'Pedia War on USA- Wikipedia, that is

[freedombecki]

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.

Wait till you see what wiki had to to do over their science division over all the lying mother truckers that were on board over global warming.

Head honcho finally had to resign after we rocked his soul. It's a bullshit site.

Thanks for telling me, tinydancer. I didn't know that. Maybe they have a bad habit of omitting whatever they feel like omitting over there. When I looked up the Civil Rights Act of 1957, what the inscription said, and what was in their first 10 paragraphs did not jive, and I could not find the word "Republican" yesterday. I was just making a case. I wonder if our board's Democrats are having the same problem. I really was being one-sided yesterday.

 

[freedombecki]

Hmm. I went to wikepedia Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and saw plenty of references to Republicans.

Thanks, zzzz. Sorry, but I didn't get up to that high of a year. My post was staggering in its length by the time I got to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I couldn't take it any more, but I'm glad you saw plenty of references. The word "Republican" had been omitted from where it should have been in the
Bing and Google browsers I used yesterday. Both of them came up with the same page. I had already looked up amendments 13, 14, 15, etc. and after 2 hours of having to read 10 websites apiece just to find the one that bothered to mention the trouble the Republicans went to to pass amendments so black people could never be enslaved again (13), have the same rights, vote as, and women could too, to show the agony the Republicans went through to get people their rights, I just couldn't go any further through the years and figured a post the size of the NYT front page was long enough.

Not really, just sayin' I was worn out on the topic and told myself, "hold, enough."

 

[freedombecki]

Well you I don't have any problem with you. I think you're a-okay in my book.

You ain't gonna hate me if I disagree with ya sometimes..

I really can't say except, I've never hated anybody for saying what is truly in their heart about any given issue except character assassination, and you don't seem to be the type since you have the habit of welcoming just about everyone who comes to the board without hammering them about one thing or another ....

Well I only "bite back".

Never bite first.

That's seems to be as good as it gets, Mr. Sallow

I don't generally bite first, either, unless one of the truly dumb bunnies goes after someone who doesn't deserve it.

 

[California Girl]

Well you I don't have any problem with you. I think you're a-okay in my book.

You ain't gonna hate me if I disagree with ya sometimes..

I really can't say except, I've never hated anybody for saying what is truly in their heart about any given issue except character assassination, and you don't seem to be the type since you have the habit of welcoming just about everyone who comes to the board without hammering them about one thing or another ....

Well I only "bite back".

Never bite first.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Liar.

 

[editec]

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.)

FWIW, I believe the first African slaves in the Western Hemiphere were brought to by the Spaniards in the early 16th century.

That minor issue about history aside, it is a valid complaint when no mention is made of the Republican Party's role in the first civil rights movement.

Of course the fact that the Civil War's primary purpose was NOT to free the slaves deserves note, as well.

I'm informed that anybody who cares to join the fray can edit WIKI so perhaps it is up to YOU to do so?

 

[freedombecki]

I really can't say except, I've never hated anybody for saying what is truly in their heart about any given issue except character assassination, and you don't seem to be the type since you have the habit of welcoming just about everyone who comes to the board without hammering them about one thing or another ....

Well I only "bite back".

Never bite first.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Liar.

Were you bitten or bitin'?

 

[freedombecki]

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.)

FWIW, I believe the first African slaves in the Western Hemiphere were brought to by the Spaniards in the early 16th century.

That minor issue about history aside, it is a valid complaint when no mention is made of the Republican Party's role in the first civil rights movement.

Of course the fact that the Civil War's primary purpose was NOT to free the slaves deserves note, as well.

I'm informed that anybody who cares to join the fray can edit WIKI so perhaps it is up to YOU to do so?

Sad to say it, it wasn't the Spaniards. It was the Dutch, Virginia, 1619.

You have to remember, the Colonists were constantly fussing with the Spanish. It's too bad. You oughta see the collection of Spanish paintings from the 14th century at Ponce, Puerto Rico. One of the small paintings dated in the 1300s was so very beautiful, even after yellowing with 6 centuries and being not much more than a foot tall and half yard wide, it brought a tear to my eye. I very much love beautiful paintings of yesteryear.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

The part you entirely don't get is that civil rights should not be a Republican v. Democrat (or even a political) issue at all. It's a moral issue.

The fact that you're now trying to make it one, begs the question: What have Republicans done since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to show their support? They hate affirmative action; they hate "welfare" programs that create an umbrella for poverty-stricken black people; the hate school integration and do everything in their power to reduce funding for public schools period. And more. Their record sucks.

 

[Sallow]

I really can't say except, I've never hated anybody for saying what is truly in their heart about any given issue except character assassination, and you don't seem to be the type since you have the habit of welcoming just about everyone who comes to the board without hammering them about one thing or another ....

Well I only "bite back".

Never bite first.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Liar.

Straight face and clear conscience..

There were a handful of times I bit first. But when that was pointed out..I apologized.

You ain't one of those cases.

As shown time and time again.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Let's be honest here. Both Nixon and Lincoln would be considered rinos by today's "conservative" standards.

 

[Sallow]

Well I only "bite back".

Never bite first.

Did you type that with a straight face?

Liar.

Were you bitten or bitin'?

More like smitten..by a kitten..with a mitten..

 

[MaggieMae]

Hmm. I went to wikepedia Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and saw plenty of references to Republicans.

And I Googled "Republican contributions to the civil rights movement" and up popped a whole bunch of stuff, some written several years ago by NewsMax attempting to make the same points as the OP here.

Republican contributions to the civil rights movement - Google Search

 

[MiddleClass]

The Republican Party sure has come a long way from its roots as a party for the people. Now its a party for the Corporations, unless you consider corporations as people? ha lol

 

[freedombecki]

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.

The part you entirely don't get is that civil rights should not be a Republican v. Democrat (or even a political) issue at all. It's a moral issue.

The fact that you're now trying to make it one, begs the question: What have Republicans done since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to show their support? They hate affirmative action; they hate "welfare" programs that create an umbrella for poverty-stricken black people; the hate school integration and do everything in their power to reduce funding for public schools period. And more. Their record sucks.

Ma'am, I'm not ashamed of being a Republican, I'm proud. I'm a Republican because when I was choosing which way I would go, I couldn't forget the Democrats in my area who were punishing black people without hearings or trials.

I should not have to lose my freedom of speech, thought, and access to correct historical information to satisfy someone else's idea of what I oughtta think, read, and see.

When that happens, it's worse than bowing to a King George of England. My grandma taught me not to ever bow because if I did I might have to serve another tyrant.

I'm not bowing to Wikipedia's errors of omissions.

 

[freedombecki]

Did you type that with a straight face?

Liar.

Were you bitten or bitin'?

More like smitten..by a kitten..with a mitten..

She is beautiful.

 

[freedombecki]

The Republican Party sure has come a long way from its roots as a party for the people. Now its a party for the Corporations, unless you consider corporations as people? ha lol

I knew a really nice couple who worked for an oil company when they came to my community and joined our church before they were fully unpacked. When they joined, the told the church that she was experienced in teaching children and he would help with administrative duties if there was a need. They were young, they worked their butts off helping with everything, and they left after only 3 years of dedicated service to the community like serving T-Day and Christmas treats at the local homeless shelter, and our little church that housed a day-care for moms of handicapped children who had to work but otherwise couldn't due to the egregious nature of their child's handicap.

He went on to be the President of a large American oil company back east somewhere, and I knew what public servants these good people were. Their heart and souls were dedicated to community wherever they went. Corporations yes, are made up of people, many of them people of service like our church member pals.

Somebody has to manage companies, or they couldn't pay people the fantastic wages that company paid out in worker wages.