Debra wrote:
> It used to bug me a lot when the followers of Reagan or Bush Sr. bragged
about
> being in the party of Lincoln. Same name, but completely different
> philosophies. Reagan or Bush, if they're being "pure" Republicans, would
never
> step in and dictate to a State about anything, including ending slavery or
> segregation. They would agree with the white Southerners that US law is
> superseded by each State's laws.
You are spinning my original comments. All I inferred was that Lincoln was a
good example of a "pure" Republican. I also went on to say that the parties'
idealogy/philosophy has been perverted from its original over time. So we
are saying the same thing in this regard - so why spin my comments?
> States' rights versus the federal government is the main difference
between the
> ideologies of today's two main parties, and it plays itself out in many
> different ways.
I don't believe this is accurate..
Kakki
