'Great' Moments In Democrat History

[bodecea]

Do Conservatives Know Much About Conservative History?

Its almost like conservatives forget about the John Birch Society.....or the early William F Buckley years before he moved away from overt racism after it became socially unfashionable; although his conservative publications did not -- and when conservatives do delve into the history of Buckley and National Review, they almost always whitewash the past to ignore or minimize the role played by racism.

And since most conservatives call Buckley the father of modern conservatism, how about we talk about his mentor "Willmoore Kendall" -- He is the guy who theorized the rhetorical appeal to populism that was later developed to great effect by politicians like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. So it’s important to realize that the masses Kendall wanted to appeal to were, from the start, white people, not America as a whole -- this is why many conservatives like him were in full support of Jim Crow laws as well as apartheid in South Africa.

But the problem with these arguments is that, its easy to point to one party or another and find racists along the way -- what were the policies those parties fought for and implemented?

If you are going to claim that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were not good steps to take in the right direction towards equality for all people, just because LBJ said something racist, you are an idiot....

You are going to have a hard time beating the victimization drum, when the left give a carte blanche to every minority to be bigots toward straight folks, Christians, men, white folks, etc.

It's getting to the point, where folks just don't give a fuck anymore if you are a racist. Who cares?

Why should we care when these purveyors of hate politics clearly don't? Have you ever seen some of that TEE VEE?

Why do you conservatives never address the fucking comment that was just made?

You do not know much about the history of conservatives do you?

You never heard of the Birch society? You don't know about Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the Civil Rights movement?

Gads, you're a moron.....Goldwater was in the forefront of the civil rights movement.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.

3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm

Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.

4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?

5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill, those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks, but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

Demonic, chapter 10





Conservative utility is immediate, ineluctable, and applicable across aisles and ages. For proof, consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes: “for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” [See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.] Christian Camerota, “Reinventing the Right,” p. 28.

I noticed you left out the fact he voted AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act ...I know more about this than you, this is why it is so easy to make you folks look pathetic...

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Southern Democrats when given the choice in the 60s to stick with party or stick with racism, became republicans. That same party that NOW cries about taking down con-federate statues and con-federate flags.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Now back to more of those great democratic moments conservatives like to ignore...

Consumer Protection, FDIC, Banking and Wall Street Regulations, SEC, Federal Reserve System, Anti-trust Legislation -- liberals....

the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Earned Income Tax Credit -- ...liberals

Environmental Protection Agency -- .....liberals...oh wait, that was Nixon.....but conservatives still hate it now.....

 

[Pogo]

Proud Democrat voters can certainly find great moments to celebrate.....if they are oblivious to the real history of their chosen party.

Said history can be reduced to slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion.



"You see, what do slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion have in common? They were all top priorities for the Democratic Party throughout history.

• 1828 — Democratic Party is founded by Andrew Jackson — a passionate advocate of slavery and key figure behind the ‘Trail of Tears’ — a state-sanctioned slaughter of around 15,000 Native Americans

WRONG. The Democratic Party was organized in 1834 by Martin van Buren, Jackson's successor. Jackson ran for President three times (1824/1828/1832) without a political party behind him. His body of supporters were simply called "Jacksonians" for lack of a name. His detractors were simply called "Anti-Jacksonians" for the same reason.

But the reason you made this leap is that Martin van Buren was an abolitionist. We can't have that in our propaganda.

• 1866 — Ku Klux Klan is founded by a group of Democratic former confederate soldiers who fought to prevent blacks living in the South from voting

WRONG AGAIN. The Klan was founded by six ex-soldiers (Maj James Crowe, Calvin Jones, Capt John B. Kennedy, Capt John Lester, Maj. Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed), at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, the office of Jones' father, Christmas 1865, not 66, BEFORE there was any postwar voting going on, BEFORE that state had rejoined the union, as a college fraternity-type activity modeled directly after Kuklos Adelphon, having no political purpose and its founders having no political affiliations, Tennessee having no political parties to affiliate with at the time anyway.

But again the reason you changed the date is that the revised date would obscure the fact that the KKK already existed before Reconstruction, and we can't have those inconvenient dates in our propaganda either. Oh and you gave no names. I just gave you ALL of them. And while we're about it, since that Klan disappeared by 1872 and officially disbanded 1869, it had to be re-formed in 1915 (see next entry) by a huckster former minister named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliations. That was the much bigger one that spread coast to coast and numbered its members in the millions.

Nor do you seem to mention the existence of literally dozens of similar local/regional vigilante groups springing up like weeds at the time (the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869); the Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70); the Council of Safety; Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi); Heroes of America (South Carolina); the Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi); the Knights of the Red Hand; the Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868); the Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69); the Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama); Men of Justice; Native Sons of the South (Mississippi); Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867); the Order of the White Rose; Red Caps (Tennessee); Red Jackets (Tennessee); Red Strings (South Carolina); the Robertson Family (Mississippi); the Society of the White Rose (Mississippi); the Seymour Knights (Louisiana); the Southern Cross (New Orléans1865); the White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70); the White League (Louisiana 1874); the White Line (Mississippi); the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee) and the '76 Association (Louisiana 1869) (partial list) ---- where's my propaganda bullshit about how "Democrats" founded all these too, even in places that were not part of the United States and/or had no political parties? How were they prescient to form themselves to prevent voting that wasn't even going on yet? And why so many groups? If you're going to organize something to oppose a single national political party, wouldn't you do so with a single national organization?

• 1915— First motion-picture movie to be shown in the White House is The Birth of Nation, a Democratic-Party produced propaganda film depicting the KKK as heroes.

WRONG. "Birth of a Nation" was strictly Hollywood, born of the controversial Thomas Dixon book "The Clansman" (1905) which begat a play, which begat the film, all of which were begat by the Cult of the Lost Cause which had started rewriting history soon after the Civil War, imagining the "nobility" of the Southern cause. Both Dixon and Griffith were Southerners and proponents of the Lost Cause, which also begat a flurry of activity from the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) who spent most of their resources literally rewriting history books and putting up hundreds of monuments and statues all over the country to sell this revisionist propaganda, in public places where they would propagandize the most. Those would be the same monuments and statues recently under fire to be removed FROM those public spaces.

​

Back to the film, the 1915 "Birth of a Nation" which did indeed portray the Klan of decades past as heroes -- part of the Lost Cause revisionism --- sparked a national buzz, which in turn incited the aforementioned Simmons to rent a bus and take some sycophants up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving that year to re-establish the Klan under a bible, an unsheathed sword, and the first-ever Klan burning cross, an affectation he took from the movie, which just made it up. In short, both the 1915 Klan and the film "Birth of a Nation" were undertaken for the same simple reason --- to make money for their creators.


Simmons too had no political affiliation and he pointedly described his Klan effusively as ""the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (Wade, The Fiery Cross, p. 151). Nevertheless after control was wrested away from Simmons the Klan did dabble in politics in the 1920s, electing Rice Means (Sen, CO), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen, ME), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Clarence Morley (Gov, CO), Ed Jackson (Gov, IN), George Baker (Mayor, Portland OR) and numerous local officers and Reps in various states such as one Albert Johnson:

>> Johnson was the chief author of the Immigration Act of 1924, which in 1927 he justified as a bulwark against "a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed."[2] Johnson has been described as "an unusually energetic and vehement racist and nativist."[3] He was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled. In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[4]

– The Klan was public and effusive in its support of Albert Johnson. Time Magazine noted in 1924 that Johnson’s immigration restriction law was “generally supported by the West and South, admittedly with the backing of the Ku Klux Klan.” It reported in 1926 that one of the national KKK’s top four political priorities was the “Renomination and re-election of Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, so he can continue to be Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and fight for restricted immigration laws.” << (Wiki)​

All of the aforementioned --- Johnson, Means, Brewster, Paulen, Morley, Jackson, Baker --- were Republicans. Not to mention the same Klan endorsed Calvin Cooldige in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928 while running a national smear campaign against the Democrat Al Smith.

None of this of course makes the Klan "Republicans" --- that would require Ass-ociation Fallacy, which is your domain. But it sure as hell doesn't make them "Democrats" either. That Klan opposed not just blacks but Jews (part of its founding contingent had participated in the Leo Frank lynch mob), immigrants, Catholics and labor unions, all of which were and are Democratic Party constituents. Not real smart to organize a hate group against your own base, now is it.

DUH.

• 1960s — “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years” – Lyndon B. Johnson

Unsourced uncorroborated myth-quote.




Prove *ANYTHING* I've posted above to be inaccurate. You know, like I just did yours.

What's more you've been told *ALL* of this in the past, REPEATEDLY, have *NEVER* refuted a single one of my facts, and yet here you are spraying the same shitstorm expecting different results. Message board masturbation.

 

[bodecea]

Salty OP....

So you can't find a single mistake.


Seems to be a pattern, huh?

Oh...we can see a pattern alright.

 

[Pogo]

Divide and Conquer propaganda.

You can find numerous examples of disgusting behavior of the other party as well. All the elites are assholes.

Precisely. A political party is like a car. It takes you to the office you want. You choose whatever car will get you there. Its purpose is to consolidate power into a bloc. That's it.

The one, and only, permanent goal of any political party is self-perpetuation.

 

[Pogo]

Divide and Conquer propaganda.

You can find numerous examples of disgusting behavior of the other party as well. All the elites are assholes.

Yet I don't see you're equivalent listing for the other side......


Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner.

Put your revisionist bullshit up your ass where it came from.

Oh wait, never mind. I just did that for you. You're welcome.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Proud Democrat voters can certainly find great moments to celebrate.....if they are oblivious to the real history of their chosen party.

Said history can be reduced to slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion.



"You see, what do slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion have in common? They were all top priorities for the Democratic Party throughout history.

• 1828 — Democratic Party is founded by Andrew Jackson — a passionate advocate of slavery and key figure behind the ‘Trail of Tears’ — a state-sanctioned slaughter of around 15,000 Native Americans

WRONG. The Democratic Party was organized in 1834 by Martin van Buren, Jackson's successor. Jackson ran for President three times (1824/1828/1832) without a political party behind him. His body of supporters were simply called "Jacksonians" for lack of a name. His detractors were simply called "Anti-Jacksonians" for the same reason.

But the reason you made this leap is that Martin van Buren was an abolitionist. We can't have that in our propaganda.

• 1866 — Ku Klux Klan is founded by a group of Democratic former confederate soldiers who fought to prevent blacks living in the South from voting

WRONG AGAIN. The Klan was founded by six ex-soldiers (Maj James Crowe, Calvin Jones, Capt John B. Kennedy, Capt John Lester, Maj. Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed), at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, the office of Jones' father, Christmas 1865, not 66, BEFORE there was any postwar voting going on, BEFORE that state had rejoined the union, as a college fraternity-type activity modeled directly after Kuklos Adelphon, having no political purpose and its founders having no political affiliations, Tennessee having no political parties to affiliate with at the time anyway.

But again the reason you changed the date is that the revised date would obscure the fact that the KKK already existed before Reconstruction, and we can't have those inconvenient dates in our propaganda either. Oh and you gave no names. I just gave you ALL of them. And while we're about it, since that Klan disappeared by 1872 and officially disbanded 1869, it had to be re-formed in 1915 (see next entry) by a huckster former minister named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliations. That was the much bigger one that spread coast to coast and numbered its members in the millions.

Nor do you seem to mention the existence of literally dozens of similar local/regional vigilante groups springing up like weeds at the time (the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869); the Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70); the Council of Safety; Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi); Heroes of America (South Carolina); the Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi); the Knights of the Red Hand; the Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868); the Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69); the Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama); Men of Justice; Native Sons of the South (Mississippi); Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867); the Order of the White Rose; Red Caps (Tennessee); Red Jackets (Tennessee); Red Strings (South Carolina); the Robertson Family (Mississippi); the Society of the White Rose (Mississippi); the Seymour Knights (Louisiana); the Southern Cross (New Orléans1865); the White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70); the White League (Louisiana 1874); the White Line (Mississippi); the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee) and the '76 Association (Louisiana 1869) (partial list) ---- where's my propaganda bullshit about how "Democrats" founded all these too, even in places that were not part of the United States and/or had no political parties? How were they prescient to form themselves to prevent voting that wasn't even going on yet? And why so many groups? If you're going to organize something to oppose a single national political party, wouldn't you do so with a single national organization?

• 1915— First motion-picture movie to be shown in the White House is The Birth of Nation, a Democratic-Party produced propaganda film depicting the KKK as heroes.

WRONG. "Birth of a Nation" was strictly Hollywood, born of the controversial Thomas Dixon book "The Clansman" (1905) which begat a play, which begat the film, all of which were begat by the Cult of the Lost Cause which had started rewriting history soon after the Civil War, imagining the "nobility" of the Southern cause. Both Dixon and Griffith were Southerners and proponents of the Lost Cause, which also begat a flurry of activity from the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) who spent most of their resources literally rewriting history books and putting up hundreds of monuments and statues all over the country to sell this revisionist propaganda, in public places where they would propagandize the most. Those would be the same monuments and statues recently under fire to be removed FROM those public spaces.

​

Back to the film, the 1915 "Birth of a Nation" which did indeed portray the Klan of decades past as heroes -- part of the Lost Cause revisionism --- sparked a national buzz, which in turn incited the aforementioned Simmons to rent a bus and take some sycophants up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving that year to re-establish the Klan under a bible, an unsheathed sword, and the first-ever Klan burning cross, an affectation he took from the movie, which just made it up. In short, both the 1915 Klan and the film "Birth of a Nation" were undertaken for the same simple reason --- to make money for their creators.


Simmons too had no political affiliation and he pointedly described his Klan effusively as ""the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (Wade, The Fiery Cross, p. 151). Nevertheless after control was wrested away from Simmons the Klan did dabble in politics in the 1920s, electing Rice Means (Sen, CO), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen, ME), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Clarence Morley (Gov, CO), Ed Jackson (Gov, IN), George Baker (Mayor, Portland OR) and numerous local officers and Reps in various states such as one Albert Johnson:

>> Johnson was the chief author of the Immigration Act of 1924, which in 1927 he justified as a bulwark against "a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed."[2] Johnson has been described as "an unusually energetic and vehement racist and nativist."[3] He was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled. In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[4]

– The Klan was public and effusive in its support of Albert Johnson. Time Magazine noted in 1924 that Johnson’s immigration restriction law was “generally supported by the West and South, admittedly with the backing of the Ku Klux Klan.” It reported in 1926 that one of the national KKK’s top four political priorities was the “Renomination and re-election of Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, so he can continue to be Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and fight for restricted immigration laws.” << (Wiki)​

All of the aforementioned --- Johnson, Means, Brewster, Paulen, Morley, Jackson, Baker --- were Republicans. Not to mention the same Klan endorsed Calvin Cooldige in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928 while running a national smear campaign against the Democrat Al Smith.

None of this of course makes the Klan "Republicans" --- that would require Ass-ociation Fallacy, which is your domain. But it sure as hell doesn't make them "Democrats" either. That Klan opposed not just blacks but Jews (part of its founding contingent had participated in the Leo Frank lynch mob), immigrants, Catholics and labor unions, all of which were and are Democratic Party constituents. Not real smart to organize a hate group against your own base, now is it.

DUH.

• 1960s — “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years” – Lyndon B. Johnson

Unsourced uncorroborated myth-quote.




Prove *ANYTHING* I've posted above to be inaccurate. You know, like I just did yours.

What's more you've been told *ALL* of this in the past, REPEATEDLY, have *NEVER* refuted a single one of my facts, and yet here you are spraying the same shitstorm expecting different results. Message board masturbation.

Funeral services for this OP will be held Feb 6th, 2019, 10:00 am...at Mt. Calvary Baptist Church By The Rock On The Hill....Rev. Jeremiah Wright will give the eulogy....

 

[Pogo]

At one point the DNC website actual stated that the Democratic Party has championed Civil Rights for over 200 years. The amount of self-delusion from the left is astounding.

That'd be a neat trick since it hasn't existed for 200 years. The DP, and other entities, try to stretch out their timeline to make themselves look like they've been around longer than they have. They don't seem to grok that for a political party that's not a positive thing.

 

[Pogo]

a. During the 1912 presidential campaign against Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson and his opponent agreed on many reform measures such as child-labor laws and pro-union legislation. They differed, however, on the subject of women's suffrage, as Roosevelt was in favor of giving women the vote. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-woodrow-wilson-picketed-by-women-suffragists
Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans.

Once AGAIN you seem to have left out the inconvenient fact that TR wasn't a Republican then. He started his own party to run AGAINST the Republican (Taft). And he did that because after walking in to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates the party ignored him and went with the corporate guy from Ohio.

As for Taft who actually WAS the Republican candidate:

>> President William Howard Taft said that he opposed suffrage because women were too emotional. "On the whole," he wrote, "it is fair to say that the immediate enfranchisement of women will increase the proportion of the hysterical element of the electorate." <<​

You lose. Again.

Pogo predicts: You'll read this, post the sentence "you are truly a moron" and then cut/paste the same discredited shit you just did, all over again, because you're an ignorant twat swimming in the sewer of the Composition Fallacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do Conservatives Know Much About Conservative History?

Its almost like conservatives forget about the John Birch Society.....or the early William F Buckley years before he moved away from overt racism after it became socially unfashionable; although his conservative publications did not -- and when conservatives do delve into the history of Buckley and National Review, they almost always whitewash the past to ignore or minimize the role played by racism.

And since most conservatives call Buckley the father of modern conservatism, how about we talk about his mentor "Willmoore Kendall" -- He is the guy who theorized the rhetorical appeal to populism that was later developed to great effect by politicians like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. So it’s important to realize that the masses Kendall wanted to appeal to were, from the start, white people, not America as a whole -- this is why many conservatives like him were in full support of Jim Crow laws as well as apartheid in South Africa.

But the problem with these arguments is that, its easy to point to one party or another and find racists along the way -- what were the policies those parties fought for and implemented?

If you are going to claim that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were not good steps to take in the right direction towards equality for all people, just because LBJ said something racist, you are an idiot....

You are going to have a hard time beating the victimization drum, when the left give a carte blanche to every minority to be bigots toward straight folks, Christians, men, white folks, etc.

It's getting to the point, where folks just don't give a fuck anymore if you are a racist. Who cares?

Why should we care when these purveyors of hate politics clearly don't? Have you ever seen some of that TEE VEE?

Why do you conservatives never address the fucking comment that was just made?

You do not know much about the history of conservatives do you?

You never heard of the Birch society? You don't know about Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the Civil Rights movement?

Gads, you're a moron.....Goldwater was in the forefront of the civil rights movement.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.

3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm

Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.

4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?

5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill, those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks, but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

Demonic, chapter 10





Conservative utility is immediate, ineluctable, and applicable across aisles and ages. For proof, consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes: “for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” [See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.] Christian Camerota, “Reinventing the Right,” p. 28.

I noticed you left out the fact he voted AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act ...I know more about this than you, this is why it is so easy to make you folks look pathetic...

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

"I noticed you left out the fact he voted AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act ...I know more about this than you, this is why it is so easy to make you folks look pathetic..."


You 'noticed' no such thing, you lying low-life.

I wrote this:

"Gads, you're a moron.....Goldwater was in the forefront of the civil rights movement.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.




Now, where is your apology??????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do Conservatives Know Much About Conservative History?

Its almost like conservatives forget about the John Birch Society.....or the early William F Buckley years before he moved away from overt racism after it became socially unfashionable; although his conservative publications did not -- and when conservatives do delve into the history of Buckley and National Review, they almost always whitewash the past to ignore or minimize the role played by racism.

And since most conservatives call Buckley the father of modern conservatism, how about we talk about his mentor "Willmoore Kendall" -- He is the guy who theorized the rhetorical appeal to populism that was later developed to great effect by politicians like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. So it’s important to realize that the masses Kendall wanted to appeal to were, from the start, white people, not America as a whole -- this is why many conservatives like him were in full support of Jim Crow laws as well as apartheid in South Africa.

But the problem with these arguments is that, its easy to point to one party or another and find racists along the way -- what were the policies those parties fought for and implemented?

If you are going to claim that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were not good steps to take in the right direction towards equality for all people, just because LBJ said something racist, you are an idiot....

You are going to have a hard time beating the victimization drum, when the left give a carte blanche to every minority to be bigots toward straight folks, Christians, men, white folks, etc.

It's getting to the point, where folks just don't give a fuck anymore if you are a racist. Who cares?

Why should we care when these purveyors of hate politics clearly don't? Have you ever seen some of that TEE VEE?

Why do you conservatives never address the fucking comment that was just made?

You do not know much about the history of conservatives do you?

You never heard of the Birch society? You don't know about Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the Civil Rights movement?

Gads, you're a moron.....Goldwater was in the forefront of the civil rights movement.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.

3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm

Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.

4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?

5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill, those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks, but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

Demonic, chapter 10





Conservative utility is immediate, ineluctable, and applicable across aisles and ages. For proof, consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes: “for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” [See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.] Christian Camerota, “Reinventing the Right,” p. 28.

I noticed you left out the fact he voted AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act ...I know more about this than you, this is why it is so easy to make you folks look pathetic...

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Southern Democrats when given the choice in the 60s to stick with party or stick with racism, became republicans. That same party that NOW cries about taking down con-federate statues and con-federate flags.

They never became Republicans, liar.

They were Dixiecrats.....not Dixiecans.


That's why you can't find a single error here:

Here's a 100% true, accurate and correct review of Democrat history.....


"You see, what do slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion have in common? They were all top priorities for the Democratic Party throughout history.

• 1828 — Democratic Party is founded by Andrew Jackson — a passionate advocate of slavery and key figure behind the ‘Trail of Tears’ — a state-sanctioned slaughter of around 15,000 Native Americans
• 1866 — Ku Klux Klan is founded by a group of Democratic former confederate soldiers who fought to prevent blacks living in the South from voting
• 1868 — Equal protection granted to slaves in the USA: 94% Republican support and 0% Democratic support.
• 1870— Black suffrage: 100% Republicans voted for, 0% Democrats voted against.
• 1915— First motion-picture movie to be shown in the White House is The Birth of Nation, a Democratic-Party produced propaganda film depicting the KKK as heroes.
• 1939 —“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” – Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood)
• 1960s — “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years” – Lyndon B. Johnson
• 2014 — 36% of all abortion in the US were performed on black women compared to the national black population of 13.3%
• 2019 — Reproductive Health Act legalises the murdering of a child up to the day of birth

Even a cursory glance at the dark history of the Democratic Party reveals that they have been the party of death long before the 21st century."

Kill More Babies! · Caldron Pool



Now....your Democrat Party???????



1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne

2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.

3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.

4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress

5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.

6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.

7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.

8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..

9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.

10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.


11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?

12. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism.





Now.....either compose a list that reflects the same evil for the Right, conservatives, the GOP.....or admit to being a windbag proposing moral equivalence.




BTW......while there is a Far Left....and it owns and operates the Democrat Party......

....THERE IS NO FAR RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

[Pogo]

Proud Democrat voters can certainly find great moments to celebrate.....if they are oblivious to the real history of their chosen party.

Said history can be reduced to slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion.



"You see, what do slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion have in common? They were all top priorities for the Democratic Party throughout history.

• 1828 — Democratic Party is founded by Andrew Jackson — a passionate advocate of slavery and key figure behind the ‘Trail of Tears’ — a state-sanctioned slaughter of around 15,000 Native Americans

WRONG. The Democratic Party was organized in 1834 by Martin van Buren, Jackson's successor. Jackson ran for President three times (1824/1828/1832) without a political party behind him. His body of supporters were simply called "Jacksonians" for lack of a name. His detractors were simply called "Anti-Jacksonians" for the same reason.

But the reason you made this leap is that Martin van Buren was an abolitionist. We can't have that in our propaganda.

• 1866 — Ku Klux Klan is founded by a group of Democratic former confederate soldiers who fought to prevent blacks living in the South from voting

WRONG AGAIN. The Klan was founded by six ex-soldiers (Maj James Crowe, Calvin Jones, Capt John B. Kennedy, Capt John Lester, Maj. Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed), at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, the office of Jones' father, Christmas 1865, not 66, BEFORE there was any postwar voting going on, BEFORE that state had rejoined the union, as a college fraternity-type activity modeled directly after Kuklos Adelphon, having no political purpose and its founders having no political affiliations, Tennessee having no political parties to affiliate with at the time anyway.

But again the reason you changed the date is that the revised date would obscure the fact that the KKK already existed before Reconstruction, and we can't have those inconvenient dates in our propaganda either. Oh and you gave no names. I just gave you ALL of them. And while we're about it, since that Klan disappeared by 1872 and officially disbanded 1869, it had to be re-formed in 1915 (see next entry) by a huckster former minister named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliations. That was the much bigger one that spread coast to coast and numbered its members in the millions.

Nor do you seem to mention the existence of literally dozens of similar local/regional vigilante groups springing up like weeds at the time (the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869); the Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70); the Council of Safety; Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi); Heroes of America (South Carolina); the Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi); the Knights of the Red Hand; the Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868); the Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69); the Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama); Men of Justice; Native Sons of the South (Mississippi); Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867); the Order of the White Rose; Red Caps (Tennessee); Red Jackets (Tennessee); Red Strings (South Carolina); the Robertson Family (Mississippi); the Society of the White Rose (Mississippi); the Seymour Knights (Louisiana); the Southern Cross (New Orléans1865); the White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70); the White League (Louisiana 1874); the White Line (Mississippi); the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee) and the '76 Association (Louisiana 1869) (partial list) ---- where's my propaganda bullshit about how "Democrats" founded all these too, even in places that were not part of the United States and/or had no political parties? How were they prescient to form themselves to prevent voting that wasn't even going on yet? And why so many groups? If you're going to organize something to oppose a single national political party, wouldn't you do so with a single national organization?

• 1915— First motion-picture movie to be shown in the White House is The Birth of Nation, a Democratic-Party produced propaganda film depicting the KKK as heroes.

WRONG. "Birth of a Nation" was strictly Hollywood, born of the controversial Thomas Dixon book "The Clansman" (1905) which begat a play, which begat the film, all of which were begat by the Cult of the Lost Cause which had started rewriting history soon after the Civil War, imagining the "nobility" of the Southern cause. Both Dixon and Griffith were Southerners and proponents of the Lost Cause, which also begat a flurry of activity from the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) who spent most of their resources literally rewriting history books and putting up hundreds of monuments and statues all over the country to sell this revisionist propaganda, in public places where they would propagandize the most. Those would be the same monuments and statues recently under fire to be removed FROM those public spaces.

​

Back to the film, the 1915 "Birth of a Nation" which did indeed portray the Klan of decades past as heroes -- part of the Lost Cause revisionism --- sparked a national buzz, which in turn incited the aforementioned Simmons to rent a bus and take some sycophants up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving that year to re-establish the Klan under a bible, an unsheathed sword, and the first-ever Klan burning cross, an affectation he took from the movie, which just made it up. In short, both the 1915 Klan and the film "Birth of a Nation" were undertaken for the same simple reason --- to make money for their creators.


Simmons too had no political affiliation and he pointedly described his Klan effusively as ""the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (Wade, The Fiery Cross, p. 151). Nevertheless after control was wrested away from Simmons the Klan did dabble in politics in the 1920s, electing Rice Means (Sen, CO), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen, ME), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Clarence Morley (Gov, CO), Ed Jackson (Gov, IN), George Baker (Mayor, Portland OR) and numerous local officers and Reps in various states such as one Albert Johnson:

>> Johnson was the chief author of the Immigration Act of 1924, which in 1927 he justified as a bulwark against "a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed."[2] Johnson has been described as "an unusually energetic and vehement racist and nativist."[3] He was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled. In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[4]

– The Klan was public and effusive in its support of Albert Johnson. Time Magazine noted in 1924 that Johnson’s immigration restriction law was “generally supported by the West and South, admittedly with the backing of the Ku Klux Klan.” It reported in 1926 that one of the national KKK’s top four political priorities was the “Renomination and re-election of Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, so he can continue to be Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and fight for restricted immigration laws.” << (Wiki)​

All of the aforementioned --- Johnson, Means, Brewster, Paulen, Morley, Jackson, Baker --- were Republicans. Not to mention the same Klan endorsed Calvin Cooldige in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928 while running a national smear campaign against the Democrat Al Smith.

None of this of course makes the Klan "Republicans" --- that would require Ass-ociation Fallacy, which is your domain. But it sure as hell doesn't make them "Democrats" either. That Klan opposed not just blacks but Jews (part of its founding contingent had participated in the Leo Frank lynch mob), immigrants, Catholics and labor unions, all of which were and are Democratic Party constituents. Not real smart to organize a hate group against your own base, now is it.

DUH.

• 1960s — “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years” – Lyndon B. Johnson

Unsourced uncorroborated myth-quote.




Prove *ANYTHING* I've posted above to be inaccurate. You know, like I just did yours.

What's more you've been told *ALL* of this in the past, REPEATEDLY, have *NEVER* refuted a single one of my facts, and yet here you are spraying the same shitstorm expecting different results. Message board masturbation.

Funeral services for this OP will be held Feb 6th, 2019, 10:00 am...at Mt. Calvary Baptist Church By The Rock On The Hill....Rev. Jeremiah Wright will give the eulogy....

View attachment 244253

This thread, as with virtually all Stuporgirl threads, brought its own suicide gene in post number one, shooting itself in the back 157 times, pausing only twice to reload.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Divide and Conquer propaganda.

You can find numerous examples of disgusting behavior of the other party as well. All the elites are assholes.

Yet I don't see you're equivalent listing for the other side......


Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner.

Put your revisionist bullshit up your ass where it came from.

Oh wait, never mind. I just did that for you. You're welcome.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


Now....out of here....you're stinking the place up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Proud Democrat voters can certainly find great moments to celebrate.....if they are oblivious to the real history of their chosen party.

Said history can be reduced to slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion.



"You see, what do slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion have in common? They were all top priorities for the Democratic Party throughout history.

• 1828 — Democratic Party is founded by Andrew Jackson — a passionate advocate of slavery and key figure behind the ‘Trail of Tears’ — a state-sanctioned slaughter of around 15,000 Native Americans

WRONG. The Democratic Party was organized in 1834 by Martin van Buren, Jackson's successor. Jackson ran for President three times (1824/1828/1832) without a political party behind him. His body of supporters were simply called "Jacksonians" for lack of a name. His detractors were simply called "Anti-Jacksonians" for the same reason.

But the reason you made this leap is that Martin van Buren was an abolitionist. We can't have that in our propaganda.

• 1866 — Ku Klux Klan is founded by a group of Democratic former confederate soldiers who fought to prevent blacks living in the South from voting

WRONG AGAIN. The Klan was founded by six ex-soldiers (Maj James Crowe, Calvin Jones, Capt John B. Kennedy, Capt John Lester, Maj. Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed), at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, the office of Jones' father, Christmas 1865, not 66, BEFORE there was any postwar voting going on, BEFORE that state had rejoined the union, as a college fraternity-type activity modeled directly after Kuklos Adelphon, having no political purpose and its founders having no political affiliations, Tennessee having no political parties to affiliate with at the time anyway.

But again the reason you changed the date is that the revised date would obscure the fact that the KKK already existed before Reconstruction, and we can't have those inconvenient dates in our propaganda either. Oh and you gave no names. I just gave you ALL of them. And while we're about it, since that Klan disappeared by 1872 and officially disbanded 1869, it had to be re-formed in 1915 (see next entry) by a huckster former minister named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons --- who also had no known political affiliations. That was the much bigger one that spread coast to coast and numbered its members in the millions.

Nor do you seem to mention the existence of literally dozens of similar local/regional vigilante groups springing up like weeds at the time (the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869); the Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70); the Council of Safety; Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi); Heroes of America (South Carolina); the Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi); the Knights of the Red Hand; the Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868); the Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69); the Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama); Men of Justice; Native Sons of the South (Mississippi); Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867); the Order of the White Rose; Red Caps (Tennessee); Red Jackets (Tennessee); Red Strings (South Carolina); the Robertson Family (Mississippi); the Society of the White Rose (Mississippi); the Seymour Knights (Louisiana); the Southern Cross (New Orléans1865); the White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70); the White League (Louisiana 1874); the White Line (Mississippi); the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee) and the '76 Association (Louisiana 1869) (partial list) ---- where's my propaganda bullshit about how "Democrats" founded all these too, even in places that were not part of the United States and/or had no political parties? How were they prescient to form themselves to prevent voting that wasn't even going on yet? And why so many groups? If you're going to organize something to oppose a single national political party, wouldn't you do so with a single national organization?

• 1915— First motion-picture movie to be shown in the White House is The Birth of Nation, a Democratic-Party produced propaganda film depicting the KKK as heroes.

WRONG. "Birth of a Nation" was strictly Hollywood, born of the controversial Thomas Dixon book "The Clansman" (1905) which begat a play, which begat the film, all of which were begat by the Cult of the Lost Cause which had started rewriting history soon after the Civil War, imagining the "nobility" of the Southern cause. Both Dixon and Griffith were Southerners and proponents of the Lost Cause, which also begat a flurry of activity from the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) who spent most of their resources literally rewriting history books and putting up hundreds of monuments and statues all over the country to sell this revisionist propaganda, in public places where they would propagandize the most. Those would be the same monuments and statues recently under fire to be removed FROM those public spaces.

​

Back to the film, the 1915 "Birth of a Nation" which did indeed portray the Klan of decades past as heroes -- part of the Lost Cause revisionism --- sparked a national buzz, which in turn incited the aforementioned Simmons to rent a bus and take some sycophants up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving that year to re-establish the Klan under a bible, an unsheathed sword, and the first-ever Klan burning cross, an affectation he took from the movie, which just made it up. In short, both the 1915 Klan and the film "Birth of a Nation" were undertaken for the same simple reason --- to make money for their creators.


Simmons too had no political affiliation and he pointedly described his Klan effusively as ""the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (Wade, The Fiery Cross, p. 151). Nevertheless after control was wrested away from Simmons the Klan did dabble in politics in the 1920s, electing Rice Means (Sen, CO), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen, ME), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Clarence Morley (Gov, CO), Ed Jackson (Gov, IN), George Baker (Mayor, Portland OR) and numerous local officers and Reps in various states such as one Albert Johnson:

>> Johnson was the chief author of the Immigration Act of 1924, which in 1927 he justified as a bulwark against "a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed."[2] Johnson has been described as "an unusually energetic and vehement racist and nativist."[3] He was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled. In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[4]

– The Klan was public and effusive in its support of Albert Johnson. Time Magazine noted in 1924 that Johnson’s immigration restriction law was “generally supported by the West and South, admittedly with the backing of the Ku Klux Klan.” It reported in 1926 that one of the national KKK’s top four political priorities was the “Renomination and re-election of Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, so he can continue to be Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and fight for restricted immigration laws.” << (Wiki)​

All of the aforementioned --- Johnson, Means, Brewster, Paulen, Morley, Jackson, Baker --- were Republicans. Not to mention the same Klan endorsed Calvin Cooldige in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928 while running a national smear campaign against the Democrat Al Smith.

None of this of course makes the Klan "Republicans" --- that would require Ass-ociation Fallacy, which is your domain. But it sure as hell doesn't make them "Democrats" either. That Klan opposed not just blacks but Jews (part of its founding contingent had participated in the Leo Frank lynch mob), immigrants, Catholics and labor unions, all of which were and are Democratic Party constituents. Not real smart to organize a hate group against your own base, now is it.

DUH.

• 1960s — “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years” – Lyndon B. Johnson

Unsourced uncorroborated myth-quote.




Prove *ANYTHING* I've posted above to be inaccurate. You know, like I just did yours.

What's more you've been told *ALL* of this in the past, REPEATEDLY, have *NEVER* refuted a single one of my facts, and yet here you are spraying the same shitstorm expecting different results. Message board masturbation.

Funeral services for this OP will be held Feb 6th, 2019, 10:00 am...at Mt. Calvary Baptist Church By The Rock On The Hill....Rev. Jeremiah Wright will give the eulogy....

View attachment 244253

Then, Obama chooses as his spiritual guide, the anti-American pastor-nee-Muslim, Jeremiah Wright.

“Long before Reverend Wright entered the national stage, Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, in the March 19, 2007 issue, dropped this little gem:

Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”

The racist paranoia of AIDS being developed by white America to kill blacks and other inexcusable statements are from the same framework of the NOI and Farrakhan. In fact:

In 1984, Wright was one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Khadafy.

…why did Wright’s church put the racist and anti-Semitic Farrakhan on the cover of its magazine Trumpet? Why did Trinity Church post:
a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence[?]


The three points above show a consistent pattern of Wright parroting not only the language and but also the attitude of the Nation of Islam.

The Reverend Wright may no longer be a Muslim, but he clearly embraces Hamas, Minister Farrakhan and others because they dovetail with his established world view, as with other syncretic religions.

Reverend Wright’s hate speeches are a glimpse of someone who has blended Nation of Islam and Black Nationalist Liberation Theology into a subversive Christianity,…”
Jeremiah Wright Was a Muslim: Why That Matters


A comfortable arena for our Muslim former President.

 

[Pogo]

You are going to have a hard time beating the victimization drum, when the left give a carte blanche to every minority to be bigots toward straight folks, Christians, men, white folks, etc.

It's getting to the point, where folks just don't give a fuck anymore if you are a racist. Who cares?

Why should we care when these purveyors of hate politics clearly don't? Have you ever seen some of that TEE VEE?

Why do you conservatives never address the fucking comment that was just made?

You do not know much about the history of conservatives do you?

You never heard of the Birch society? You don't know about Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the Civil Rights movement?

Gads, you're a moron.....Goldwater was in the forefront of the civil rights movement.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.

3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm

Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.

4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?

5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill, those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks, but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

Demonic, chapter 10





Conservative utility is immediate, ineluctable, and applicable across aisles and ages. For proof, consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes: “for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” [See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.] Christian Camerota, “Reinventing the Right,” p. 28.

I noticed you left out the fact he voted AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act ...I know more about this than you, this is why it is so easy to make you folks look pathetic...

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Southern Democrats when given the choice in the 60s to stick with party or stick with racism, became republicans. That same party that NOW cries about taking down con-federate statues and con-federate flags.

They never became Republicans, liar.

Strom Thurmond would disagree.
As would Jesse Helms.
As would Richard Shelby.
As would Trent Lott.
As would David Duke.
As would Buddy Roemer.
As would Billy Tauzin.
As would Nathan Deal.
As would Sonny Perdue.
As would Rick Perry.

You get the idea. Oh and we didn't mention George Wallace, who offered to switch parties to be Goldwater's running mate. Which when you think about it is a silly idea --- there's no reason a Republican POTUS candidate couldn't take a Democratic running mate. Lincoln did it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Even a cursory glance at the dark history of the Democratic Party reveals that they have been the party of death long before the 21st century."



Democrat voters are unable to support the desire of their party to slaughter the unborn.

The history of the Democrat Party can be reduced to slavery, segregation laws, eugenics, and abortion.

It has always been my presumption that a Liberal cannot win a debate with a conservative, and that Liberals/Democrat voters have simply been raised to accept the orders of their elites, even when they reverse them 180°.

We can prove that presumption now: I challenge you to provide a justification for abortion.

If you can’t, you will have proven me correct.


If you try, I promise to eviscerate your attempt.

Let’s see some guts.

 

[MisterBeale]

"One thing you will never see conservatives talk about when it comes to desperation posts like these -- is policies....."

Let's check, gasbag.....



Here's a dozen reasons posted two years ago....


Most voted against the Democrats,
against the mess Hussein Obama made of the economy,
against the corruption we've witnessed for decades,
against awarding nuclear weapons to the 7th century savages,
against the anti-white bias of the Democrat Party,

against the flood of illegal immigrants who require welfare
against bringing millions of unvetted Muslim refugees from war-indoctrinated nations,
against redistribution of wealth,
against the failed Liberal welfare industry,
against being dictated to by the United Nothings,
against a failed Liberal education industry,


...and for the slim possibility of a rebirth of America.

Why do you keep avoiding the facts? Why do you keep avoiding policies?

Here is some more shit for you to keep avoiding...

19TH AMENDMENT: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE -- U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. In August of 1920, Tennessee’s became the 36th state to ratify women’s suffrage, and it became our nation’s 19th amendment....Liberals, not conservatives did that...

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT -- one of the 2 most successful and popular federal policies in US history, the other being Medicare....both opposed by conservatives...

NLRB, 8 hr. Work Day/40 hr. Work Week, Overtime, Unemployment -- Liberals pushed this ....conservatives were opposed....Have you turned down your overtime pay yet?

Veterans’ Benefits, GI Bill -- more shit those damn democrats did that you pretend didn't happen and that you pretend didn't benefit millions of people...

I could go on, but that depends on how pathetic you want me to make you look....

Actually, the women's suffrage movement was originally closely tied to the anti-slavery movement.

Aren't you aware of what party that was?

I am aware of what political ideology it was that advocated for the rights of women to vote -- and it damn sure wasn't conservative...

Why do you idiots always avoid the fact that conservative and liberal are the main constants in US political history and not parties??

Thomas Paine was one of the first people to advocate for the abolition --- now tell me....was Thomas considered a liberal or conservative?

Radical Liberal......as our Founders were Liberals of their age.

WRONG.

Try CLASSICAL LIBERAL.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]"

Don't dare try to compare the modern day big statist left with the founders, they are NOTHING alike.

The modern left is much more like KING GEORGE.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you keep avoiding the facts? Why do you keep avoiding policies?

Here is some more shit for you to keep avoiding...

19TH AMENDMENT: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE -- U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. In August of 1920, Tennessee’s became the 36th state to ratify women’s suffrage, and it became our nation’s 19th amendment....Liberals, not conservatives did that...

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT -- one of the 2 most successful and popular federal policies in US history, the other being Medicare....both opposed by conservatives...

NLRB, 8 hr. Work Day/40 hr. Work Week, Overtime, Unemployment -- Liberals pushed this ....conservatives were opposed....Have you turned down your overtime pay yet?

Veterans’ Benefits, GI Bill -- more shit those damn democrats did that you pretend didn't happen and that you pretend didn't benefit millions of people...

I could go on, but that depends on how pathetic you want me to make you look....

Actually, the women's suffrage movement was originally closely tied to the anti-slavery movement.

Aren't you aware of what party that was?

I am aware of what political ideology it was that advocated for the rights of women to vote -- and it damn sure wasn't conservative...

Why do you idiots always avoid the fact that conservative and liberal are the main constants in US political history and not parties??

Thomas Paine was one of the first people to advocate for the abolition --- now tell me....was Thomas considered a liberal or conservative?

Radical Liberal......as our Founders were Liberals of their age.

WRONG.

Try CLASSICAL LIBERAL.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]"

Don't dare try to compare the modern day big statist left with the founders, they are NOTHING alike.

The modern left is much more like KING GEORGE.

It is the standard propaganda lie they use.


The truth is that communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party co-opt the term 'Liberal,' and that is what Liberals today stand for.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you keep avoiding the facts? Why do you keep avoiding policies?

Here is some more shit for you to keep avoiding...

19TH AMENDMENT: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE -- U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. In August of 1920, Tennessee’s became the 36th state to ratify women’s suffrage, and it became our nation’s 19th amendment....Liberals, not conservatives did that...

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT -- one of the 2 most successful and popular federal policies in US history, the other being Medicare....both opposed by conservatives...

NLRB, 8 hr. Work Day/40 hr. Work Week, Overtime, Unemployment -- Liberals pushed this ....conservatives were opposed....Have you turned down your overtime pay yet?

Veterans’ Benefits, GI Bill -- more shit those damn democrats did that you pretend didn't happen and that you pretend didn't benefit millions of people...

I could go on, but that depends on how pathetic you want me to make you look....

Actually, the women's suffrage movement was originally closely tied to the anti-slavery movement.

Aren't you aware of what party that was?

I am aware of what political ideology it was that advocated for the rights of women to vote -- and it damn sure wasn't conservative...

Why do you idiots always avoid the fact that conservative and liberal are the main constants in US political history and not parties??

Thomas Paine was one of the first people to advocate for the abolition --- now tell me....was Thomas considered a liberal or conservative?

Radical Liberal......as our Founders were Liberals of their age.

WRONG.

Try CLASSICAL LIBERAL.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]"

Don't dare try to compare the modern day big statist left with the founders, they are NOTHING alike.

The modern left is much more like KING GEORGE.

"Liberal" is not "left". Nor is it "statist".

If one is conflating either of those with "Liberalism" then one is simply misnaming them as such. Don't do that.

"Liberal" means Liberal. It isn't "classiical", it's simply Liberal. "Classical" is a Goldbergian weasel-word to try to twist a term he finds inconvenient into its own opposite. You can't have a word that means opposite things. There is no "cold fire".

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrats champion abortion, yet not one of their voters can come up with a way to support it.



Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?


'cause....if there isn't, and one is murder, so, then, is the other.

That's called logic.