'Pedia War on USA- Wikipedia, that is

Discussion in 'Politics' started by freedombecki, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Yesterday, I was answering a person's post who seemed to think none of us could find anything about Republicans feeling helpful toward underprivileged people. I thought to myself, "Doesn't he know that the Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists?"

    So I went online and placed "Republican Civil Rights" into my regular search engine. The first couple of posts were by Wikipedia, and they contained the words, "Republican" and "Civil Rights"

    When I got to Wikipedia, the term "Civil Rights" was there all right, but the word, "Republican" had been omitted.

    I thought to myself, "That's strange. I know I read "Republican" and "Civil Rights", I am making a case to defend our participation in Civil Rights, our party placed the Illinois backwoods lawyer, President Abraham Lincoln into the White House, and immediately, the Southern States, who were Democrats, were so mad that Democrats declared that they were seceding from the Union, and the Civil War within our country, sadly, started with a bang at Fort Sumpter near Charleston, South Carolina on April 12-13, 1861, and it went on for four more years costing 618,000 American lives.

    Surely it's a fluke, I told myself. Then I went back and started touching all the pullups that had the words, "Republican" and "Civil Rights." In the first 10 websites I opened, it was the same song and dance. Someone was getting in there and removing the word "Republicans."

    I was horrified. Then I did what I had to do, with no "general encyclopedic" sites showing that the Republicans had freed the slaves by allowing a civil war to start, this would allow others to tell lies about us, because in lawyer speak land, what you cannot prove with links to general information does not exist.

    I know hundreds of thousands of people up north died because Lincoln and his Republican Party insisted on freeing people bound to slavery for over 200 years. The first slaves had been brought to America in 1619, I knew, from reading Mr. Schlesinger's book that was an Almanac of American History. (It's a wonderful book, by the way.)

    Well, why did I call this thread a War on the USA, then?

    Because, if someone is excising the truth about Republicans, they will soon be messing with the contributions of Democrats, too.

    Has anything like this ever happened to you? After 3 or 4 hours I finally had my post completed.

    There's no excuse for taking out the Republican contribution to America to "prove" a political case for whoever decided to decimate Republican contributions. I found my info at Republican-safe sites.

    Is there a way we can fix this problem before people panic about online resources? Panic is not a nice thing in America. It causes nothing but trouble.

    What do you think we should do to restore the truth back at Wikipedia and the three or four other American History websites online?

    I truly want to know.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  2. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,430
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,862
    You don't lie convincingly.
     
  3. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    For a very short time..Republicans had a good amount of Liberals in the party. That's been steadily declining since the civil rights act. And you can maybe count the liberals in the Republican party on one hand now.
     
  4. Warrior102
    Offline

    Warrior102 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    16,554
    Thanks Received:
    4,019
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,029
    Deomocartic Support of the Civil Rights Act -

    The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

    Racist.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Ravi, this isn't just a Republican issue. I realize it was not big of me to try out "Democrat," but I was pressed for time.

    As for lying, I don't do that. I spent hours trying to write that post. The person I wrote it for ignored it after I posted it.

    And have you ever heard the phrase, "The truth is stranger than fiction?"

    What if someone has also done the same thing to remove Democrats' wins?

    Democrats' efforts brought America safe foods. I ought to know I've taken enough food science and am vaguely familiar with these credits as well. It wouldn't be fair of me to claim something like that in the name of the Republican party, but history shows that Republicans did in fact form as an antislavery group of people who wanted to take slavery out of the equation.

    So I request that you, as an American citizen, please be chary of someone out there who's trying to rearrange facts for any reason.

    It could be terrorists, trying to divide Americans to pave the way for our demise. I don't know what happened, but American free speech is at risk if history is rewritten.

    Sincerely,

    becki
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  6. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
  7. Warrior102
    Offline

    Warrior102 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    16,554
    Thanks Received:
    4,019
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,029
    Actually Richard Nixon did more for Civil Rights than any Democrat EVER did -

    The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South.[156] Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationist Wallace and liberal Democrats, whose support of integration was alienating some Southern whites.[157] Hopeful of doing well in the South in 1972, he sought to dispose of desegregation as a political issue before then. Soon after his inauguration, he appointed Vice President Agnew to lead a task force, which worked with local leaders—both white and black—to determine how to integrate local schools. Agnew had little interest in the work, and most of it was done by Labor Secretary George Shultz. Federal aid was available, and a meeting with President Nixon was a possible reward for compliant committees. By September 1970, fewer than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools. By 1971, however, tensions over desegregation surfaced in Northern cities, with angry protests over the busing of children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve racial balance. Nixon opposed busing personally but did not subvert court orders requiring its use.[158]

    In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.[159] He also endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment after it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and went to the states for ratification.[160] Nixon had campaigned as an ERA supporter in 1968, though feminists criticized him for doing little to help the ERA or their cause after his election, though he appointed more women to administration positions than Lyndon Johnson had.
     
  8. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Sallow, I get in trouble with both sides. Right now, I have 3 or 4 far right conservatives who never speak to me and also 3 or 4 far left likewise.

    I can't help how I am. I am a centrist who married a Republican man and joined his party in 1971 for the frivolous reason of not cancelling out his vote. Later, as I went to the polls, I found myself voting for the person I thought was best-suited to do the job at hand. My vote went this way and that.

    If I like a candidate, I vote for him. It pisses off the barracudas on both sides, but I can't help it.

    The other day, a lefty proved to me his case, and I changed how I felt about one subject. I couldn't vote the other way on that issue now if I wanted to.

    I vote my conscience.
     
  9. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
  10. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Great guy that Nixon. If it weren't for the millions dead in southeast asia, the spying on opposing candidates and the sociopath thing..he might have been a hero.

    And no..he didn't hate the jewish people..he just didn't like them much. Billy Graham ought to know..he sorta felt the same way.
     

Share This Page