Stephanopoulos Combats Ann Coulter on Historical Events In Her New Book
ABC's George Stephanopoulos went beyond challenging assumptions from Ann Coulter's newest book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" on Tuesday, as he repeatedly attempted to correct her on historical facts. The former Clinton advisor interrupted her multiple times on Tuesday's Good Morning America to make a point that she was either wrong or lying about history.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, said the late Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Yet Stephanopoulos interrupted Coulter as she claimed that the Ku Klux Klan in the South was Democratic. "Started out Democratic, but turned very quickly," Stephanopoulos asserted.
[Click here for audio. Video below the break.]
That depends on the meaning of "quick." The Ku Klux Klan advocated anti-Republican violence in the post-Civil War years, and its resurgence in the early 20th century was due to Democrats; in fact, the Klan had quite a large voice at the 1924 Democratic National Convention. The Southern Klan had strong ties to the Democratic Party, and the South was heavily Democratic into the 1960s.
Coulter replied that the Klan never turned Republican and Stephanopoulos abruptly changed the subject. He then hit Coulter for alleging that the Civil Rights movement was an unruly mob while defending violence for the pro-life cause. Coulter corrected him, saying that she was comparing the two groups and not defending violence.
Coulter later profiled civil rights icons Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall as at odds over the methods they used to achieve civil rights for African-Americans. Marshall made legal arguments and won court cases while King led street protests.
Stephanopoulos retorted the two figures "would see themselves as allies." Coulter replied "They did not," before backing up her claim by citing a letter where Marshall criticized King.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 7 at 8:15 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So much to talk about this morning with the always-provocative Ann Coulter. She's had seven best-sellers, never shies away from a hot debate. And you can tell from the title of her new book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America" that she's ready for a few more debates. And Ann, welcome. I want to get to the book in just a second, but we've got to begin with Congressman Anthony Weiner. You almost predicted it last week.
ANN COULTER: Yes I did. Thank you for noticing that. In fact, he used almost the same terms in his press conference yesterday as I did in my column. He Twittered this by mistake, he thought it was a private tweet, sent it to his whole list, panicked, and claimed he had been hacked.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now I think we might be able to agree on at least one thing, that sex scandals know no party.
COULTER: (Laughing) No that's true, but I would say, consistent with the theme of my book "the liberals behave like a mob," that conservatives respond to their sex scandals differently because we don't elevate our leaders. There isn't a sort of messiah worship, a mob characteristic. We're worried about being consistent. We aren't comfortable with contradictory thinking. The only Republican sex scandal where the Republican didn't resign or not run for re-election is Vitter down in Louisiana, and that was –
STEPHANOPOULOS: After soliciting prostitutes –
COULTER: – but that was seven years earlier. By the time it broke he had – he had apologized to his wife. It was over. It came out when the D.C. Madame releases her list. And by the way, everybody knew there were Democrats on that list.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, held on as well for a long time.
COULTER: Well a brief time, but the basic Republican response is not to attack the person who just releases information. And by the way, congratulations to ABC – you guys owned the Weiner story, you did all of the reporting. But the way – I mean, all the reporting on this last week was to attack Andrew Breitbart, attack some random hacker – I don't know who broke the Mark Foley story. I don't know who broke –
STEPHANOPOULOS: Actually ABC was on top of that one as well.
COULTER: And by the way, we were upset about that, because I believe you guys – that's the only one where I remember the source at all, and the claim was that ABC had it but they held it until the day after Foley couldn't be replaced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, that's not true. Anyway, let's get to the book, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America." You write, and this – I think this is a fair quote to pull from the book. You say basically "Republicans are the party of peaceful order; Democrats are the party of noisy, violent mobs." And you say it's rooted in the Democrats following the French Revolution, Republicans following the American Revolution. Explain that.
COULTER: Yes. Well, the first part is sort of a psychological profile of the Left. So even liberals who are wondering why they behave the way they behave might want to read it, because it explains it, and it's all mob psychology from this French psychologist – or social psychologist, Gustave Le Bon, who is the father of group-think, and Hitler and Mussolini studied him to learn how to incite mobs. And as I was reading a lot of books on mobs and group-think, I mean everything just describes the behavioral patterns of the Left. And then the middle section, I go through the American tradition, which is to write arguments like the Declaration of Independence – that's what we celebrate, what the do the French celebrate? Bastille Day, where a bunch of lunatics stormed an empty prison, because they thought it was unsightly and it was based on rumors. And if you look at the history of the Left in this country – including the Klan in the South, which was Democratic, contrary to revisionist history –
STEPHANOPOULOS: Started out Democratic, but turned very quickly.
COULTER: Not to Republican. It was never Republican.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You take on the Civil Rights movement, and that's where it seems that you fall into some contradictions. You seem to suggest that that is part of the mob, yet this was a peaceful mob almost entirely, yet you seem to express some kind of understanding for anti-abortion protesters who use violence.
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no, I'm comparing the two, actually. I think they're very similar. And the reason I raise the Civil Rights movement is that gave mobs a halo, because that was the first time mobs were being deployed –
STEPHANOPOULOS: Because it was peaceful. It was civil disobedience.
COULTER: No, it was – the cause behind it. Up until then, from the beginning of the Revolution to the Shay's Rebellion to the draft riots here in New York City by Democrats lynching blacks, it was always – the Left, it was Democrats, it was the SDS, the Weathermen, mobs have always been a bad thing. The Civil Rights movement was the first time in this country it started to give street protests – I mean not all street protests are going to be a mob, but my point on this – well, two different things. One is comparing Martin Luther King to Thurgood Marshall who, sort of surprising to me, became a hero of this book because when I was in law school he was just signing on to all of the opinions with Justice Brennan, I just thought of him as a liberal. But his history – I mean, it is the tradition of the American Revolution. He's making arguments, he's bringing court cases, he is winning them. In 1954 he won Brown v. Board of Education. If there had been Republican presidents for that eight years, nine years, from '60-'68, you never would have had the Civil Rights movement.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wish we had more time. I think Marshall and King would see themselves as allies –
COULTER: They did not. I quote Thurgood Marshall criticizing Martin Luther King.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Ann Coulter, thanks very much.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Light Weight
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:04pm.
STEPHANOPOULOS is such light weight compared to anyone who has command of the facts. If the rules of debate were in effect during this interview, she would have reduced him to tears.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Light Weight?
Submitted by bsny on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:13pm.
We weren't talking about Palin, were we?
→ No
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:18pm.
We weren't. Not surprising that you are incapable of following the conversation, though.
Bsny must have new
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:23pm.
Bsny must have new anti-Palin talking points from the DNC and is anxious to use them.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
bsny is just upset that
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:32pm.
bsny is just upset that Weiner never tweeted him any of the pictures. He is lashing out.
Scoob wins Post o' the Day
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:37pm.
LOL - Damn, that needed a spew alert.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I have a spare keyboard if
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:39pm.
I have a spare keyboard if needed Dave. :-)
Monitor too, though it is not color.
You better find
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:03am.
a color monitor, Scoob....
Uh oh, did you do something
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 8:33am.
Uh oh, did you do something to your monitor UpNorth? Something tells me we need to start putting disclaimers on some of our posts. DARN LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!
You're right... I asked Brent Bozell for his copies,
Submitted by bsny on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:51pm.
but he refused to give them up.
tell tale sign
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:54pm.
of a media matters reject.
LAME!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:56pm.
I hope you give up on trying your hand at comebacks, that was about as lame as they come.
-Jon
Jon, bsny is like little
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:29pm.
Jon,
bsny is like little Stephyopoulos, a lightweight. His little libturd brain cannot come back with anything better than a 4th grader going "neener neener"!!
Why even bother?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:40pm.
I know, I was like "why even bother?" if you can't make a good one, and a good comeback has some truth to it. There wasn't any in that one which just makes it malicious.....well, in this case, pathetic.
Honestly, I have yet to see a really funny liberal. Ever see that video where Jeff Dunham tried his act with Walter at Boston University at some talk show venue? (it's on Youtube here) The guy is hilarious normally, but you could tell Dunham was struggling because those libs just don't have a real honest sense of humor and the host treated Walter like a real person!? The comments about that host were...*sigh* not very nice. ;-) Oh and again, I like Dunham, but that video was very painful to watch. I don't think he'll go back there again.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about with libs and their "sense of humor."
-Jon
Typical Lib, when the subject
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:03pm.
Typical Lib, when the subject is something you dont want to be discussed mis direct the argument to something else, anything else.
Ya know.....
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:34pm.
The more you talk the stupider you sound. Just give up and go on your way - it's time for your bottle and nap.
ROFL
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:17pm.
ROFL
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Oh Look!
Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:51pm.
BSNY can quickly change subjects, just like Stephanopoulos!!
Please keep underestimating her.
Submitted by Benjamin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:17pm.
We're counting on it.
Stephie, you are wormy little
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:06pm.
Stephie, you are a wormy little twerp.
Stephie: "But this was a peaceful mob." (0:027)
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:06pm.
What a tool.
Coulter could pound that little worm Stephanopoulos
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:07pm.
in a walk.
Yes,
Submitted by bsny on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:12pm.
Given she's anything but human.
Thank you Ed Schultz
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:40pm.
.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
bsny = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:48pm.
Do not feed the troll.
Unlike the clones on MSNBC
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:05pm.
Unlike the clones on MSNBC
Doesn't Stephanopoulos know any better?
Submitted by KyWriter on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:13pm.
When he takes on Ann Coulter, he's always going to get creamed. He probably played with bumblebees as a child.
Way to go Ann
Submitted by vote24 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:27pm.
Again Coulter hits the nail on the head. And the head denies everything!
Religion and the French Revolution
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:34pm.
Actually, I think a lot of people -- both conservatives and liberals alike -- have a misconception that the French revolution was anti-religious. Coulter, at least it appears, repeats that in her book.
Most of the leaders in the revolution were deists and moralists and they had as much antipathy for atheism as they did for establishment religion. Baron d'Holbach, who was the most notable proponent of atheism, was roundly criticized by other philosophers of the time, including by Rousseau. They sought to dismantle his ideas systematically, and it became almost a contest to do so.
Only the priests who were believed to be corrupt and in bed with the aristocracy were targeted, others, who were sympathetic to the causes of the revolution, were ennobled. One of Rousseau's close friends was an abbot, Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who also wrote philosophy and liberal economic theory. What the revolutionaries did not like was the "Ancien Régime", the political and social system, which many priests had embedded themselves in.
The moralistic bent of the revolutionaries was shown in the fact that during the reign of terror, they not only executed nobles, but also prostitutes and others they considered to be of low moral fiber. The more ardent revolutionaries targeted the Catholic Church and tried to institute a deistic religion in its place, but had to pull back on those efforts after blowback from the peasantry, who were very conservative and traditional.
The French revolution was anti-religious.
Submitted by needle on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 6:40pm.
The point of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed on 12 July 1790 during the French Revolution, was to eviscerate the Roman Catholic Church in France and to subordinate it to the Revolutionary French government.
The French Revolutionary calendar was instituted in 1793 to replace the Gregorian calendar with a scientific and rational system that avoided Christian associations. It strove to subordinate religious holidays and replace them with contrived pagan nonsense, equivalent to Kwanza today.
Napoleon’s armies stabled their horses in churches and cathedrals as a matter of policy.
In short the French was famously and stridently anti-church and anti-Christian. To argue otherwise is to engage in revisionism. It is true that many French priests and some bishops, particularly in urban areas, went along with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. To some degree they would be like our present day “religious” leaders who are eager to promote homosexuality and are indifferent to adultery and abortion. By the way, they call themselves Christian.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
If they were deists and
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 7:55pm.
If they were deists and viciously attacked atheists, that's not anti-religion, no matter which way you slice it.
They were anti-tradition. They wanted a revolution in religion -- so religion would reflect reason -- as much as they wanted a revolution in government -- so government would reflect reason. Everything was about eviscerating the old, vestigial elements in all institutions -- church and state -- and making them modern.
Whether they were anti-church is another matter, however I think they were only anti-church because the church had been embedded in the social structure they hated passionately. Deists of the time strongly held Christian standards of morality, often even more strongly than did theists, and thought Christian values were superior to those of other religions.
~That may have been the way they spun it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:03pm.
They wanted a revolution in religion -- so religion would reflect reason -- as much as they wanted a revolution in government -- so government would reflect reason.
But that carries about as much credibility as jihadists claiming to be freedom fighters.
But if you read the
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:21pm.
But if you read the philosophers, you can see they seriously held firm to the idea that the universe had a moral order to it. They were followers of Plato; that was the cause of their opposition to atheism.
~Camoflage
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:32pm.
For their own bloodthirstiness. The Devil knows that "moral order" exists, and he certainly isn't an atheist. Doesn't mean he's on the right side.
They supported following that
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:57pm.
They supported following that moral order, though. Whether they were wrong is another argument altogether... I'm just trying to make the point that overall, they weren't atheistic, anti-religious, or nihilistic. There were some atheists and some nihilists among the revolutionaries, since in revolutionary times you get radical ideas, but they were attacked by the majority.
And not all revolutionaries were Jacobins, either.
~Rules for thee and not for me
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:04pm.
They were bloodthirsty murderers using their "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" crap as cover. If you're going to kill people and break things it's easier to sleep at night if you drape yourself in the mantle of a righteous crusader on behalf of the people.
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.--François de La Rochefoucauld
Religious mockery is not religious
Submitted by needle on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:20pm.
The French Revolutionaries were deliberately pushing pure faux religious cr@p – cr@p conjured up, like Kwanza, to mock genuinely religious people – in the name of “reason” and to quash Christianity, the only religion they really knew and rejected.
Oh sure, you can hold that they were “religious.” And Anthony Weiner can hold that a hacker broke into his account. As for me, I am not buying it.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
There's plenty of evidence
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:35pm.
There's plenty of evidence they believed in it. They didn't have to attack atheists either, but they did.
You're comparing the revolutionaries to postmodern liberals for some reason, its a false way of analysing things. French deists weren't really that much different than American deists, who also genuinely believed in a "creator" that gave them their rights. A lot of them, again, were not Jacobins, they were Girondists and Montagnards.
Sorry to take you away from the points you are making...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:42pm.
But couldn't it be your moniker "redfish" also means "Red Herring?"
No insult intended... Just asking.
- Grump
No its from swedish redfish,
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:48pm.
No its from swedish redfish, the candy
redfish the only way to
Submitted by Zippy on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:51pm.
redfish the only way to explain the French revolution is to equate the whole thing with "Thuggery".
And that would explain the murder of Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre on orders of the State.
He was one of the early leaders.
Criminal Thuggery.
Just like Stalinism/communism, The Nazi party, Pol Pot, and all the rest through history.
but but but
Submitted by GW on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 4:59pm.
Redfish said: "Actually, I think a lot of people -- both conservatives and liberals alike -- have a misconception that the French revolution was anti-religious."
But then Redfish said:
"The more ardent revolutionaries targeted the Catholic Church and tried to institute a deistic religion in its place,"
so these folks "targeted the Catholic Church" but it's "a misconception that the French revolution was anti-religious." Maybe there's a perception "that the French revolution was anti-religious" because "the more ardent revolutionaries targeted the Catholic Church." You know, like attacking something would make it seem like you're against it and all.
What am I missing here?
~Napoleon's armies stabled their horses
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:45pm.
in Catholic cathedrals as a matter of habit.
It's hilarious how Steffie
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:44pm.
It's hilarious how Steffie simply ignores anything he doesn't like (which is basically all of Ann's half of the conversation) and just forges ahead with his list of accusations.
Interruption's from the LSM are to be expected ...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:46pm.
Look, I don’t like “Stephie” any better than most of the people here at NB. I think he is just another hack with a little name recognition that has been bought and paid for by the DNC.
However, in this instance I thought the tone of the interview was respectful, and while he did try to make his counterpoints to Ann, clearly he was not constantly interrupting her, but allowing her to make some salient comments in stark contrast to his treatment of any Republican office holder… still, he managed to get subtly beat-up pretty good in the war of ideas displayed.
Here is the link (posted on an earlier thread) to ABC News with an excerpt from Ann’s new book, “Demonic.” There are video’s attached, and wait for the one that show’s Ann on “The View” – talk about constant interruption!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Politics/ann-coulter-conservative-comment...
- Grump
Its Like Teflon
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:58pm.
Steffis head is, no matter how many facts you present him with they bounce right off his shallacked hair.
The Democrats were the party
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 3:57pm.
The Democrats were the party of the Confederacy, and dominated the south for a century. Where Coulter--and countless other conservatives who point this out--are lying is in their pretense that the conservative end of the Democratic party that dominated the south and was associated with segregation, the Klan, and all the rest of that nasty business has any connection to the current Democratic party. To wit:
"Coulter replied that the Klan never turned Republican and Stephanopoulos abruptly changed the subject."
In the real world, the Klan, along with most of the right wing of the Democratic party, followed Strom Thurmond right into the Republican party when the Democrats adopted civil rights and the Republicans the "Southern strategy." That's where things remain to this day, a red-state-filled south (the liberal wing of the Republican party, which had supported civil rights, went over to the Democrats, as well, but much more gradually).
Boring
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:10pm.
This is a variation of the old "Democrats back then were like Republicans now."
To quote the brilliant Republican from Battlefield315, "You don't get to trade histories just because you don't like your side's."
Yes, facts can be that way...
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:01pm.
...but they don't change just because you want them to. I don't have a "side" in this. What I recounted is the history.
The Democrats struggled with the civil rights issues for years after the war. At one point, the right wing of the party left and formed the State's Rights party, more commonly known as the "Dixiecrats." They eventually returned to the fold, but it was short-lived. In 1962, Barry Goldwater said the party must "go hunting where the ducks are," and turned against civil rights as a means of luring away southern racists from the Democratic party (up to then, he had been, for several years, a supporter of civil rights). Strom Thurmond was the bedrock of the "Segregation Forever" crowd. He, in fact, led them out of the Democratic party in the late '40s under that very banner, and was virtually worshiped by them. He returned to the party for a few years, then, when the Democrats adopted civil rights, left for the Republicans in 1964, taking a lot of right-wing Democrats with him. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act that year, he predicted, of his party, "we've just lost the south for a generation." Actually, they lost it for longer than that. In the presidential contest that year, Goldwater, on his duck-hunt, won only his own state and the deep south, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election, the Democrats never got the south back.
That is the history.
What would you know about facts?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 6:38pm.
Your argument has been thwarted.
I have gone round and round with Jer on this, and you are as wrong as he is.
I didn't make an "argument";
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:32pm.
I didn't make an "argument"; I didn't offer an interpretation. I outlined the actual history that actually happened. The south, which had been the solid south for Democrats for a century, very suddenly, in a mass exodus, abandoned the Democrats over race in the wake of the Civil Rights Act.
The Great Society Had Nothing to Do With It?
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:18am.
Actually the shooting of George Wallace and Martin Luther King (a Card carrying Republican his whole life) probably had about equal parts to the South beginning to vote Republican. When James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King the civil rights movement lost its moral compass. The Democrats were able to do what LBJ had started which was to buy off the Black leadership. The Shooting of George Wallace because it was not fatal shattered the Racist Democratic Party but weakened it. This left businesses and farmers looking for protection of their property rights, fair elections and second amendment rights with no place to turn but the Republican Party.
This was not available to David Duke and the racist KKK which remains in the Democrat Party. The Republicans still have perfect record of never voting for a Jim Crow law. All Jim Crow law remains the purview of the Democrat Party and that is the way it should remain. It is kind of fun to watch the "gentleman" who as a boy was the KKK recruiter in school working for Obama but the night Obama won the PA primary that guy was off to Obama's left in Robert's Stadium.
Those who knew about Strom Thurmond’s daughter will still make jokes about Thurmond winning the 1948 election but now everybody is in on the joke and knows that would have put a black first lady in the Whitehouse sixty years ahead of Obama.
The south went Republican in
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:48am.
The south went Republican in 1964. King wasn't killed until '68, and Wallace wasn't shot until 1972. The mass exodus was well underway before either event.
Klan klown David Duke is, of course, not in the Democratic party. Early on, he attempted a few local campaigns as a Democrat, but couldn't get anywhere, so, like most of the rest, he switched, and he's remained a Republican ever since, running for many offices over the years.
That story is the same pretty much everywhere you go. The politics of the Klan, in its various factions, have always been reactionary--anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-"Christian nationalist," and so on. Basically the politics of the religious right.
Strom Thurmond made a big show of his party switch, and he was a rock-star among the Republicans for several years after it. He delivered South Carolina to Goldwater in '64 and Nixon in '68 (he was an enthusiast of both Goldwater's duck-hunting and Nixon's "southern strategy").
Former Sen. Republican leader Trent Lott had been a Democrat who joined the exodus to the Republicans in 1972. He openly fantasized about how great it would have been if Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Segregation Forever" ticket had won the presidency, and, like many other southern Republican pols, was a frequent speaker at the events of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor of the White Citizen's Councils that had battled integration (The CCC is a pro-segregation hate-group that has used the most vile imaginable language about blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, yet congressional Republicans beat back an effort to condemn the group in the late 1990s, and Ann Coulter, in her book "Guilty," spent several pages defending the CCC, portraying the charge of racism as a smear).
Jesse Helms was another of this dismal breed. A crude, racist reactionary, he made the switch in 1970, and found Republican voters very receptive to this message two years later--they sent him to the Senate and kept him there for over 30 years, where he rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And so on.
At the other end of this, Martin Luther King, the "card carrying Republican," had, in fact, endorsed both JFK and Lyndon Johnson, and would have gone with Bobby Kennedy in '68, had they not both been killed, and both the civil rights movement and the black American population moved firmly into the Democratic column in the same years I've been describing, and have stayed there since.
Shut up troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 4:01am.
As I have shown already on this page. You have no interest in learning or teaching here. You are only here to pass your partisan hack LIES.
You are finished here. Go Away.
Venue and Tone
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:03am.
Yeah, as a well-wisher at the guy's um-teenth birthday party. He apologized, for the segregationist implication as well.
I agree that Republicans don't adequately deal with the switchover of the South, but that doesn't mean you discount venue and tone for your "facts". Liberals use this Lott story all the time, but they don't like conservatives citing Ayers "We didn't do enough" as "We didn't plant enough bombs," or "We didn't kill enough people." both are implications of what they actually said.
The idea that Goldwater pandered to the south is an interpretation of Goldwater's vote on the Civil Rights Act. Just like that Lott was "just covering" in his apology is an interpretation of events. Goldwater cites the burden on private property as his objection.
See, I see in all the talk about voting behavior a very simplistic attitude of being either "fer" something or "agin'" it as the main input. Which ignores the very idea that laws have details of implementation, and there are correct ways to implement a law and incorrect ways. The left understands things in terms of agenda--there is always a nefarious reason not to vote for the latest stage of the agenda. And not voting for its current instrumentation is always the sign of a having been insincere all along.
Like I said, simply citing the racist South as Democratic, substitutes sloganeering for argument (and IMO acting like liberals, viz Alinskyism). The idea that southern xenophobia is given cover by the Republican idea of government should be disconcerting to more Pubs. However, I find the shelter that the left gives to Marxists, anti-Americans, and revolutionaries of all stripe no less worrisome--and equally dispelled by the left by simple incantations of "McCarthyism" which was a left-created hodge-podging of the Democrat-lead HUAC--which investigated Hollywood--and the populist union-friendly moderate Republican McCarthy, whose investigations were only ever as an oversight to other branches of government. Neighbor reporting on neighbor is really more "HUAC-yism" then "McCarthyism"--details often left out by the recitations of the left. And it is completely ignored that there is a strain of PC-ism that wants neighbors informing on neighbors. But again the left incants "Those are outliers and not indicative of the main body", whereas they are always trying to find insidious "code words" and "covert racism" to back up the idea that the resident racists that may fall in with the GOP are indicative of the conservatism in general, and not just outliers.
No. You lie and play partisan hack games.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:23am.
classicLyingLiberal2: None of the public money that goes to Planned Parenthood is spent on abortion; it goes to the 97% of other...
Yes. They put it in a separate little bucket. Don't they? Except you won't allow that for the Chamber of Commerce. Will you?
classicLyingLiberal2: It is a fact that the Chamber takes money from foreign sources, and it's a fact that this same money goes into the same fund that was paying for...
Partisan hack LIAR.
Much of the South was going repbublican
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:11am.
Since 1952. How does that square with your assertion?
Take presidential voting. Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to the Clinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Florida and Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on the ballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolina has consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentage points of doing so.
In other words, states representing over half the South's electoral votes at the time have been consistently in play from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, before Goldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay of civil rights bills.
which President
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:54pm.
Desegregated schools vis a vis Brown vs. Board of Education and sent troops to protect and enforce the decision?
Which President did nothing (federal wise)'while blacks were being lynched in the south? Hint he was afraid of losing southern dem suppprt.
Which President re-segregated the Armed Forces and Federal Civil Service.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Speaking of revisionist history...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:15pm.
Civil rights were supported by Republicans and fought by Democrats, The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[6] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[7] per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
I don't think Democrats "adopted" civil rights in the nice way you refer to it. They eventually recognized a voting block they could try to control with entitlements.
The GOP is NOT connected to the KKK.
I don't think its fair to tie
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:22pm.
I don't think its fair to tie either the GOP or the Democratic Party today to the KKK in any way; both have rejected that. One of the most annoying things about Republican pundits is they make everything about party, so they imagine the Democratic Party 100 years ago has relevance to the Democratic Party today.
The two parties have switched positions on many issues over time. And if we we're talking about radicalism, we might as well point to the Radical Republicans and the mob mentality of some in the abolitionist cause, including John Brown. None of that matters to politics today though.
redfish
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:25pm.
Are you saying the dems don't make everything about party? I guess I might concede that, Dems just make stuff up about people. You know, George Bush hates black people, Paul Ryan is throwing granny off the cliff. Oh wait, Republicans want you to die, and die quickly.
Nah, I'm not conceding anything.
I'm not speaking about the
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:51pm.
I'm not speaking about the Democrats at the moment, that's another topic.
I'm not speaking as a Democrat but an independent who has supported third parties in the past (Perot, etc),and has been very critical of Democrats and liberals.
Republicans freak out about the possibility of a candidate running on third party (third parties are evil!), formulate rules like Reagan's 11th commandment ("thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), invented the term "RINO" (the counterpart "DINO" only came later), and so on. The only reason Republicans supported Romney in 2008 was because his rhetoric was pro-conservative, pro-Republican, even though he had a more liberal record than the other candidates. Loyalty to the cause outweighed the fact that he was a Massachusetts liberal Republican. Gingrich was recently declared a "RINO" more because he criticized a top Republican, Ryan, than because of his proposals. Gingrich went against party loyalty.
Democrats have their own brand of party machinery -- you have to support the right interest groups , hispanics, blacks, women, gays, poor, or else you're out -- but Republicans make everything about party loyalty. They view loyalty to the party as the only way to defeat the policies of the bad guys (the Democrats).
redfish
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:37pm.
Both parties hate third party candidates that take away from their own voting block. Democrats felt the same way about Ralph Nader. Gingrich was declared a RINO for several reasons, including his global warming stance and pro health insurance mandates. Issues that conservatives take seriously.
Romeny, 2008, it's not like he won the nomination, so I'm not sure what your point is there.
Romney was talked about as
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 6:01pm.
Romney was talked about as the 'true conservative' in the race, and Huckabee as a liberal, while Huckabee's positions were very close to Reagan's. Romney was also the preferred alternative to McCain by the most vocal conservatives, while I'd argue he was more liberal than McCain was. What gave Romney status among conservatives is he talked the talk, mentioned Ronald Reagan in every one of his speeches, and went after everyone else as being too liberal -- playing on conservatives emotions. McCain won over Romney, but because these vocal conservatives didn't have as much clout as they thought.
The Democratic party apparatus went after Nader, but I don't think there was much hysteria about him. Republicans' attitude towards third parties is often paranoid. Polls show that Perot drew evenly from both parties in 92, then in 96 drew more from Clinton, but Republicans still use Perot as an example of how third parties are bad. The fact is that most Republicans see the fate of the country as torn between two groups, whether its Republicans vs. Democrats, or conservatives vs. liberals. Any third party is by this definition suspect.
Establishment Republicans who hate social conservatives also would rather drive them out from their party, as they're "causing their party to lose", rather than form a hypothetical libertarian-lite party, even though they claim the majority of the country agrees them. If the majority of the country supports libertarian-lite, why don't they just leave and do it already? Because they're afraid of being branded "traitors".
redfish
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:07pm.
I don't get what you're griping about. The reason people come together to form a political party is because they have similar goals and philosophies. So yes, there will be infighting among any party for control of the leadership and the message.
And from where I sit, dems were pretty darn worried about Nader getting into the 2008 election and taking votes from BO.
"I don't think its fair to
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:14pm.
"I don't think its fair to tie either the GOP or the Democratic Party today to the KKK in any way; both have rejected that."
And, to be clear, I wasn't trying to link them in the way that sounds. That IS what Coulter was doing. It is a matter of history that the Klan, in the south, was, at various points, closely aligned with the Democratic party after the Civil War, and it is a fact that the Democrats' adoption of civil rights led to a mass exodus, in the south, of racist elements from the Democratic party to the Republican party. Coulter's assertion that the people associated with the Klan groups didn't become Republicans is nonsense--literally the turning of reality on its head.
"The two parties have switched positions on many issues over time. And if we we're talking about radicalism, we might as well point to the Radical Republicans and the mob mentality of some in the abolitionist cause, including John Brown. None of that matters to politics today though."
Bingo. The parties have been all over the place over the course of their mutual histories.
"Bingo. The parties have been
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 7:34pm.
"Bingo. The parties have been all over the place over the course of their mutual histories."
I think there are some common threads though, if you want to really go into it. Republicans 100 years ago were supportive of protectionism, but at the time tariffs were thought of as pro-business and anti-labor. Being pro-business is something they inherited from the Whigs. Democrats were also more likely to support labor, they built themselves around big city party machines.
Northern Democrats were always different than Southern Democrats.. they worked together at first because labor unions in the North were in the beginning very racist and wanted to keep jobs for white workers. By the civil rights era, unions were deeply influenced by Marxist rabblerousers, so became supportive of tolerance and diversity. This eventually led to the split up and the Southern Democrats to join the Republicans, who became united against Marxism and Communism, adopted the states rights platform, and had a newfound appreciation free trade -- which was seen as a tool against the USSR. The loss of the Southern Democrats also removed all mainstream, white religious elements from the Democratic party, which once hosted pretty religious people like William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson.
I really get tired of refuting the lies.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:42pm.
Dixiecrats did not suddenly join the republican party. Either link to proof, or quit continuing the myth.
Religious oriented, states
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:01pm.
Religious-oriented states rights supporters in the South -- the heirs to the Dixiecrats -- did go to the Republican Party. That's the point I'm making ... I'm not trying to argue that all the racists and segregationists became Republicans.
Good.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:28am.
I'm glad you made that clear. I read an article in the 80s about the three de facto parties. Republican, Northern Dem and Southern Dem. The Dem parties had in common government intervention. The "conservative parties" had in common a traditionalism and a small, local government emphasis. To wit, the South enjoyed the fruits of the Highway and rural electrification projects by the government, for example, but they still were very hometown oriented folks. And with the more tumultuous weather, appreciated disaster relief and with isolated rural poverty, relief in general. The two northern parties had urbanization and modernization in common.
The South also tended to want control of the local government to control the often-feared resurgency they had created with slavery, and "to keep the black man down", as full compensation for slavery threatened their cultural stability conservatives of all stripes desire.
Thurmond became a GOPer as did some pols in that era
Submitted by Paarl on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 7:21pm.
but if you look at the broad swath of small town business people (whites) who arose in the new south they were no way connected to the old dixiecrats who represented landed gentry. The new white GOP was the new professional classes that arose in the new industries of the South...
they were not the Fulbrights..stennis russells.etc.....
paarl of Rhodesia
"They eventually recognized a
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:21pm.
"They eventually recognized a voting block they could try to control with entitlements."
It's amusing that you would make such a blatantly racist comment while trying to counter the fact that the racist elements in the Democratic party went Republican, but it does inadvertently make my own case.
Facts vs. Racism
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:04pm.
If you'll look at the numbers here, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/files/racehisp.html
you'll see that the white and black recipients of welfare are close in number, with whites receiving more. However, since there are fewer black Americans, they receive more welfare benefits as a percent of their population than whites.
Is the truth racist? Typical lib.
"scuse me?
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:01pm.
Blatantly racist? Whether you accept or deny it, the strength of the Democratic Party stems from the manipulation and control of minority voters through the promise of continued entitlements.
The truth, while sometimes painful, remains the truth.
How is that racist?
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:35am.
They did the same thing to the poor rural whites of the South! Pandering got underway in currying favor with the voting bloc of the South, and as they got one pandered-to constituency under their belt they just sought evermore groups to pander to. The south was poor post Civil War.
Sadly too many Americans respond to pandering. But it is government-will-make-it-all-alright pandering that is a signature of the left today.
as for racism
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:20pm.
I find far more overt racism among the wealthy who live in cities like LA and New York. People who say we need more abortion to prevent those stupid minorities from replicating their pointless lives. People who say a minority in the work place needs more sensitivity. People like Hillary Clinton who say an Indian guy was running a gas station in St Louis. Or Joe Biden saying you can't walk into a Dunkin Donuts without seeing minorities.
And those good old boy in the south who hate minorities? A lot of those die-hard rednecks are Democrats. They voted for Robert Byrd in West Virginia. They voted for John Edwards in North Carolina.
The world will be a better place when liberals stop lying, stereotyping, and trolling with impunity.
Just asking
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:42pm.
Can you say Robert Byrd, modern day Democrat?
Coulter
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 4:56pm.
I know she's right. History was my favorite class, in school. Palin's "Paul Revere" story was dead on, too.
I, also being an avid student
Submitted by talkradio55 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:06pm.
I, also being an avid student of history, know Coulter is right, but even I learned something from Palin's "Paul Revere" story. The Klan has always been with the Democrats, and racism is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left.
Not much of a "combat."
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:07pm.
Not much of a "combat."
The democrats stem from the
Submitted by jkwtrading on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 5:39pm.
The democrats stem from the birth of the political party of Thomas Jefferson were all slave owning. Monroe, Madison, and Jackson followed leading the entire party to slavery. the republicans emerged in 1856, 8 years before emancipation, even the idiot Stenophous should know that.
Van Buren probably was not a slave owner but by the time of his presidency he was well on his was to enslaving all of New York state dependent upon the democrats. he was the initiator or the beginner of the spoils system which makes us all dependent on the politicians mostly the democrats.
Michael King (vs MLK Jr) & Marshall
Submitted by russedav on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 7:21pm.
Both were enemies of their people and hurt them rather than helped them since both were evil, lying, liberal fascists, Michael King (vs MLK Jr), an adulterer and plaguerizer (including his dissertation (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp & http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mlk.htm)) who was a commie tool, and Marshall a lawless Constitution trashing liberal fascist, both of them having vastly more in common with the deranged godless pseudo-republic delusion that came from the French Revolution that established fierce antichristian bigotry with government approval than the profoundly different genuine God-fearing Republic that came from the American Revolution at the cost of their lives, fortunes and sacred honor (unlike the French with little of that, mostly the deranged guillotined disregard for God, truth and even life) that established humble government deference to God's Divine, True Christian Church (versus lying liberal fascist historical revisionists) that in small but significant measure continues to this day in the proper venues. Also see the above sites for why "Martin Luther King Day" is an evil stain on this Christian Republic that should be excised by people of truth who eschew the lies and demagoguery of the whoring liberal fascist left.
Still kills me that we gave
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:01pm.
Still kills me that we gave MLK jr. his own "day". Man never worked a day in his life, had a few good speeches and all the sudden he is comparable to Washington and Lincoln. That's what happens when you let liberals push you too far with threats. There are so many black American's that are so much more deserving of that mans popularity.
It really bothers you that
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:07pm.
It really bothers you that much ? You must be kidding!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:37pm.
At the time it was a big deal because it meant adding another day of pay to federal/state/city workers. That is, pay without work. Schools had to figure out if they were going to take away a day to replace for MLK or add one on.
Now it's not a big deal, but, it was a big deal to add a holiday at the time.
Did JFK get a day? Reagan?
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:44pm.
Did JFK get a day? Reagan? Roosevelt? Eisenhower? Truman? It was a big deal. Kinda like giving Obama a Nobel prize. It demeans the people who actually "earn" something.
The guy had a few good speeches (google plagarism & MLK sometime). How many war-hero's has this country seen that gave their lives for our country? Did each one of them get their own day? No, they all share Veteran's day or Memorial day. We gave ONE man, MLK, his very own day. A little strange, eh? Just think about it for one minute. Benjamin Franklin? Thomas Jefferson? Albert Einstein? Edison? Bob Hope? Susan B. Anthony day? No.
mostlymoderate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:50pm.
Zackly.
MD
I dont know, but giving MLK
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:59pm.
A day, I would hope, help the Black folks feel they belong. Would had been better if they gave Booker T a day about 80 yrs ago.
I would like to see Bob Hope get a day also.
Some want to belong. Many
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:18pm.
Some want to belong. Many others want to completely separate themselves from America. They want to be called AFRICAN-American, they want to talk in ebonics, they want to pull their pants down and expose their underwear, degrade each other with their music, make stereotypical jokes about "white" people and have their own private clubs like the NAACP, BET, Black Lawyers Association, Black Actors Association, Congressional Black Caucus, United Negro College Fund, ACORN, Black Cultural Center, Black Graduate Students Association, Circle Association, etc etc etc.
Yeah. Sorry, but things never got better. Probably never will. But I guess we should just keep giving. Maybe a black history month? Oh wait...
Things never got better? WOW.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:28pm.
Things never got better? WOW.
Things have gotten better for
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:35pm.
Things have gotten better for black people but as for white/black relations, things are still "us against them". Why else do you think 92% black would vote for Obama simply because he is portrayed as "one of them"? Imagine if white people did the same thing.
mostlymoderate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:44pm.
very nice left hook - right cross combination to counter balboa's lame assed attempt at a jab.
MD
edit to include:
And if white people did the same thing, i.e., vote for their own, Obama would not have been elected. That did not happen, which puts the lie to so much of the "racist" BS touted by liberal Dems.
There is no-doubt that the
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:19am.
There is no-doubt that the Clintons were left-wing Democrats. For many years, they were extremely popular with the black vote. Then, in the primaries leading up to the 2008 election, Obama won the black vote 9 to 1. Therefore, no matter what kind of background a Clinton had in trying to win-over the black population, the black voters in America still chose a nobody-never-heard-of-half-Kenyan two-year senator simply on the basis that he had more "color" in him than Mrs. Clinton.
I don't like the Clinton's but I can't believe the 9 to 1 ratio in favor of Obama over Hillary. Shocks the conscience. That shows me that race-relations are still very weak whether we acknowledge it or not.
I disagree. Look at how many
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:49pm.
I disagree. Look at how many more interracial relationships and marriages there are now? That never would have happened in the '60s.
There is -- and might always be -- SOME degree of white versus black in our society.
So, bal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:11pm.
the disappearance of miscegenation as a crime is your example validating the voiding of bad black/white interplay?
There is, and always will be, not might be, some degree of white versus black in our society.
Human nature is seldom perfect; and long to change.
There is, and always will be, black animus towards whites in our society until it is accepted that blacks initially enslaved fellow blacks before selling them to white slavers and white slave owners.
There is racism on both sides of the black/white color spectrum and I believe liberalism exacerbates, rather than addresses, the problem.
MD
MD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:21pm.
Good point about the selling of slaves. What Speilberg forgot to put into his movie Amistad was that the slave who led the rebellion aboard the ship and was set free after a trial, he went back to Africa and became a slave dealer. Yep, he sold other African's to white men.
It's about time black people accepted their role in the whole slavery issue.
Radical and Matthew, Well
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:36am.
Radical and Matthew,
Well said! Blacks, Africans, sold each other into slavery! Yes, the Europeans bought them. But African tribes would have wars and the losing tribe would be enslaved by the winning tribe and when the Europeans came around, the winning African tribe would sell them into slavery. Yes, there were Europeans who destroyed villages and kidnapped men, women and children for slavery, but this was NOT the majority of the slave trade.
I have had the slave debate with many. Of course it always end up with the Liberal calling me a sell out and that they can't believe that as a Latino I am a Conservative. It never cease to amaze me, as I tell them, how they want minorities to be mindless mass "thinkers", but I digress.
There is also the "small", but real fact that Arabs, Muslims, were much bigger slave traders of Africans than Europeans. Yet, one never hears black leaders asking for reparations from the Muslims.
Today, we have a whole party that thrives and lives off dividing human beings in the USA into different races. The Democratic party politicians, pundits and political leaders NEED racism to thrive, to be alive in the USA. The Democratic party would cease to exist, individuals like Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton would be irrelevant, without power and millions in money, without influence over masses of people if racism ended in the USA. This is the reason why racism has not ended. Of course, this plays right into our fallen human nature which finds it impossible to ever take responsibility for our short comings. It is easier to blame something you can't control than to look in the mirror and tell yourself, "It is me. The problem is me and I control myself, my destiny and who I am". this is a message that some in the black community have attempted to preach, Bill Cosby and others. But they are quickly attacked and shut-down. Racism, without it the Democratic party would cease to have power and control over so many.
Institutional Black Slavery
Submitted by ahusser on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:11pm.
Was the last in a long human chain of Slavery encompassing all Races, Creeds and ethnicities in all parts of the Globe for the last 5000 plus or minus years. As I have just looked up the word slave and comes from "Slav". When I last looked Slav's were white folks.
Slavery was a big deal in the South up to its forced abolishment during the Civil War because it was so entwined in the societal values, politics, mores and economy of the South that it became institutionalised and was rabidly defended.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English sclave < Medieval Latin sclāvus (masculine), sclāva (feminine) slave, special use of Sclāvus Slavic, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages; see Slav
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Well the libtards love to break us up into little groups
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:31pm.
And guess what, it works. Besides Black history month and any affirmative action product, I really dont care.
Also, I still call them black. I found Jamaicans and other islanders do not like being called Africans
Guess I should give my disclamer
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:43pm.
I sure do not appreciate the way the fed bullied States into recognizing it. I think this about all holidays. Here in Southern Louisiana, we take off 2 days for Mardi Gras. The States, and their folks should decide who get recognized.
Heck IF I WERE VA I MIGHT RECOGNIZE ROBERT E LEE !
Boudin
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:00am.
You mean White Guilt Month. Nothing but how bad we had treated everyone of color. It was true but I am tired of the left beating that dead horse. In reality it is about keeping the divisions between races front and center for the leftist/dem/lib agenda. What are we supposed to do about it. Allow blacks affirmative action, give them Martin Luther King day. Oh we already did that? You want to see lib guilt on parade just watch a few episodes of History (liberal) Detectives or any Ken Burns documentary.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I heard that MLK day
Submitted by American.Patriot on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:21pm.
was proposed and lobbied by the sky resort industry to give people another day off to enjoy the winter sports and generate revenue during the slow winter months.
Don't know if its true.
Got to say that it is tiring to see people get special treatment without having to earn it. Just like The One, couple of empty rhetoric speeches and platitudes and the undereducated masses vote the dimwit POTUS.
Chewed that lying little
Submitted by Semus on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:33am.
Chewed that lying little B*****d up and spite him out. She was too smart for him and didn't let ANY of his misinformation stand. They, the left always floods the gates with misinformation with the hope that some will remain unchallenged Ann Coulter doesn't let that happen. She knows if a lie allowed to stand it becomes true...to dumbbells, and those who won't check anything out for themselves.
Coulter needs to really work on objective analysis.....
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 3:58am.
Her pathologically partisan antipathy toward the Left, liberalism and Democrats sometimes interferes with her capacity to grasp even the most rudimentary and easily accessible historical details.
While the assertion by Stephanopoulos that the Klan started out Democratic but "quickly turned" is absurd, Ann's suggestion that it was "never Republican" is equally ludicrous. As a matter of fact, during the period of its most dominant influence and prolific membership--the1920's-- the Klan was primarily a Midwestern phenomenon and appealed to Democrats and Republicans alike. Indeed, in Indiana, the geographical epicenter of Klan power, Coulter might be surprised to learn the organizational hierarchy was inextricably linked with Republican politics.
There is no denying the virtually exclusive relationship between the KKK and the Democratic party which endured for generations in the South. But the ideological contours of that Democratic party bear little resemblance to those of the modern and far more "liberal" party of the past half-century. Examine the platform of the Knights (which is just another iteration of the contemporary Klan). Out of about fifty principle statements, there are only two or three which could be readily and reasonably associated with progressive philosophy.
The present-day Klan is fractured, effete and generally despised. I am sure among its dwindling ranks are Democrats, Republicans, misguided zealots, racists, nihilists, kooks, and a crazy quilt of assorted political affiliations and beliefs. Broad and gratuitous generalizations designed to smear either major party with KKK slime are inflammatory and unfair.
Jer
So, when it was in sissypants ineffectual mode...
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 8:18am.
...there was Republicans in it. But during the violent lynching murdering horrid horrible days during Reconstruction, it was 100% Democrat through and through. And now, it is just loons that claim a party membership but the actual parties want nothing to do with them.
Did I read Uncle Jer correctly there?
Not exactly, but pretty
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 2:56pm.
Not exactly, but pretty much...although the "lynching" era lasted well beyond Reconstruction.
Jer
I wonder if Jer thinks there are Republicans---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 12:54am.
and conservatives in the New Black Panther Community Outreach Organization?
MD
Black Panther Repubs?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:12am.
Only a few...and they're generally pretty easy to spot.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:10am.
that's Pelosi on the right, Schumer to her right, and Harry Reid on the far left.
I think the tall dude is Ted Danson, Whoopi Goldberg's ex-inamorata.
Not a Republican in the bunch.
MD
And I'm sure
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:31am.
he thinks their names are Ryan, Cantor and more.....
Hey, Jer, you made mention of the Indiana Klan, who was D.C. Stephenson, and what party did he belong to? Just curious.
Reply below.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:49am.
Sorry.
Jer
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:51am.
Grand Dragon of the Indiana KKK. Originally a Democrat, Stephenson switched to GOP in 1924 and backed Republican Governor Walker.
Jer
Sorry, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:18am.
I read your link, but didn't see anything referring to Walker and Stephenson, or Stephenson switching parties. Maybe I'm just tired, or it's the pain-killer kicking in(back injury).
That's okay, UpNorth. Hope your back gets better.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:38am.
It's at the end of the second paragraph under "Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan".
http://Encouraged by his success, in September 1923, Stephenson severed his ties with the existing national organization of the Ku Klux Klan, and formed a rival Ku Klux Klan. Stephenson changed his affiliation from the Democratic to the Republican Party. He notably supported Republican Edward L. Jackson when he ran (successfully) for governor in 1924.
Jer
Where was the part about the murder conviction the next year?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:38am.
And how dealing with the not quite humans drove him to it?
Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:42am.
It's in the secret diaries of the Indiana KKK and the Krazed Konservative Killers.
G'Knight...
Uncle Jer
The KKK came to be after the
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:22am.
The KKK came to be after the Civil War and it was considered the militant wing of the Democratic party. That is, it was the Far Left, in today's terms, of the Democratic party of back then.
Look up the Presidential Elections of 1868. In New Orleans alone the KKK murdered over 200 black Republicans. They then forced the people of New Orleans who voted to vote for the Democratic party candidate. This scene was repeated in many souther towns, villages and counties.
Liberals like Jer can say whatever they want, but the KKK's roots/beginnings are clear cut Democratic party. As always, Liberals, when history doesn't favor their political party, play the moral equivalency game of Republicans did it too! It never fails!
The KKK did appeal to some Republicans, but it was NEVER Republican, as Jer claims. On the other hand, the KKK was FULLY and 100% Democratic party. So, Jer is speaking, as always, in half-truths and confusing historical facts in order to make the KKK seem both a Republican party and a Democratic party problem. This couldn't be farther from the truth!
"That is, it was the Far
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:48am.
"That is, it was the Far Left, in today's terms, of the Democratic party of back then."
No, the Klan was always the far right, a despicable reactionary fringe. That's what renders so astonishing the remarks by so many of the conservatives who, in this thread, have attempted to associate the Klan and its politics with the left, and even present-day liberals. It would be the equivalent of insisting the modern Republican party is the party of the North American Man Boy Love Association. It isn't just empty--it's a vacuum of ignorance that is jaw-dropping. You would have done well to read Jer's link to the platform of the Knights party. It's only one of the many modern iterations of the Klan, but its politics (minus the two or three points that could be considered progressive), are absolutely typical of the Klan's politics going all the way back to its early days, and, with the overt racial elements removed, would be indistinguishable from what we hear from most Republican politicians today. That doesn't mean that, as you put it, the Klan is a problem for the Republicans. It just means they have always been ideologically aligned with the most conservative political elements.
"Liberals like Jer can say whatever they want, but the KKK's roots/beginnings are clear cut Democratic party."
Here's what Jer, in fact, said above: "There is no denying the virtually exclusive relationship between the KKK and the Democratic party which endured for generations in the South." You should try reading before responding--you'll embarrass yourself less that way.
"So, Jer is speaking, as always, in half-truths and confusing historical facts in order to make the KKK seem both a Republican party and a Democratic party problem."
Actually, he clearly said the KKK isn't a problem for either party. To quote him again: "The present-day Klan is fractured, effete and generally despised. I am sure among its dwindling ranks are Democrats, Republicans, misguided zealots, racists, nihilists, kooks, and a crazy quilt of assorted political affiliations and beliefs. Broad and gratuitous generalizations designed to smear either major party with KKK slime are inflammatory and unfair." So, again, read before responding.
I should add that Jer can, of course, speak for himself. It's just that I was up, and thought "why not?"
Hey libtard. Do you like getting beat with the stupid stick?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:23am.
No one is reading a word of your crap. YOU LIED TO US. LIED RIGHT IN OUR FACES AND THEN SPIT THAT NASTY LIBTARD SLIMY SPIT RIGHT IN OUR FACES.
We.
Will.
Never.
Read.
A.
Word
Of.
Yours.
Again.
Now answer the question
Why can't you learn the simple lessons every child learns about LYING?
Cyril Connolly shrewdly noticed a fashion for radical politics during the 1930s among those who "hated their father or were unhappy at public school or insulted at the customs or worried about sex."
The money is on daddy issues. All you trolls seem to have daddy issues.
Anybody have a NB Style Guide to loan ClassicDummy here?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 8:32am.
Hey Dummy: you notice ANYONE else here constantly block-quoting from the post they're replying to? It's really annoying. Everyone can read. Just type your response without all the quoting.
The subject line of my post was Anybody have a NB Style Guide to loan ClassicDummy here?
So of course you will respond "Anybody have a NB Style Guide to loan ClassicDummy here?"
So now we have two identical subject lines, don't we? It's confusing and eats bandwidth.
Learn the etiquette.
classicLiberal, With a name
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 9:08am.
classicLiberal,
With a name like "classicLiberal" no wonder you are as wrong as radical Liberal Jer.
1) WRONG! there KKK is not merely, "virtually exclusive relationship between the KKK and the Democratic party which endured for generations in the South" as Jer claims. It was EXCLUSIVELY, without the virtual!, a Democratic party problem when it began! it began as the militant wing of the Democratic party. Right wing Democratic party? LOL says who, you?! the Marxist professors who taught you this nonsense, who were racist also? or the Wikipedia link that Jer put up which can be edited by my two year old daughter?
Far Left wingers in the Democratic party are some of the most racist individuals that I have ever run into! As a Latino, minority. I have NEVER experienced racism from a Republican, RINO, Conservative or Far Right. However, I have experienced plenty of racism from Far Left wingers.
The Left in America which is full of White Guilt and treats us Latinos and Blacks as their pet projects to get elected.
The Left in America who sees Latinos and Blacks as groups that can be stepped on in order to get into political power.
The KKK didn't merely represent a fringe group in the Democratic party when it began. It was MAIN stream Democratic party when it began. It carried out the violent and dirty work which Democratic party members wanted accomplished. Eventually with all the violence, murdering that it did, it became fringe, but it was NOT Right wing Democratic Party as so many Liberals so desperately attempt to claim.
Who says that the KKK was far Right Democratic? You, racist Left wingers, racist Marxists? Are you aware that Marxist, Communist, which is the Far Left in the USA, in Russia, in China, in Cuba, in N. Korea are racist who slaughter people merely because they are not of the same race?
I guess these FAR Leftist, Marxist, Communist in USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea are also Right wingers, right? Far Left....read up on the WEathermen and the other far Leftist groups in the USA. Read up on the very racist Latino group, far Left too, called La RAza, or Brown Berets. Or the far Left group known as the Black Panthers, today they go by The New Black Panthers. I can give you countless of other violent, racist far Left groups which slowly, but surely replaced the KKK.
Liberals are so desperate to change history, to make Liberalism look good that you are willing to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.
Did you just seriously claim that my comparison is like claiming that NAMBLA And the Republican party have some type of relatinoship?! WOW! WOW!!!
Jaw dropping ignorance? yes, in 99% of Liberals. That is why Liberals are Liberals lack of knowledge, lack of knowing their history. Pure, uninterrupted ignorance leads to becoming a Liberal!
The KKK came directly, exclusively from the Democratic Party!!! Not virtually, not almost, not part of it, The KKK, all of its beginnings are Democratic Party. Not a fringe group as it is taught in colleges in the USA. it was main stream.
NAMBLA beginnings have NOTHING to do with the Republican Party. The Fringe Republicans did not beginning it. NOTHING Republican began NAMBLA. WOW!!!
Talk about Jaw dropping ignorance. WOW, WOW, WOW!!!
Seriously, if you are going to correct someone, please make sure you know something about something and that your analogies make sense and are on point. Your analogy is not only idiotic and moronic, it is quite disturbing.
2) Jer is 100% wrong and now you, classicalliberal, when he claims that the KKK is the problem of neither party. The KKK is the problem of the Democratic party. Without the Democratic party, there wouldn't have been a KKK. Oops logic not your forte, eh? Sen. Byrd a prominent and recent Democratic party member, adored and embraced by Leftists, was a KKK member, was he not? If you need me to, I can link you to Liberals excusing Byrd's KKK membership!
and yes, today, the Democratic party still panders and divides on race as it once did through the KKK. Back in 1868 it did it by demonizing blacks and not allowing blacks to vote. Today, the tune is the same, but it has change from demonizing blacks to demonizing whites. Divide and conquer, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Luis Gutierrez, Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Weiner, ALL of the prominent Democratic party politicians, ALL of the Liberal politicians and pundits play on the race card in order to get people to vote Democratic party. The Democratic party incites AND excuses the violence of minority groups by claiming that it is the fault of Whites! and do not tell me for a second this is not the case since I have debated high ranking Rainbow Pus Coaltion, Black Panther, La Raza members who are high ranking Democratic party politicians within Chicago and other Democratic party held cities. They ALL excuse Latino and Black violence and countless of them welcome it in order to exert change in our society!
I sat in countless classes during my college years in which Left wing professors, 99% of the professors I had, excused and some even embraced the violence that minorities perpetrate against each other and against whites. Excusing it and claiming that the violence was necessary and a reaction to whites stepping on Latinos and Blacks. Professors who called for violent actions in my college when the university change its policy of allowing minorities to register for classes first before anyone else.
and here is another shocker for you and I have zero doubt that like a good very poorly informed Liberal you will no doubt deny it.
Fascism, Nazism IS a Far Left ideology, it is a form of socialism. The Left wing in America and around the world holds the record on violence, on killing people to get their way, to get their political policies enacted.
but don't worry, you have been programmed and brainwashed, by Marxist radical professors in college, Liberal pundits to believe that Fascism is Far Right wing (which of course the Far Right has its own radical issue which are terrible too). No son, no my young fool, Fascism is government control, it is different government control than communism, but at the end fascism and communism are both socialist, Leftist, in nature.
So, nice attempt at correcting me, but all you did is make a fool out of yourself, ridicule yourself.
Jer speaks in half-truths all the time and he loves to play the game of "Republicans do it too..." when ever Democrats are literally caught with their pants down. Go look at all the Weiner forums on NB.
You should attempt to at least get an elementary school education before you reply to anyone. But thanks for playing.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:22pm.
Please go back and reread my posts. As usual you have completely mischaracterized my comments. There is NOTHING which I posted which is inaccurate.
Work on your reading comprehenision. You are embarrassing yourself.
Jer
edit. On second thought, don't even bother. I can see exactly where this is heading. You'll repeat your absurd accusations. I'll patiently explain my original comments to you. You'll respond that I'm back pedaling and moving the goal posts instead of just admitting I was wrong.
It's the same, tiresome MO that I and others have had to put up with for years when dealing with you, so I won't be wasting my time with yet another pointless episode. I suggest you not waste yours either.
Jer, LOL....with the same
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:54pm.
Jer,
LOL....with the same old and tiresome, "I did not say what you claim I said!" even though it is in black and white for everyone to see.
yes, Jer, get all huffy and puffy and have your fake indignation. As usual, you get caught in your half-truths and claim it isn't so. You are truly a Liberal in how you debate in the half-truths you put out and in your fake indignation when your half-truths are called out.
don't worry, I know you too well also. Everything I said in my posts is 100% accurate, what you said in yours are half-truths used by Liberals like you to confuse people.
Work on your history and being a lot less of a partisan hack, you are embarrassing yourself.
and what are you crying about anyone supposedly mischaracterizing your words. LOL this is what lawyers like you do for a living!! LOL
Psssst. The GOP. They are not quite human.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:24am.
You know that right? Switching to the GOP is prolly what drove him to to that murder the following year 1925 when he was convicted of all the murderin'. Shortest stint in the GOP on record. Sometimes I feel like doin' crazy stuff too being a GOPer. I ain't quite human either.
No need to leave it at that.
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 2:52am.
No need to leave it at that. The KKK in Indiana (as in a lot of the midwest) was aligned with the Republican party (the Democrats being the party of Catholics, Jews, and immigrants), and, for a time, Stephenson practically WAS the Indiana Republican party--you didn't get elected as a Republican until you signed on with him. The Republican machinery he put in place in the state was extremely corrupt, and when Ed Jackson, the governor he had elected, didn't pardon him for his horrific rape and brutalization of a state official who made the mistake of being a liberal teacher who ran a literacy program and didn't find his Klan leadership a turn-on, he took revenge by spilling the beans about them--he took a boatload of party elected officials down with him. Fortunately, all of this helped put the state Klan in decline.
You are quite stupid aren't you?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:22am.
You still after how many posts don't understand. YOU LIED TO US. Are you lying now? How do we know? WE CAN'T KNOW. That is why you do not lie. YOU CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED AGAIN.
But that is a lesson you learn when your age is still measured in the single digits. And yet YOU FAILED to learn this one tiny lesson. Why?
Cyril Connolly has the answer. Which among these do you count as your reason(s) -
Cyril Connolly shrewdly noticed a fashion for radical politics during the 1930s among those who "hated their father or were unhappy at public school or insulted at the customs or worried about sex."
Radical politics and trolls, Mr. Connolly. As 95% of all trolls here have father issues, I am guessing that is it.
How is it goin' momma's boy?
~On the KKK being exclusively Democratic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:38pm.
I recently read the first half dozen of the Elsie Dinsmore book series. The books were written between 1867 and 1905, so you can be sure that the author was a witness of the politics and events of the time. You can also be sure that she wasn't a rabid right wingnut trying to re-write history, she was simply giving her fictional characters a real life setting in the Reconstruction South.
The following is an excerpt from chapter 12 of this book..
That the Ku Klux Klan was a political organization working in the interests of the Democratic party, their words to their victims left no doubt. The latter were told that they were punished for belonging to the Union League or for favoring the Republican party or using their influence in its behalf, and threatened with severer treatment if they dared vote its ticket or persuade others to do so.
The outrages were highly disapproved by all Republicans and by most of the better class in the opposite party; but many were afraid to express their opinions of the doings of the Klan, lest they should be visited with its terrors; while for the same reason, many of its victims preferred to suffer in silence rather than institute proceedings, or testify against their foes.
That's interesting, Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 4:49pm.
Except NOBODY is disputing that--certainly not I. I grew up in the South. I've studied its history and the roots and role of the Klan in post-Civil War Reconstruction and beyond, and its unique relationship with the Democratic party in that region which persisted well into the 20th century.
Please don't allow Liberallies typical, cynical and outrageous twisting of my words persuade you that I am suggesting otherwise.
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:03pm.
I'm specifically refuting this bonehead..
No, the Klan was always the far right, a despicable reactionary fringe. That's what renders so astonishing the remarks by so many of the conservatives who, in this thread, have attempted to associate the Klan and its politics with the left, and even present-day liberals.--classicalmoron2
"I'm specifically refuting
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:17pm.
"I'm specifically refuting this bonehead"
You neither do that with your excerpt, nor can you do it with any excerpt from any reputable source. I accurately described the politics of the Klan.
"Hey ClassicDummy:"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:24pm.
"didn't I instruct you to knock off with the annoying, incessant block quoting earlier today?"
You see ANYBODY else here doing that constantly?
oh please
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:24pm.
Jer disagrees with you. George Stephanopoulos disagrees with you. Every single biography about Nathan Bedford Forest that's ever been written disagrees with you.
~Thanks for the laugh
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:26pm.
You couldn't accurately describe your way out of a color coded parking deck, you fact-challenged partisan hack.
OMO!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:56pm.
A reinfestation of loser liberal trolls.
It never ends.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~J
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 5:58pm.
This one is either Satchmo's little sister, or his back-up account.
Alas, Bru
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 6:09pm.
.....we can expect a new batch of ADK's shortly as well.
What do they not understand about "leave, don't come back?"
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~It's our fault
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 6:19pm.
Our animal magnetism is irresistible. We conservatives must stop being so damn awesome.
Wrathful Brunetee, Well
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 6:43pm.
Wrathful Brunetee,
Well stated! and the thing is that today, it continues with the Democratic party. The division of people along racial lines is no different than what the KKK was doing back when it began.
and I as a Conservative Latino who has voted many times Republicans, I have experienced first hand the vile, disgusting attacks from the Left who love to call mea "house n...ger", a "sell out", an "uncle tom" because I dared vote Republican. Similar horrific attacks which have been experienced by Latinos and Blacks who vote Republican.
Furthermore, the violence is still well enbeded in the Democratic party. the 1960s riots, how crazy the Left wing demonstrators go during G7 submits and other submits.
What Liberals must answer who claim violence no longer prevails in the Democratic party is why are far Left wingers so attracted to the Democratic party. During college and now during my job, the violent, full of violent rhetoric, left wingers naturally gravitate to the Democratic party. They are enamored with Barack Obama. They defend William Ayers and the likes.
Brown Berets, New Black Panther, DemocracyNow!, La Raza and countless of other violent organizations are part and make up a huge number of Democratic party supporters/voters.
and I still say that Jer is attempting to white wash Democratic party history and the KKK. I will grant him that today's KKK is not 100% the same that started right after the Civil War, but to claim that it is not a Democratic party problem, I believe is not accurate.
and of course, classicalLiberal2 with his ridiculous claim that the KKK aligns best with today's Republican values is the typical radical, wacko, manipulative, revisionist history from the Left.
Classic idiot
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 3:43am.
You're arguing the klan's idealogy?
You still haven't adequately addressed you absurd assertion that the racist left suddenly turned right.
Here, let me point you in the right direction.
You really should bow out gracefully from one debate before showing your ass in another.
You only showed that you
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 9:48am.
You only showed that you either are ignorant of the history of the KKK or are deliberately revising history dishonestly.
Jer, You claimed, or am I
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 6:28pm.
Jer,
You claimed, or am I wrong, that the KKK was neither a Republican or Democratic party problem. Did you not say this? Yes you did. I am sorry the KKK is clearly a Democratic party problem.
You further claimed that the clan was virtually exclusively Democratic. Correct me if I am wrong, and I will admit to such since English is my second language. But how I read the "virtually" in your sentence is that it was almost, but not all exclusively Democratic.
I am sorry if I came out too strong with my first posts as I usually do. As a Conservative who is a minority, I get very tired of Liberals attempting to twist the history of the KKK in order to make it seem as if Republicans today would fit well with its agenda.
It did not help that very ignoranat classicalLiberal chimed in with the typical Left wing propaganda about the KKK and Republicans.
Jer, I promise you that if you show me where I misinterpreted you, I will concede. It was very late last night, well pas 2am CST, I had had too much coffee and I could not sleep. So, go for it. I will be very civil with you just like I have been as of late with mamabear and hydro.