ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Greedy, racist, facist evil republicans

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Dec. 22 2011, 8:14 pm

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 5:03 am

In regards to the speaker in the video’s dismissal of the idea of Republicans and Democrats switching sides on the race issue.


 


“A majority of the black vote went Democratic for the first time in 1936, following the reorganization of the Democratic Party during the elections of 1928 and 1932, when an alliance was struck between urban ethnic groups in the North and the traditionally Democratic South.  In 1935, some Northern Democrats fought a losing campaign for an anti-lynching law, in 1940, a Roosevelt-oriented Supreme Court declared the white primary unconstitional, and in 1941 FDR established a token Fair Employment Practices Commission.  These gestures were blocked by Southern Democrats and white ethnic leaders in the big cities.” (Source: the book Regulating the Poor).


 


When LBJ pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts through Congress in 1964 and 1965, he told an aide he had just “delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”  For every black voter who came into the Democratic Party after 1964 at least two white voters have switched to the Republicans over time.


 


Most white southerners abandoned the Democratic party to vote for Barry Goldwater and the GOP in 1964, since he opposed the Civil Rights Act, and for George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968, who promised a return to segregation.


Since the national Democratic Party leadership under Kennedy and Johnson had pushed strongly for an end to segregation, many prominent Jim Crow era Democrats changed their party affiliations from Democratic to Republican, starting with South Carolina's Strom Thurmond in 1964. In 1972 Trent Lott switched too, and running as a Republican, won handily.


The Senate leader of the party of Lincoln, Trent Lott was also deeply involved in the neo-Confederate movement, a motley collection of nostalgists, racists and extreme rightists. This is reflected in Lott's longtime support of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neo-Confederate outfit that grew from the white Citizens Councils, but he is also a friend and backer of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a source of increasingly virulent pro-Confederate, radical right propaganda. (These people hate Lincoln. Many of them uphold the Confederate view of the Civil War and of slavery as a God-given institution. It is remarkable that a modern Republican leader would associate with them in any way.)


 


Lott was eventually compelled to retire from his leadership position in the Senate when he heaped praise on Strom Thurmond and alluding to his segregationist break away Dixiecrat Party.


 


"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."


 


 


Republicans that have gotten themselves into trouble regarding racial slurs include  former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz.


Butz allegedy uttered the following comment while on board Air Force One during Ford's 1976 re-election campaign, "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit." American newspapers and news magazines wanted to cover this, especially after the resulting scandal resulted in his firing, but they felt that the statement was too obscene and offensive to print. The negative publicity from the statement forced Butz to resign from his post on.


 


 

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 5:06 am

Mind you, today I would not make the charge that Republicans are racists, or that all Democrats are free of racism. Still, I think it is important to set the historical record straight and see that here was not a smooth line of succession from the party of Lincoln's day through the last two thirds of the twentieth century.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 5:30 am

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500.  about Barry Goldwater:



Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."



You seem to find the comment made by Lott about Thurman troubling saying Thurman was a racist (even though he was never in the KKK, defended blacks from lynchings and the poll taxes in the South.  Yet when Chris Dodd prasied Robert Byrd ( a Keagle in the KKK) calling him "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War there was no public outcry.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 6:05 am

http://www.essencerestored.com/2010/06/28/a-story-of-change-from-the-kkk-member-to-progressive-legislator-robert-byrd/


"In his early years, Byrd would certainly have not been called a progressive. He was a former member of the KKK; in fact, one of the Grand Dragons from the KKK was the one who convinced him to first run for political office. During the 1960′s,  he joined other segregationist Senators, like Strom Thurmond from South Carolina, in an attempted block of the Civil Right’s legislation.


However, time changes people. Later, Byrd apologized for his actions on Civil Rights and later supported other Civil Right’s legislation. He also came out and endorsed Barack Obama, one week after he was heavily defeated in West Virginia by Hilary Clinton, which was a very strong and symbolic statement about the issue of race and change. He has been a critical vote in much of this administration’s agenda-specifically, health care reform. He has also spoken out against the Iraq War, when most other senators were too afraid. He also made sure to champion the cause of the workers and the poor from his state.


I think Byrd should serve as in inspiration to us. People are possibly of change, even late in their lives. We like to pigeon-hole and label people in a certain way, and we assume they are going to stay that way forever. Nevertheless, we forget the stories of people going from racism to inclusion, hate to compassion, and greed to giving. KKK members can become progressive voices for change. Terrorists can become peace activists. Criminals can become humanitarians. Sinners can become saints. In the end, Byrd will not be remembered for the mistakes he made earlier in his career as much as the strong way he ended it. No matter what our age or our circumstances, it is never to late to start again and make changes for the better."

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 6:11 am

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97


"In a nationally televised address on June 6, 1963, President John F. Kennedy urged the nation to take action toward guaranteeing equal treatment of every American regardless of race. Soon after, Kennedy proposed that Congress consider civil rights legislation that would address voting rights, public accommodations, school desegregation, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, and more.


Despite Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963, his proposal culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson just a few hours after House approval on July 2, 1964. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.


Passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, opponents attempted to talk the bill to death in a filibuster. In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval. The Senate filibuster was overcome through the floor leadership of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the considerable support of President Lyndon Johnson, and the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who convinced Republicans to support the bill."

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 6:23 am

http://core-online.org/History/voting_rights.htm


 


"The Voting Rights Act of 1965, grew out of both public protest and private political negotiation. Starting in 1961, CORE joined SCLC in staging nonviolent demonstrations in Georgia, and Birmingham. They hoped to attract national media attention and pressure the U.S. government to protect Black's constitutional rights. Newspaper photos and TV broadcasts of Birmingham's racist police commissioner, Eugene "Bull" Connor, and his men violently attacking the protesters with water hoses, police dogs, and nightsticks awakened the consciences of whites.        


 


Selma, Alabama was the site of the next campaign. In the first three months of 1965, Local residents and visiting volunteers held a series of marches demanding an equal right to vote. As in Birmingham, they met with violence and imprisonment.  In the worst attack yet, on Sunday, March 7, a group of Alabama state troopers, local sheriff's officers, and unofficial possemen used tear gas and clubs against 600 peaceful marchers. By now, the nation was watching.


 


President Lyndon B. Johnson made civil rights one of his administration's top priorities, using his formidable political skills to pass the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which outlawed poll taxes, in 1964. Now, a week after "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Johnson gave a televised speech before Congress in which he denounced the assault. Two days later, the President sent the Voting Rights bill to Congress.


 


The resolution, signed into law on August 6, 1965, empowered the federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that had used tests to determine voter eligibility or where registration or turnout had been less than 50 percent in the 1964 presidential election. It also banned discriminatory literacy tests and expanded voting rights for non-English speaking Americans.


 


The law's effects were wide and powerful. By 1968, nearly 60 percent of eligible African Americans were registered to vote in Mississippi, and other southern states showed similar improvement. Between 1965 and 1990, the number of black state legislators and members of Congress rose from two to 160. 


                                  


The Voting Rights Act was extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982…Despite some setbacks and debates, the Voting Rights Act had an enormous impact. It re-enfranchised black southerners, helping elect African Americans at the local, state, and national level." 


 



Below is a photo of Lyndon Johnson signing the 1965 Voting Rights Act with Martin Luther King and others looking on.


 







 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 7:10 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Dec. 23 2011, 6:11 am

>

class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.25pt; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; background: #f7f3eb;">http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97

class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.25pt; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; background: #f7f3eb;">"In a nationally televised address on June 6, 1963, President John F. Kennedy urged the nation to take action toward guaranteeing equal treatment of every American regardless of race. Soon after, Kennedy proposed that Congress consider civil rights legislation that would address voting rights, public accommodations, school desegregation, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, and more.

class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.25pt; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; background: #f7f3eb;">Despite Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963, his proposal culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson just a few hours after House approval on July 2, 1964. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.

class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.25pt; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; background: #f7f3eb;">Passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, opponents attempted to talk the bill to death in a filibuster. In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval. The Senate filibuster was overcome through the floor leadership of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the considerable support of President Lyndon Johnson, and the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who convinced Republicans to support the bill."

>
 A vast majority of the Republicans already supported the Civil Rights act of 1964.  Did you know that Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights act of 1957?  Did you know that the Senator filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Senator Byrd who you just prasied.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46296

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 9:49 am

Yea, I saw this video a few days ago and shared on another forum.  The problem is that history isn't taught in schools very much, and most of what is taught is politically correct instead of factual.  This means we can't learn from the mistakes of the past - we're just going to repeat them.


And now, the ProRegressives just enslave people a different way - not with physical chains and whips, but with economic chains  - vote for us and I'll redistribute wealth to you because you're too (fill in the blank) to do it yourself.  In Government we Depend!


Vulcan1981

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 2:24 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 23 2011, 9:49 am

>

>Yea, I saw this video a few days ago and shared on another forum.  The problem is that history isn't taught in schools very much, and most of what is taught is politically correct instead of factual.  This means we can't learn from the mistakes of the past - we're just going to repeat them.

>And now, the ProRegressives just enslave people a different way - not with physical chains and whips, but with economic chains  - vote for us and I'll redistribute wealth to you because you're too (fill in the blank) to do it yourself.  In Government we Depend!

>


 


I agree. I do tend to side more with the Democrats, but both of the major parties are far from having their hands clean. Nearly all politicians have their hands tied by some corporation and seek out their own agendas, they don't really care about the people they represent, they just dress it up to appear that way for the votes. Our whole political system needs a reform, starting with doing away with the out-dated electorial college and term/time limits being set on ALL public offices including the Supreme Court. Even having one type of office where someone can serve w/o limit reflects a monarchy.


You're correct where history isn't taught correctly, only political correctness where we can't truely learn from our past wrongs.


"Comforting words. Use them next time instead of "resistance is futile". You may elicit a few volunteers."- Seven of Nine

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 4:19 pm

Quote: Vulcan1981 @ Dec. 23 2011, 2:24 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 23 2011, 9:49 am

>

>

>Yea, I saw this video a few days ago and shared on another forum.  The problem is that history isn't taught in schools very much, and most of what is taught is politically correct instead of factual.  This means we can't learn from the mistakes of the past - we're just going to repeat them.

>And now, the ProRegressives just enslave people a different way - not with physical chains and whips, but with economic chains  - vote for us and I'll redistribute wealth to you because you're too (fill in the blank) to do it yourself.  In Government we Depend!

>

 

I agree. I do tend to side more with the Democrats, but both of the major parties are far from having their hands clean. Nearly all politicians have their hands tied by some corporation and seek out their own agendas, they don't really care about the people they represent, they just dress it up to appear that way for the votes. Our whole political system needs a reform, starting with doing away with the out-dated electorial college and term/time limits being set on ALL public offices including the Supreme Court. Even having one type of office where someone can serve w/o limit reflects a monarchy.

You're correct where history isn't taught correctly, only political correctness where we can't truely learn from our past wrongs.

 I can not agree with you on doing away with the electorial college.  The problem is that the 40 states in population would be ignored as they have less than half of the population thus unimportant for elections and campaigning.  We do need to update the electorial college to take the popular vote into account by giving each congressional district one electorial vote but to do away with it entirely would effectivly negate what you are trying to do not to mention the president wasn't intended to be directly elected nor were senators.


lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 5:18 pm

Quote: Vulcan1981 @ Dec. 23 2011, 2:24 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 23 2011, 9:49 am

>

>

>Yea, I saw this video a few days ago and shared on another forum.  The problem is that history isn't taught in schools very much, and most of what is taught is politically correct instead of factual.  This means we can't learn from the mistakes of the past - we're just going to repeat them.

>And now, the ProRegressives just enslave people a different way - not with physical chains and whips, but with economic chains  - vote for us and I'll redistribute wealth to you because you're too (fill in the blank) to do it yourself.  In Government we Depend!

>

 

I agree. I do tend to side more with the Democrats, but both of the major parties are far from having their hands clean. Nearly all politicians have their hands tied by some corporation and seek out their own agendas, they don't really care about the people they represent, they just dress it up to appear that way for the votes. Our whole political system needs a reform, starting with doing away with the out-dated electorial college and term/time limits being set on ALL public offices including the Supreme Court. Even having one type of office where someone can serve w/o limit reflects a monarchy.

You're correct where history isn't taught correctly, only political correctness where we can't truely learn from our past wrongs.


I have to object to the suggestion of doing away with the electorial college. Politicians focus so much on democracy, which is nothing but mob rule, but forget the other half of the equation upon which our government is based - a Republic, which protects the rights of a minority that can otherwise be voted away by the majority in a democracy. A Republic ultimately concerns itself with representation, and what good is democracy if one abandons representation and the protection of individual liberties. In our own system, the majority and minority rotate power every one or two election cycles. So in a system that focuses solely on democracy, everyone's rights become violated at some point.


The Founders understood this, and so they tempered democracy by framing it within the context of a Republic. Likewise, the electorial college is designed so that the majority of people spread over the majority of land - the states - win as opposed to a majority that could be concentrated in a relatively small area, like a city. For example, the city of LA with a populotion of nearly 4 million compared to the state of Rhode Island with a population of over a million. It makes no sense for a city to be able to determine the policy of an entire state on the opposite side of the country. The example is a simplification, but one that demonstrates the theoretical possibility of a few large populated cities determining the election for an entire state or for a union of states.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 6:17 pm

I've also got mixed thoughts on setting term limits. I can definitely understand it within the context of the executive branch, and I quite like how the Confederate Constitution set a presidential term of six years without allowing for a second term. But term limits when applied to Congress is another matter. The Presidency is a position of one where as the Congress is based on a constitutency and thus exists a greater potential checks and balances.


Terms limits presents a number of assumptions. The hopes are many... minimize the development of red tape, minimize the power of lobbyists, minimze peer pressure that results from political parties, rotates the bad people out of office, etc. But term limits ignore the potential for the reverse... they could provide politicians with the motivation to maximize their short term bargaining power to accelerate the Constitutional erosion that otherwise occurs gradually. Term limits ignore the good politicians that people may want to keep, and there's no guarantee that people will forward an equally good or better politician. And in ignoring the politicians that states may want to retain, it violates the rights of representation. The best solution would be to set term limits at the state level as opposed to the Federal level.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 7:22 pm

We should also do away with direct election of senators let them represent the state governments again.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Dec. 23 2011, 8:31 pm

Sorry but you've got it all backwards. Democrats are the ones who are greedy and evil. All they care about it staying in power. And don't get me started on racism. I'm happy that everything in Star Trek works, but we also have to remember that Star Trek is also fantasy.


It's not racism if it's true...


 


And there are certain characteristics that fit any race or culture on this planet. That does not make someone evil for pointing that out. It's like saying that you hate all dogs if you claim a dog marks it's territory? With our common day logic, is that not a form of racism? Or is it simply a well known fact?


Democrats are the ones who want taxes raised to the point that nobody can live so they can give your money away to people who are too lazy to work, all because they think you the worker are too stupid and you won't spend it properly. Who the heck are they to tell us how we can or cannot spend our own money that we have earned?


Republicans are not greedy. Republicans are the ones who want lower taxes and want you to be able to get a job and support yourself. What republicans do NOT believe in is free give away programs.


It's one thing to help someone in need who isn't capable of working. It's another thing entirely to have to give up your money that you had to go and earn to someone who wants to lay on the couch every day and not do anything.


I rest my case, Democrats are evil not Republicans. Republicans are just too stupid to run someone who can win, and Democrats will go to any lengths neccessary to keep their power. Which is the ONLY reason why Democrats keep their power at all. It's not because the people want them, it's because they lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Which is a weak United States filled with ignorant citizens who are too stupid to think for themselves anymore. In some ways Democrats are truely no different from the Borg.


Live Long and Prosper

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum