republican like you were claiming. Even the link you just posted claims he was the only WASP republican who founded the NAACP. It is strange on your insistence that the NAACP is a republican organization. Next you'll be claiming that since you own this site and the Blazers made it their forum that all Blazer fans are libertarians.
I didn't say "all." I said it was founded by white republicans. They most certainly weren't democrats. This woman may or may not be white. If a white republican can be leader of the NAACP, why can't she? I don't get why she had to lie about her true ethnicity.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/washingtondc_201006A32_letter.html and http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-king-jr-and-richard-nixon-were-friends.html You asked.
LOL, this again? Yes, I said the oceans were dead. When you challenged me on this I provided multiple links showing that 90% of the large fish are gone. The oceans are overfished and polluted. You said those studies were completely wrong because you recently saw a bird eating a fish. After that you went on to post the following links: 1. A report that the oceans were not being overfished that was produced by the fish processing industry. 2. A report from a Canadian university that said that said the scientists got it wrong, 90% of the large fish are not gone. You seemed really happy about this report, throwing up your arms and doing a victory dance but like you tend to do you only posted part of the report thinking no one would take the time to click on your link. In fact that report stated that in one place in Canada overfishing had gotten to the point where 100% of a large species of fish was overfished out of existence. So yes, 90% was wrong. It was 100%. 3. Then you posted an article from a public aquarium, their in-depth research included recipes on how to cook fish. Again, I say if you kill off 90% of anything that's pretty much the same as saying it's dead while you say that everything is perfectly fine until you reach 100% death.
Seems to me SPD is still arguing it's dead. He'll post a link to some scientists saying they can't catch many of the big fish so they must be mostly gone, yet actual professional fisherman keep catching them. Maybe the scientists are just incompetent at catching fish I live very close to the ocean. It's not dead, and it's not dying. We may have overfished some of the bigger fish (under govt. approval), but they're not gone and I don't see why they'll be fished to 0. They do have babies, and they will produce a sustainable population that allows for plenty of fish to be caught. Sustainable means 5M fish, we catch 2.5M, and by next year, there's 5M again. That's how it's worked for thousands of years.
My observation: you have to be a wing-nut (left or right) to care. She was either good at her job, or she wasn't. Yeesh!
