Wonder why?
-Geaux
--------
The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
It was also known as “Klanbake.”
In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!
As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:
One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.
This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.
The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.
If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.
You have to be joking. The left wing and the democrats are about as intolerant of group as one could find. Being tolerant isn't going along with nothing as do the democrats being tolerant is a Christian helping a sinner, which they do, the democrats not so much. Look at the intolerance displayed on this board. Is there a liberal/democrat that has any tolerance for anything a conservative/republican might think?
Take abortion for example. What does the left wing do to counter the argument the at the unborn is worthy of protection? First they vilify, then they claim some unwritten write to choice. Intolerant is the only way to look at the democrat party. A least there are Log Cabin Republicans.
You also use as a defense of democrats the actions of their members which is disingenuous. Much like the left will paint the right as anti-gay, not true, but in fact there are gay in the Republican party. Which, interestingly enough, who are vilified by the democrats.
Dear
Freewill
1. I'm not using this as a "defense" or "denial" of democrat intolerance which I constantly criticize for the same reasons you and other opponents do, but rather using this to point to exceptions such as Ray Hill as an example of what liberals ought to be doing in terms of inclusion and working with leaders and people of both parties. He has consulted with govt officials at all levels on getting reforms done. He will work with Christians and Conservatives, such as helping Joel Osteen cut through city red tape to get the Compaq Center they were blocking him from buying because they wanted the business revenue and not sell it to a church.
2. I am a progressive prochoice Democrat.
I also strive to do what all citizens and leaders who care about the country should do:
and that is put the Constitution first before party.
And yes I DO give to prolife causes such as my friend Juda Myers
Choices for Life where I bought an ad to support her gala
to promote The Nurturing Network as one of my favorite models for prolife
support of women to prevent abortion and forcing women into it by social
career or financial pressures.
I argue on behalf of prolife beliefs that should be equally and Constitutionally
protected from infringement the same as prochoice beliefs that are equally a choice.
Yes, I know that Liberals such as Ray Hill and me are rare, and we have a greater responsibility to help others to understand where they and the Democrats go wrong.
Ray is even more traditional liberal than me, and willing to push the LGBT agenda
while I also hold it to be a belief or creed that should be a free choice not pushed by govt to the point of penalizing or discriminating against people of opposing beliefs.
3. I am a harder critic of fellow Democrats
and believe the Republicans tend to do better checking their own party
corruption because their members who are Christians and Constitutionalists
already know how to use, cite, invoke and rebuke one another BY THE LAWS.
the Democrats generally don't know how to do this
and have avoided taking the law to conscience as the conservatives do.
instead they rely on party and media to bully to protest and demand reforms.
So I tend to focus more on correcting that problem.
I will correct Republicans and conservatives when they get off point
and start bullying liek their counterparts instead of STICKING TO PRINCIPLE.
I have virtually "yelled" and lectured Republicans to unite and get their act
together because the Democrats surely won't follow the Constitution
if the Republicans stray and don't enforce it. We need them to do their job!
So I am a Constitutional first.
I find it is only fair, ethical and consistent to defend
the beliefs of people of both parties from each other,
as well as the other parties where key solutions
are coming from the Greens and Libertarians
who can't be heard if the floors of Courts and Congress are dominated by
D and R members bullying and outshouting each other in the media as well.
I can best explain and enforce principles by example.
Ray Hill happens to be a shining example while he is
respected as representing the liberals and Democrats
even more than I am who is constantly labeled a conservative
because of my Constitutional arguments that sound more like
Christians on the right and Conservatives. Sometimes I can
be harder than prolife advocates on their own prolife colleagues who aren't truly supporting the leaders and solutions that would most effectively prevent abortion,
and equally harder than other Democrats liberals and prochoice
on the prochoice people who violate that principle by pushing right to health
care through govt instead of respecting free choice.
So I can be harder on both sides as a Constitutionalist.
But at least those arguments are consistent.
I'm saying if you are going to be prochoice and demand
separation of beliefs from govt, then practice what you preach.
And if you are going to be prolife for Constitutional principles,
then practice and protect those same beliefs for both sides equally.
That ends up being the most consistent enforceable way
I can help defend the beliefs on both sides because I am not
asking to violate the beliefs of the other, but to satisfy and protect both equally.
So that is both prochoice and prolife.
I'm against abortion and believe in 100% prevention
but believe this is best accomplished using a prochoice approach
as the prolife movement already does. They do'nt depend on laws
making abortion illegal or punishing it in order to invest all efforts
and resources in prevention, and they do the best job. So we need
to increase and back up those prevention prolife efforts 100% in order
to reduce and eliminate the causes of unwanted pregrancy and abortion,
in keeping with prolife goals, while not pushing unconstitutional laws
that violate due process and beliefs of prochoice advocates in free choice.
