CDZ Which political party is the party of the KKK?

[Muhammed]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Keep on lying to yourself.

 

[2aguy]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

 

[2aguy]

He wanted power...even if that meant voting for Black Civil Rights.......considering when he was free from Presidential aspirations he voted against every single Civil Rights act and the Anti-lynching law.......

No, I don't think there was a time in LBJ's life, until 1969 when he left office, that he was 'free from Presidential aspirations' at first from a distance and significantly as Senate Majority Leader when he navigated an earlier civil rights bill through in 1957, a political coup that significantly enhanced his reputation nationally --- and put him in the Presidential candidate conversation --- while simultaneously earning sentiments of "betrayal" from the South -- an adept chicanery that's spelled out in detail in the Woods book I just quoted as well as in Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography.

Barry Goldwater voted for every single Civil Rights act and was a leader in civil rights......and he voted against it because it promoted racism, and violated private property rights

You're actually gonna try to plant your flag on "he was for it before he was against it" huh?



/offtopic

Shit head......you have seen my link, you saw what Goldwater did and what he thought about the 64 act, affirmitive action and public accomodation, one racist, the other an invasion of personal property rights, they went to far.....he was a civil rights leader, LBJ was a racist opportunist....

moron...

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

 

[Syriusly]

No, I don't think there was a time in LBJ's life, until 1969 when he left office, that he was 'free from Presidential aspirations' at first from a distance and significantly as Senate Majority Leader when he navigated an earlier civil rights bill through in 1957, a political coup that significantly enhanced his reputation nationally --- and put him in the Presidential candidate conversation --- while simultaneously earning sentiments of "betrayal" from the South -- an adept chicanery that's spelled out in detail in the Woods book I just quoted as well as in Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography.


You're actually gonna try to plant your flag on "he was for it before he was against it" huh?



/offtopic

Shit head......you have seen my link, you saw what Goldwater did and what he thought about the 64 act, affirmitive action and public accomodation, one racist, the other an invasion of personal property rights, they went to far.....he was a civil rights leader, LBJ was a racist opportunist....

moron...

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government....

There is actual evidence that LBJ was a civil rights leader- he has the best Civil Rights record of any American President except possibly LIncoln.

LBJ not only signed the very Civil Rights bill that Goldwater opposed, LBJ also prosecuted the Klan, appointed the first African American Supreme Court Justice and signed the Voter's rights Act, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

No wonder you despise LBJ so much- LBJ actually did something for Civil Rights.

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Goldwater
Reagan
Bush

No wonder Martin Luther King Jr. called 1964 the year the GOP embraced racists and the KKK.

 

[Pogo]

No, I don't think there was a time in LBJ's life, until 1969 when he left office, that he was 'free from Presidential aspirations' at first from a distance and significantly as Senate Majority Leader when he navigated an earlier civil rights bill through in 1957, a political coup that significantly enhanced his reputation nationally --- and put him in the Presidential candidate conversation --- while simultaneously earning sentiments of "betrayal" from the South -- an adept chicanery that's spelled out in detail in the Woods book I just quoted as well as in Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography.


You're actually gonna try to plant your flag on "he was for it before he was against it" huh?



/offtopic

Shit head......you have seen my link, you saw what Goldwater did and what he thought about the 64 act, affirmitive action and public accomodation, one racist, the other an invasion of personal property rights, they went to far.....he was a civil rights leader, LBJ was a racist opportunist....

moron...

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

 

[Syriusly]

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was the home of the KKK. It's a fact that can't be disputed. Trying to somehow pin it on Republicans, especially today is a futile exercise in self flagellation.

The fact is that some Democrats were part of the KKK. And some Republicans were part of the KKK.

The narrative that the modern day Democrats are the KKK is even farther from the truth than claiming that the modern day Republicans are part of the KKK.

 

[Syriusly]

So you guys keep lying about it...we have the internet now to show that you are lying....

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

 

[Pogo]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

 

[Syriusly]

There was no "racist", Democrat or Republican, running that year. George Wallace had offered to switch parties to be Goldwater's running mate but the latter declined, and Wallace put off his aspirations until the next Presidential cycle when he ran with a far-right California party called the American Independent Party.

But the Democrat in 1964 was Lyndon Johnson...

Johnson and his chief political strategists on the civil rights bill --- Larry O'Brien and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach --- began huddling within days of the assassination. Key to passage, they recognized, would be the civil rights organizations, labor, business, the churches, and the Republican party.

.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471​

.Not the topic here, but relevant to that topic, Johnson was also the first POTUS since Grant to prosecute the Klan.

He wanted power...even if that meant voting for Black Civil Rights.......considering when he was free from Presidential aspirations he voted against every single Civil Rights act and the Anti-lynching law.......

No, I don't think there was a time in LBJ's life, until 1969 when he left office, that he was 'free from Presidential aspirations' at first from a distance and significantly as Senate Majority Leader when he navigated an earlier civil rights bill through in 1957, a political coup that significantly enhanced his reputation nationally --- and put him in the Presidential candidate conversation --- while simultaneously earning sentiments of "betrayal" from the South -- an adept chicanery that's spelled out in detail in the Woods book I just quoted as well as in Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography.

Barry Goldwater voted for every single Civil Rights act and was a leader in civil rights......and he voted against it because it promoted racism, and violated private property rights

You're actually gonna try to plant your flag on "he was for it before he was against it" huh?



/offtopic

Shit head......you have seen my link, you saw what Goldwater did and what he thought about the 64 act, affirmitive action and public accomodation, one racist, the other an invasion of personal property rights, they went to far.....he was a civil rights leader, LBJ was a racist opportunist....

moron...

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country..

Apparently you believe that Johnson destroyed the black family in the United States by passing Civil Rights laws.

The laws that Ronald Reagan opposed.

 

[Syriusly]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

...men who were democrats founded the klan......

You keep saying that- like if you keep repeating it will make it somehow true.

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was the home of the KKK. It's a fact that can't be disputed. Trying to somehow pin it on Republicans, especially today is a futile exercise in self flagellation.

The fact is that some Democrats were part of the KKK. And some Republicans were part of the KKK.

The narrative that the modern day Democrats are the KKK is even farther from the truth than claiming that the modern day Republicans are part of the KKK.

How does a false statement become farther from something? I already addressed modern day parties and I already showed how they were Democrats. I don't care if you accept history or not. Not my problem.

 

[2aguy]

So you guys keep lying about it...we have the internet now to show that you are lying....

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

 

[Syriusly]

Shit head......you have seen my link, you saw what Goldwater did and what he thought about the 64 act, affirmitive action and public accomodation, one racist, the other an invasion of personal property rights, they went to far.....he was a civil rights leader, LBJ was a racist opportunist....

moron...

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

 

[Syriusly]

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was the home of the KKK. It's a fact that can't be disputed. Trying to somehow pin it on Republicans, especially today is a futile exercise in self flagellation.

The fact is that some Democrats were part of the KKK. And some Republicans were part of the KKK.

The narrative that the modern day Democrats are the KKK is even farther from the truth than claiming that the modern day Republicans are part of the KKK.

How does a false statement become farther from something? I already addressed modern day parties and I already showed how they were Democrats. I don't care if you accept history or not. Not my problem.

'history' is not the unsubstantiated opinion of one historian.

 

[Syriusly]

So you guys keep lying about it...we have the internet now to show that you are lying....

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

 

[2aguy]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

Goldwater was against the two provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave the Act teeth.

Johnson was for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and the Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

All of which Ronald Reagan was against.

Maybe Johnson was a racist- but damn he sure did a lot for Civil Rights in America.

Far more than Goldwater did.

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them...

Preventing racism from becoming law...affirmative action, and protecting the private property rights of Americans is what he alleges was giving support to racists...just like want low taxes also effects racists and non racists alike.....MLK sold himself out to the democrats who beat his followers, bombed his followers and hanged his followers....likely because they used the government to get information on him......

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was the home of the KKK. It's a fact that can't be disputed. Trying to somehow pin it on Republicans, especially today is a futile exercise in self flagellation.

The fact is that some Democrats were part of the KKK. And some Republicans were part of the KKK.

The narrative that the modern day Democrats are the KKK is even farther from the truth than claiming that the modern day Republicans are part of the KKK.

How does a false statement become farther from something? I already addressed modern day parties and I already showed how they were Democrats. I don't care if you accept history or not. Not my problem.

'history' is not the unsubstantiated opinion of one historian.

PBS isn't "a historian". I've seen very many articles on it. Lefties live the reality they want but that isn't my problem.

 

[2aguy]

So you guys keep lying about it...we have the internet now to show that you are lying....

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

 

[Syriusly]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

 

[Syriusly]

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Oh right- any whites who align themselves with people of color are racists to you also.

90% of African Americans vote Democrat- so of course you think that means African Americans are all racists.

But that lilly white Trump crowd, sporting the Stars and Bars caps? No racists there.