Real Racism: A History of the Democratic Party

[buckeye45_73]

I hear of Liberal Democrats championing the causes of racial and gender equality in America today, while admirable, they have ignored their own history. Now, for a little history lesson. Let's do a little research shall we? Let us see who has been more detrimental to the causes of equality. Pay attention students, there will be a quiz at the end of this essay!

During the 1860s, Southern Democrats continually advocated the use of slavery. It took a Republican to slay these racial demons with the 13th Amendment. A major advocate of this being Frederick Douglass, a black Republican abolitionist, diplomat and former slave from Maryland.

During Antebellum, racial equality was continually hampered even after the 13th Amendment's passage; by Democrats who were taking ever increasing majorities in local, state and federal offices, especially during the 1880's. This eventually led to the instatement the Jim Crow laws. In 1875, attempts were made by Republicans to break Jim Crow, it was however, thwarted by Democrats. It was during this time the Democratic Party gave birth to the KKK.

For nearly a century, Jim Crow ruled over the land with an iron fist. Nary a black man anywhere could be treated equally, because of the racial hatred of the Democratic Party. These laws were finally ended by the Supreme Court Decision of 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Ironically, in 1963, it was Democrats who launched major opposition to the Equal Pay Act, which effectively ended the gender pay disparity in the workplace.

In 1964, Democrats were once again fighting to stop racial equality in the states. They fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights act of 1964, with a former Klansman leading the charge. As a Democratic Senator Richard Russell from Georgia put it: "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."

Then there was the famous Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina who was even moreso candid than Russell in his opposition, stating that "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."

For 57 days they filibustered the bill, until Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) shamed them into relenting. The Bill was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in the Summer of 1964. The next year, the same Congress passed the Voting Rights Act.

Not long after that, Southern Democrats began defecting to the Republican Party, after the Democratic Party had shifted its focus towards its more moderate voting bloc to the north, and thusly polluting it for generations to come with their racial pragmatism.

Where were Democrats? I thought they claimed to be the party of equality? Yet history is riddled with examples of their racial hatred towards African Americans. It's sad in a way to think how they have warped and twisted their minds into believing the current platforms in place today, kept ignorant of the history that precedes the Democratic Party.

Here's my question, which party has stood for equality over the past 150 years? How does this meld with the current platforms Liberal Democrats advocate today? I leave that for you to decide.

And lets not forget how the Republican party was how Democrats are today. (and vice versa)

Now the Republicans are the racists and Democrats are fighting for equality.





I like the attempt to glorify the republicans without stating that they are what Democrats are today.

Well please elaborate on that for us, or are you just going to say a talking point?

Start by answering these

When was the last time a democrat was more conservative in a presidential election?
Name the people who switched to republican in the 60s-70s?
why did the south vote for democrats, except in landslides until 2000?
Why did the democrats keep state and local seats until the 90s?

 

[GWV5903]

Same Sex Marriage and Immigration Reform are cherry picking...

GLTB community enjoys recognition today like no other time in recorded history, this is not a Civil Rights issue, it is a political football used to divide, period...

Immigration Reform as a Civil Rights issue, really??? You would have to be a US Citizen for this to apply...

If you want to even attempt to solve immigration, you have to have better control of the borders, until then it will remain as out of control as it is today...

When the Cartels kill more US Citizens on US soil, what do you want to do? You want to open the borders, how dam stupid can you get?

This thread is about how hypocrisy has ruled the minority's to benefit the DNC, no one, not one of you left wing Liberals can supply any proof that supports your contentions about Jim Crow Laws...

All you have offered is BS...

Cherry picking or not, there is a dismal Conservative record concerning civil rights. While Republicans were effective in supporting civil rights issues in the 1960s, those Republicans were, by in large, social Liberals. No self respecting Conservative of today would recognize any of those brave Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago as "Conservative" by any means. In fact, those Republicans would indeed be shunned as RINOS by today's Conservative.

What happens every so often is Conservatives realize just how evil they have been concerning civil rights. Once that recognition takes place, they ignore historical fact and hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party. They think that gives them ideological cover, but it doesn't.

Conservatives provide the resistance to any expansion of civil rights, and always have. Show me the Conservative who has championed civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, worker's rights or immigrant's rights. Take you time, for I have sent you on a fool's errand. There ARE no Conservatives championing civil rights today or yesterday.

They (conservatives) want to take credit for Civil Rights (the same ones that now consider Bush too liberal, haha)and they are the ones that whine about affirmative action!

Affirmative Action didn't help anyone you idiot...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democrats were racists, they did t switch parties, because the Southern Strategy was proved over and over and over. And none of the reactionary racists phans have any evidence to deny it.

We who know and are not afraid of the truth can only giggle at the buckeyes who are racists and keep lying. Does not matter.

As long as the fools post, we will out them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Democrats were racists, they did t switch parties, because the Southern Strategy was proved over and over and over. And none of the reactionary racists phans have any evidence to deny it.

We who know and are not afraid of the truth can only giggle at the buckeyes who are racists and keep lying. Does not matter.

As long as the fools post, we will out them.

No it wasnt proven...you dont have any proof, you just post talking points and propaganda
you cant answer any questions related to this topic, so clearly you dont know anything about it. I love how you back history books, yet you belive they were biased at one time, but now they're completely accurate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Southern democrats were racists, they did then switch parties, because the Southern Strategy was proved over and over and over. And none of the reactionary racists phans have any evidence to deny it.

We who know and are not afraid of the truth can only giggle at the buckeyes who are racists and keep lying. Does not matter. As long as the fools post, we will out them.

No it wasnt proven...

Yes, it was proven in the OP, and your denying and crying is expected from a racist reactionary.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I hear of Liberal Democrats championing the causes of racial and gender equality in America today, while admirable, they have ignored their own history. Now, for a little history lesson. Let's do a little research shall we? Let us see who has been more detrimental to the causes of equality. Pay attention students, there will be a quiz at the end of this essay!

During the 1860s, Southern Democrats continually advocated the use of slavery. It took a Republican to slay these racial demons with the 13th Amendment. A major advocate of this being Frederick Douglass, a black Republican abolitionist, diplomat and former slave from Maryland.

During Antebellum, racial equality was continually hampered even after the 13th Amendment's passage; by Democrats who were taking ever increasing majorities in local, state and federal offices, especially during the 1880's. This eventually led to the instatement the Jim Crow laws. In 1875, attempts were made by Republicans to break Jim Crow, it was however, thwarted by Democrats. It was during this time the Democratic Party gave birth to the KKK.

For nearly a century, Jim Crow ruled over the land with an iron fist. Nary a black man anywhere could be treated equally, because of the racial hatred of the Democratic Party. These laws were finally ended by the Supreme Court Decision of 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Ironically, in 1963, it was Democrats who launched major opposition to the Equal Pay Act, which effectively ended the gender pay disparity in the workplace.

In 1964, Democrats were once again fighting to stop racial equality in the states. They fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights act of 1964, with a former Klansman leading the charge. As a Democratic Senator Richard Russell from Georgia put it: "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."

Then there was the famous Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina who was even moreso candid than Russell in his opposition, stating that "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."

For 57 days they filibustered the bill, until Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) shamed them into relenting. The Bill was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in the Summer of 1964. The next year, the same Congress passed the Voting Rights Act.

Not long after that, Southern Democrats began defecting to the Republican Party, after the Democratic Party had shifted its focus towards its more moderate voting bloc to the north, and thusly polluting it for generations to come with their racial pragmatism.

Where were Democrats? I thought they claimed to be the party of equality? Yet history is riddled with examples of their racial hatred towards African Americans. It's sad in a way to think how they have warped and twisted their minds into believing the current platforms in place today, kept ignorant of the history that precedes the Democratic Party.

Here's my question, which party has stood for equality over the past 150 years? How does this meld with the current platforms Liberal Democrats advocate today? I leave that for you to decide.

FTR of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmon, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind Jr..

 

[Nosmo King]

Same Sex Marriage and Immigration Reform are cherry picking...

GLTB community enjoys recognition today like no other time in recorded history, this is not a Civil Rights issue, it is a political football used to divide, period...

Immigration Reform as a Civil Rights issue, really??? You would have to be a US Citizen for this to apply...

If you want to even attempt to solve immigration, you have to have better control of the borders, until then it will remain as out of control as it is today...

When the Cartels kill more US Citizens on US soil, what do you want to do? You want to open the borders, how dam stupid can you get?

This thread is about how hypocrisy has ruled the minority's to benefit the DNC, no one, not one of you left wing Liberals can supply any proof that supports your contentions about Jim Crow Laws...

All you have offered is BS...

Cherry picking or not, there is a dismal Conservative record concerning civil rights. While Republicans were effective in supporting civil rights issues in the 1960s, those Republicans were, by in large, social Liberals. No self respecting Conservative of today would recognize any of those brave Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago as "Conservative" by any means. In fact, those Republicans would indeed be shunned as RINOS by today's Conservative.

What happens every so often is Conservatives realize just how evil they have been concerning civil rights. Once that recognition takes place, they ignore historical fact and hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party. They think that gives them ideological cover, but it doesn't.

Conservatives provide the resistance to any expansion of civil rights, and always have. Show me the Conservative who has championed civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, worker's rights or immigrant's rights. Take you time, for I have sent you on a fool's errand. There ARE no Conservatives championing civil rights today or yesterday.

No they were not Social Liberal Republicans, Goldwater, Eisenhower & Nixon?

Fools errand??? Please provide proof any of these gentleman where Social Liberals...

The Republicans lost the black vote with the New Deal, not over Civil Rights...

Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue...

Immigration Reform is not a Civil Rights issue...

Championing Pro Choice or free contraceptives is far from advancing Women's Rights, keep telling yourself this, I know your knowledge is limited, but it was Republicans who pushed through for women to vote, not Democrats...

Everett Dirksen (R) Ill and Thomas Kuchell (R) Calif. along with Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey were responsible for sheparding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. New Deal? How many Black voters were there in the 1930s? Learn your history. And marriage equality most certainly is a civil rights issue. One class of citizens being denied their equal rights under law due to the prejudice and ignorance of an intolerant minority smacks of civil rights.

As does Immigration reform.

And I don't know what poiont you're trying to make dragging contraception and abortion into the discussion. Perhaps you've ridden that one trick pony too far.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Cherry picking or not, there is a dismal Conservative record concerning civil rights. While Republicans were effective in supporting civil rights issues in the 1960s, those Republicans were, by in large, social Liberals. No self respecting Conservative of today would recognize any of those brave Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago as "Conservative" by any means. In fact, those Republicans would indeed be shunned as RINOS by today's Conservative.

What happens every so often is Conservatives realize just how evil they have been concerning civil rights. Once that recognition takes place, they ignore historical fact and hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party. They think that gives them ideological cover, but it doesn't.

Conservatives provide the resistance to any expansion of civil rights, and always have. Show me the Conservative who has championed civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, worker's rights or immigrant's rights. Take you time, for I have sent you on a fool's errand. There ARE no Conservatives championing civil rights today or yesterday.

No they were not Social Liberal Republicans, Goldwater, Eisenhower & Nixon?

Fools errand??? Please provide proof any of these gentleman where Social Liberals...

The Republicans lost the black vote with the New Deal, not over Civil Rights...

Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue...

Immigration Reform is not a Civil Rights issue...

Championing Pro Choice or free contraceptives is far from advancing Women's Rights, keep telling yourself this, I know your knowledge is limited, but it was Republicans who pushed through for women to vote, not Democrats...

Everett Dirksen (R) Ill and Thomas Kuchell (R) Calif. along with Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey were responsible for sheparding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. New Deal? How many Black voters were there in the 1930s? Learn your history. And marriage equality most certainly is a civil rights issue. One class of citizens being denied their equal rights under law due to the prejudice and ignorance of an intolerant minority smacks of civil rights.

As does Immigration reform.

And I don't know what poiont you're trying to make dragging contraception and abortion into the discussion. Perhaps you've ridden that one trick pony too far.

I love this argument, but it's not a civil rights issue. Being gay is not a civil right, just like beastiality, incest, necrophilia and ect...it's a sexual perversion

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Cherry picking or not, there is a dismal Conservative record concerning civil rights. While Republicans were effective in supporting civil rights issues in the 1960s, those Republicans were, by in large, social Liberals. No self respecting Conservative of today would recognize any of those brave Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago as "Conservative" by any means. In fact, those Republicans would indeed be shunned as RINOS by today's Conservative.

What happens every so often is Conservatives realize just how evil they have been concerning civil rights. Once that recognition takes place, they ignore historical fact and hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party. They think that gives them ideological cover, but it doesn't.

Conservatives provide the resistance to any expansion of civil rights, and always have. Show me the Conservative who has championed civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, worker's rights or immigrant's rights. Take you time, for I have sent you on a fool's errand. There ARE no Conservatives championing civil rights today or yesterday.

No they were not Social Liberal Republicans, Goldwater, Eisenhower & Nixon?

Fools errand??? Please provide proof any of these gentleman where Social Liberals...

The Republicans lost the black vote with the New Deal, not over Civil Rights...

Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue...

Immigration Reform is not a Civil Rights issue...

Championing Pro Choice or free contraceptives is far from advancing Women's Rights, keep telling yourself this, I know your knowledge is limited, but it was Republicans who pushed through for women to vote, not Democrats...

Everett Dirksen (R) Ill and Thomas Kuchell (R) Calif. along with Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey were responsible for sheparding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. New Deal? How many Black voters were there in the 1930s? Learn your history. And marriage equality most certainly is a civil rights issue. One class of citizens being denied their equal rights under law due to the prejudice and ignorance of an intolerant minority smacks of civil rights.

As does Immigration reform.

And I don't know what poiont you're trying to make dragging contraception and abortion into the discussion. Perhaps you've ridden that one trick pony too far.

Homosexuals are now a class of citizens?

That's hilarious!!

Homosexuals are not denied any rights.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm surprised my thread has gone on as long as it has. Keep going if you like!

 

[GWV5903]

Cherry picking or not, there is a dismal Conservative record concerning civil rights. While Republicans were effective in supporting civil rights issues in the 1960s, those Republicans were, by in large, social Liberals. No self respecting Conservative of today would recognize any of those brave Republicans of 40 or 50 years ago as "Conservative" by any means. In fact, those Republicans would indeed be shunned as RINOS by today's Conservative.

What happens every so often is Conservatives realize just how evil they have been concerning civil rights. Once that recognition takes place, they ignore historical fact and hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party. They think that gives them ideological cover, but it doesn't.

Conservatives provide the resistance to any expansion of civil rights, and always have. Show me the Conservative who has championed civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, worker's rights or immigrant's rights. Take you time, for I have sent you on a fool's errand. There ARE no Conservatives championing civil rights today or yesterday.

No they were not Social Liberal Republicans, Goldwater, Eisenhower & Nixon?

Fools errand??? Please provide proof any of these gentleman where Social Liberals...

The Republicans lost the black vote with the New Deal, not over Civil Rights...

Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue...

Immigration Reform is not a Civil Rights issue...

Championing Pro Choice or free contraceptives is far from advancing Women's Rights, keep telling yourself this, I know your knowledge is limited, but it was Republicans who pushed through for women to vote, not Democrats...

Everett Dirksen (R) Ill and Thomas Kuchell (R) Calif. along with Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey were responsible for sheparding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. New Deal? How many Black voters were there in the 1930s? Learn your history. And marriage equality most certainly is a civil rights issue. One class of citizens being denied their equal rights under law due to the prejudice and ignorance of an intolerant minority smacks of civil rights.

As does Immigration reform.

And I don't know what poiont you're trying to make dragging contraception and abortion into the discussion. Perhaps you've ridden that one trick pony too far.

The fact that you do not know what abortion & contraception have to do with advancing women's rights makes my point, it has been the Democrats mantra, where have you been?

Republicans stood for 7 decades to let women vote, and no same sex marriage and immigration reform are not Civil Rights issues, discriminating against Blacks and Hispanics is, the GLTB community does not need the recognition of marriage, maybe civil union, but marriage it is not...

The New Deal is what brought blacks to Democrats, do you not understand the relevance?

How you conclude that Immigration Reform is a Civil Rights issue is blatantly about courting votes...

Thanks for playing, you lose...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No they were not Social Liberal Republicans, Goldwater, Eisenhower & Nixon?

Fools errand??? Please provide proof any of these gentleman where Social Liberals...

The Republicans lost the black vote with the New Deal, not over Civil Rights...

Same Sex Marriage is not a Civil Rights issue...

Immigration Reform is not a Civil Rights issue...

Championing Pro Choice or free contraceptives is far from advancing Women's Rights, keep telling yourself this, I know your knowledge is limited, but it was Republicans who pushed through for women to vote, not Democrats...

Everett Dirksen (R) Ill and Thomas Kuchell (R) Calif. along with Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey were responsible for sheparding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. New Deal? How many Black voters were there in the 1930s? Learn your history. And marriage equality most certainly is a civil rights issue. One class of citizens being denied their equal rights under law due to the prejudice and ignorance of an intolerant minority smacks of civil rights.

As does Immigration reform.

And I don't know what poiont you're trying to make dragging contraception and abortion into the discussion. Perhaps you've ridden that one trick pony too far.

The fact that you do not know what abortion & contraception have to do with advancing women's rights makes my point, it has been the Democrats mantra, where have you been?

Republicans stood for 7 decades to let women vote, and no same sex marriage and immigration reform are not Civil Rights issues, discriminating against Blacks and Hispanics is, the GLTB community does not need the recognition of marriage, maybe civil union, but marriage it is not...

The New Deal is what brought blacks to Democrats, do you not understand the relevance?

How you conclude that Immigration Reform is a Civil Rights issue is blatantly about courting votes...

Thanks for playing, you lose...

And that is in summation, the meaning of my thread. This is what people like Jake, Nosmo, Carbine and Poet failed to understand.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Nosmo King]

Once again Conservatives, whose ideology has no room for civil rights, hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party for ideological cover. While Republicans have been champions of civil rights legislation, Conservatives have not. Be they Democrats from the Old South or Republicans from the Sun Belt, the Conservative in them prevents them from acting on behalf of minorities.

Don't you folks know the difference between ideology and party affiliation?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Once again Conservatives, whose ideology has no room for civil rights, hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party for ideological cover. While Republicans have been champions of civil rights legislation, Conservatives have not. Be they Democrats from the Old South or Republicans from the Sun Belt, the Conservative in them prevents them from acting on behalf of minorities.

Don't you folks know the difference between ideology and party affiliation?

There's not much difference in ideology and party affiliation.

Conservatives ideology is more identified with Republicans while liberal ideology is more identifiable with the Democrats. Independents fall somewhere in between, they tend to be more liberal on social issues yet conservative on fiscal issues.

Class dismissed.

 

[Nosmo King]

Once again Conservatives, whose ideology has no room for civil rights, hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party for ideological cover. While Republicans have been champions of civil rights legislation, Conservatives have not. Be they Democrats from the Old South or Republicans from the Sun Belt, the Conservative in them prevents them from acting on behalf of minorities.

Don't you folks know the difference between ideology and party affiliation?

There's not much difference in ideology and party affiliation.

Conservatives ideology is more identified with Republicans while liberal ideology is more identifiable with the Democrats. Independents fall somewhere in between, they tend to be more liberal on social issues yet conservative on fiscal issues.

Class dismissed.

But ideology does not stick to party over time does it? Theodore Roosevelt? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Republican. James Eastland? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Democrat as was George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor. While Everett Dirksen was a Republican, but not a Conservative.

Check your history before you dismiss yourself from class.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is the conclusion of fail of TK's thread.. Yes, your denying and crying is expected from a racist reactionary. Game. Set. Match.

These irrelevant reactionary butts are fun to kick. The GOP mainstream has caught on to their BS. At the national level, no birtherism, no more anti-gay crap, no more anti-female nonsense, no more anti-immigrant hatred. No more Palins and Ryans.

We tried it the far right reactionary way and got our asses kicked. No more. We will beat the Dems the mainstream way.

We need the mainstream far more than the far right.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Once again Conservatives, whose ideology has no room for civil rights, hide behind the skirts of the Republican Party for ideological cover. While Republicans have been champions of civil rights legislation, Conservatives have not. Be they Democrats from the Old South or Republicans from the Sun Belt, the Conservative in them prevents them from acting on behalf of minorities.

Don't you folks know the difference between ideology and party affiliation?

There's not much difference in ideology and party affiliation.

Conservatives ideology is more identified with Republicans while liberal ideology is more identifiable with the Democrats. Independents fall somewhere in between, they tend to be more liberal on social issues yet conservative on fiscal issues.

Class dismissed.

But ideology does not stick to party over time does it? Theodore Roosevelt? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Republican. James Eastland? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Democrat as was George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor. While Everett Dirksen was a Republican, but not a Conservative.

Check your history before you dismiss yourself from class.

Damn you are as dense as TM.

You should read what I wrote and be aware I was speaking in general terms. Sure you can find exceptions but that doesn't negate what I said.

 

[Political Junky]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour
Race and integration [edit]
Barbour has faced considerable "in-state criticism for his approach to racial issues".[55] Mississippi state Representative Willie Perkins has "compared Barbour to the southern Democrats who preceded him", saying: "As far as I'm concerned, he has never done anything as a governor or a citizen to distinguish himself from the old Democrats who fought tooth and nail to preserve segregation."[55]
In 2006, he declined to posthumously pardon Clyde Kennard, an African-American civil rights pioneer, after evidence was presented that Kennard had been falsely convicted of burglary in Hattiesburg, Mississippi in 1960. Instead, Barbour designated a Clyde Kennard Day, calling for remembrance of Kennard's "determination, the injustices he suffered, and his significant role in the history of the civil rights movement in Mississippi".[56] Barbour subsequently joined in a petition for a court rehearing of the case that resulted in the original conviction being thrown out.[57]
Barbour proved instrumental in winning state legislative support for the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum. Legislation to fund a state museum had been introduced every year since 2000,[58] but died for various reasons. In November 2006, Barbour proposed creating a state commission to develop plans for the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum.[59] In his "State of the State" address on January 16, 2007, Barbour said the museum was "overdue, and it needs doing",[60] The proposal won legislative approval, and a site for the museum was selected in March 2008.[61] The project then stalled for three years,[62] however, with museum backers listing lack of direction from the governor's office and Barbour's refusal to spend $500,000 in museum planning funds as part of the reason why.[63] Barbour also declined to name a museum commission to oversee the final push for funding and construction.[64] Barbour announced in late 2010 that he would run for president of the United States. Then in an interview with The Weekly Standard neoconservative newsmagazine, Barbour appeared to minimize the oppressiveness of racial intolerance in Mississippi when he characterized the White Citizens' Council in his hometown of Yazoo City as merely "an organization of town leaders" that kept more radical anti-integrationist elements (like the Ku Klux Klan) at bay.[65] In what many political observers felt was an attempt to disassociate himself from Mississippi's racially intolerant past as well as to dampen the criticism over his remarks, Barbour again declared his complete support for construction of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum.[66] The museum secured $20 million in funding from the Mississippi Legislature in April 2011 after Barbour personally testified in favor of its funding.[67]
During an April 11, 2010, appearance on CNN, host Candy Crowley asked if it had been insensitive for Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to omit mentioning slavery in a proposed recognition of Confederate History Month. Barbour replied, "To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, that it's not a—it's trying to make a big deal out of something doesn't amount to diddly."[68] Barbour continued, "I don't know what you would say about slavery ... but anybody that thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing, I think that goes without saying."[69]
In December 2010, Barbour was interviewed by The Weekly Standard magazine. Asked about coming of age in Yazoo City during the civil rights era, he told the interviewer regarding growing up there, "I just don't remember it as being that bad."[70] Barbour then credited the White Citizens' Council for keeping the KKK out of Yazoo City and ensuring the peaceful integration of its schools. Barbour dismissed comparisons between the White Citizens' Councils and the KKK, and referred to the Councils as "an organization of town leaders". Barbour continued in his defense of the Councils, saying, "In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City." Barbour's statement did not address the role of the white supremacist group in publicly naming and blacklisting individuals who petitioned for educational integration[71] and how it used political pressure and violence to force African-American residents to move.[72] This led to a considerable outcry in which critics such as Rachel Maddow accused Barbour of whitewashing history.[73] In response to criticism, Barbour issued a statement declaring Citizens' Councils to be "indefensible."[74]
In what some[who?] have speculated was an attempt at damage control just days after the interview, Barbour suspended the prison sentences of Jamie and Gladys Scott, two African American women who received life sentences resulting from a 1993 mugging in which the two women stole $11.[75][76] Barbour has denied that there was any connection between the suspension of the Scott sisters' prison sentence and the controversy surrounding his Weekly Standard interview. Jamie Scott suffered from kidney failure while in prison, and requires a donated organ, which her sister Gladys has offered to do. Barbour's decision to release the Scott sisters, however, is contingent upon the promised organ donation by Gladys Scott, which critics have argued amounts to coercion and raises questions of medical ethics.[77]

 

[Nosmo King]

There's not much difference in ideology and party affiliation.

Conservatives ideology is more identified with Republicans while liberal ideology is more identifiable with the Democrats. Independents fall somewhere in between, they tend to be more liberal on social issues yet conservative on fiscal issues.

Class dismissed.

But ideology does not stick to party over time does it? Theodore Roosevelt? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Republican. James Eastland? Liberal or Conservative? He was a Democrat as was George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connor. While Everett Dirksen was a Republican, but not a Conservative.

Check your history before you dismiss yourself from class.

Damn you are as dense as TM.

You should read what I wrote and be aware I was speaking in general terms. Sure you can find exceptions but that doesn't negate what I said.

Your "general terms" apply to contemporary party affiliation. But to try to hammer that round peg into the square hole of history is moronic! Conservatives throughout history have supplied the resistance to social change and expansion of freedoms. Claiming that it was Republicans, therefore Conservatives who in 1964 championed Civil Rights legislation is wrong on so many levels. Conservatives NEVER fight for human rights. And they never have.

 

[Freewill]

And that is the conclusion of fail of TK's thread.. Yes, your denying and crying is expected from a racist reactionary. Game. Set. Match.

These irrelevant reactionary butts are fun to kick. The GOP mainstream has caught on to their BS. At the national level, no birtherism, no more anti-gay crap, no more anti-female nonsense, no more anti-immigrant hatred. No more Palins and Ryans.

We tried it the far right reactionary way and got our asses kicked. No more. We will beat the Dems the mainstream way.

We need the mainstream far more than the far right.

You are such a piece of democrat work. Republicans are not losing elections like you love to say. Republicans own the governorships, they have a majority in the House and have gained in the Senate. You and you ilk act as if the opposite happened. Following your lead, if you were actually a Republican, would lead to disaster.