Lions, and Tigers and Bears, Oh, My!

[PoliticalChic]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

Carby...I didn't know that you were interested in history!!
In fact...I've never noticed any intellectual pursuits on your part!
Well, ya' live and learn!

Well, here's a bit you might like: today, October 16th is the day a true American terrorist, John Brown, attacked the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Va. in 1859 (later Washington, DC). He was captured by militia under Robert E. Lee, and hanged for treason Dec. 2.

He was also acting in the name of civil rights!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

mlk was republican - Bing

Martin Luther King was a Republican

Martin Luther King Jr was not

I donno....got a link for that?
Or is it apocryphal?

You're not gonna like this:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[LordBrownTrout]

mlk was republican - Bing

Martin Luther King was a Republican

Martin Luther King Jr was not

I donno....got a link for that?
Or is it apocryphal?

You're not gonna like this:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican - HUMAN EVENTS

Exactly, they were in favor of all that but incredibly they always shapeshift out and try to revise history. They're not difficult to find out if you read historical manuscripts at libraries BUT kids will never get this type of history at the public indocrination camps.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Polticalchick is playing pretend again. This time it's "let's pretend that anyone who supports OWS speaks for the entire movement" game. The rules are you can only play that game with OWS not the Tea Party because..yanno, that's not fair

 

[Big Fitz]

Polticalchick is playing pretend again. This time it's "let's pretend that anyone who supports OWS speaks for the entire movement" game. The rules are you can only play that game with OWS not the Tea Party because..yanno, that's not fair

And? You do the exact same thing with the tea party or any other conservative group. If some absolute lunatic speaks out, you automatically shove him in front as ceremonial head of the movement.

But when the same is done, justly or not to you, all we get is "THEY DON'T REPRESENT US ALL! WE'RE UNIQUE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"

Pa-
the-
tic.

If you didn't have double standards, you'd have no standards at all.

 

[Dragon]

You're not gonna like this:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."

It was written in 2006, which makes it a false statement. If it had been written in 1964, it would have been true about the GOP, but still only half-true about the Democrats. The GOP was founded as an anti-slavery party, and remained very staunchly a civil-rights party (among other things) until the 1960s. The Democrats were more divided, however, so the statement about the Democrats is just flat wrong. The only truth to it is that there was a faction within the Democrats that was pro-slavery before the Civil War, and did lead the charge to secession, and did uphold segregation. That portion of the Democratic Party dominated the South, which in those days considered Republicans anathema.

Are the Republicans still anathema in the South? Obviously not. Do the Democrats still dominate the South? Obviously not. Have things changed? Obviously so.

TODAY, the Republican Party is no longer the party of civil rights. That's just one of the things that has radically changed about it since the 1960s.

It made perfect sense for Martin Luther King, Jr. to be a Republican -- then. But it would make no sense at all for anyone who shares his views to be one now.

 

[Inthemiddle]

From time to time the question of definiton of the Left has come up....i.e., the groups correctly identified as the Left.

Well, events have helped clarify same....
Nazis, and Communists have come out to endorse their fellow totalitarians, the Occupy crowd:

1. The American Nazi Party likes what it sees.
Today the American Nazi Party released a statement in support of Occupy Wall Street movement.


The foremost authority on National Socialism in America has this to say about “Occupy” [ANP leader Rocky Suhayda -ed.] :

What is really MISSING – is the “MOVEMENT” from these popular protests – its time to pull WN heads out of their collective ass’s, and JOIN IN the attack on Judeo-Capitalism. What do you suggest? That WN Working Class White people DEFEND the Judeo-Capitalists? IF the “movement” wasn’t so PATHETIC it would be OUT THERE – LEADING these protests! The fact that its these “lefties” as you call them, who are picking up the ball and running with it – only shows how much more in tune THEY are with the fed up masses of White Workers, than the fossilized, reactionary “right-wing”. WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO therefore do WN need to FIGHT? My heart is right there with these people, perhaps someday the “movement” will SHOW the same COURAGE and DEDICATION that these people OUT THERE FIGHTING are SHOWING!

2. From the CPUSA website:


This is an exciting time! Thousands of mainly young people have been occupying Wall Street for three weeks already, and the “Occupy Movement” has spread to more than 200 other cities. On Oct. 6 the actions spread to our nation’s capital.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) will hold a national teleconference to discuss it:

Arturo Cambron
The Communist Party and the Occupy L.A. Movement
Tuesday, October 11, 8 pm Eastern
Teleconference number: 605-475-4850 (please note this is the corrected number. ignore previous.)
Access code: 1053538#

Southern California Party leader Arturo Cambron will share how the CPUSA and Young Communist League (YCL) are working in “Occupy Los Angeles.”

This movement, also known as the “99% movement,” is being hailed across the country. Movements and organizations are reaching out in solidarity. The AFL-CIO is opening union halls and offering other material assistance. Ordinary people are donating food, money and materials.

In many areas, the “Occupy Movement” is linking up with the National American Wants to Work Week of Actions, Oct. 10-16.

No doubt the “Arab Spring” demonstrations and those that exploded in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere have inspired it. But underlying it all is the economic crisis, the massive unemployment and growing realization that nothing is getting better, and in fact we may be slipping into a “double dip” crisis. The crushing student debt and the feeling of being locked out of society with no future compound this.

The movement is the newest wrinkle in the all-people’s upsurge against the banks and corporations and reflects a new level of class-consciousness.

Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements | The Gateway Pundit



Well, maybe not "Lions, and Tigers and Bears, Oh, My!"...but certainly "Birds of a Feather!"


Evaluate which side you're really on....

Radical, extremist, Muslim terrorists condemn gay marriage laws in the US. Should we call this birds of a feather also?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Polticalchick is playing pretend again. This time it's "let's pretend that anyone who supports OWS speaks for the entire movement" game. The rules are you can only play that game with OWS not the Tea Party because..yanno, that's not fair

Your post reeks of fear....
...what are you afraid of?

Not the truth, are you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You're not gonna like this:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."

It was written in 2006, which makes it a false statement. If it had been written in 1964, it would have been true about the GOP, but still only half-true about the Democrats. The GOP was founded as an anti-slavery party, and remained very staunchly a civil-rights party (among other things) until the 1960s. The Democrats were more divided, however, so the statement about the Democrats is just flat wrong. The only truth to it is that there was a faction within the Democrats that was pro-slavery before the Civil War, and did lead the charge to secession, and did uphold segregation. That portion of the Democratic Party dominated the South, which in those days considered Republicans anathema.

Are the Republicans still anathema in the South? Obviously not. Do the Democrats still dominate the South? Obviously not. Have things changed? Obviously so.

TODAY, the Republican Party is no longer the party of civil rights. That's just one of the things that has radically changed about it since the 1960s.

It made perfect sense for Martin Luther King, Jr. to be a Republican -- then. But it would make no sense at all for anyone who shares his views to be one now.

Could you list those policies?

 

[Dragon]

Your post reeks of fear....
...what are you afraid of?

Not the truth, are you?

Actually, seems to me that this mushrooming of threads about OWS by right-wingers are what reek of fear. I think you are projecting here.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Clearly, getting to the point is not so easy for you....

should one support the collective....or the rights of the individual?

That's what the disinguishing characteristic of the two philosophies comes down to....

Nazi, Communist, Progressive, Liberal on the one side....the collective.
Classical Liberal, conservative, the Founding Fathers on the other....the individual.


Get it now?
C'mon....it's not easy....but try.

Perhaps, neither of those groups is truly so simplistically defined as you try to claim.

And perhaps, what one should do is support BOTH the rights of the collective and individual, in accordance with utilitarian balance. But hey, this is America. We believe that the ideologically charged simplicity of a false dichotomy is freedom, while actionable alternatives are anti-patriotic self delusions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

So you're all for the judging by the content of one's character, not the color of their skin, now?

I just claim that those who scream loudest they are his followers are often the farthest from his dreams and goals.

No, I'm just pointing out, as I do every post in my sigline, that Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

mlk was republican - Bing

Lincoln was a Republican. It took many years to wring the truth out of modern day Conservatives, i.e.,

that they generally despise Lincoln.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not gonna like this:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."

It was written in 2006, which makes it a false statement. If it had been written in 1964, it would have been true about the GOP, but still only half-true about the Democrats. The GOP was founded as an anti-slavery party, and remained very staunchly a civil-rights party (among other things) until the 1960s. The Democrats were more divided, however, so the statement about the Democrats is just flat wrong. The only truth to it is that there was a faction within the Democrats that was pro-slavery before the Civil War, and did lead the charge to secession, and did uphold segregation. That portion of the Democratic Party dominated the South, which in those days considered Republicans anathema.

Are the Republicans still anathema in the South? Obviously not. Do the Democrats still dominate the South? Obviously not. Have things changed? Obviously so.

TODAY, the Republican Party is no longer the party of civil rights. That's just one of the things that has radically changed about it since the 1960s.

It made perfect sense for Martin Luther King, Jr. to be a Republican -- then. But it would make no sense at all for anyone who shares his views to be one now.

" But it would make no sense at all for anyone who shares his views to be one now."

Not hardly.

1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program…under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.

As Charles Murray described in “Losing Ground,” the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.


LBJ was not in all in favor of civil rights,...but was a consumate politician. He bought the black vote at the expense of subjugation to the Democrat tether.

Herman Cain got it right when he said "I Left The Democrat Plantation" Long Ago.

In the next election, you may see lots of black Americans do the same.

 

[Big Fitz]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

So you're all for the judging by the content of one's character, not the color of their skin, now?

I just claim that those who scream loudest they are his followers are often the farthest from his dreams and goals.

No, I'm just pointing out, as I do every post in my sigline, that Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.

you say it... but as usual, it does not make it reality.

I can say rutabagas shoot out of your ass, but alas, it does not become reality either.

See?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clearly, getting to the point is not so easy for you....

should one support the collective....or the rights of the individual?

That's what the disinguishing characteristic of the two philosophies comes down to....

Nazi, Communist, Progressive, Liberal on the one side....the collective.
Classical Liberal, conservative, the Founding Fathers on the other....the individual.


Get it now?
C'mon....it's not easy....but try.

Perhaps, neither of those groups is truly so simplistically defined as you try to claim.

And perhaps, was one should do is support BOTH the rights of the collective and individual, in accordance with utilitarian balance. But hey, this is America. We believe that the ideologically charged simplicity of a false dichotomy is freedom, while actionable alternatives are anti-patriotic self delusions.

"Perhaps, neither of those groups is truly so simplistically defined as you try to claim."

Of course, this statement is correct....
...but the constraints, and the fun, of the message board is to amplify, use extreme positions....
...after all, we don't have the time or the space to write a book (although I try).

So...c'mon...get with the program!

 

[Full-Auto]

It happens to be the day they're dedicating the MLK statue, so it might be interesting to note...

50 years ago Conservatives were accusing Martin Luther King of being a Communist.

Nowadays, you have Conservatives running around trying to claim Martin Luther King was a Republican.

- Bing

Lincoln was a Republican. It took many years to wring the truth out of modern day Conservatives, i.e.,

that they generally despise Lincoln.

Is conservative the code word for denial of culpability on part of the democrats?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your post reeks of fear....
...what are you afraid of?

Not the truth, are you?

I have to be honest, I think it was a fair analysis. He directly addressed the logical merits of your arguments. How that "reeks of fear" is beyond me. But your reply was pretty much a personal jab, with no argument, no fact, nothing but an attack on the person while ignoring the subject matter. I guess I'm a bit disappointed because I kinda expected you to offer something thoughtful. But now you've put a stain on anything reasonable you might have had to say in this discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your post reeks of fear....
...what are you afraid of?

Not the truth, are you?

Actually, seems to me that this mushrooming of threads about OWS by right-wingers are what reek of fear. I think you are projecting here.

As I am in a more accepting mood, and to advance your misguided belief that you actually have anything to add to an adult discussion, I will feign deep thought, as though your had not simply regurgitated some bird-brained twaddle. Proceed. (Yawn.)

 

[Dragon]

Could you list those policies?

What policies? What I said is that it is no longer true that the GOP is the party of civil rights. In fact, civil rights as such (i.e., end to Jim Crow) being a settled issue, there is no one party of civil rights any longer. But on other issues affecting racial equality, it is the Democrats now, not the GOP, that is more supportive. It's Democrats who are more concerned about poverty, and about the rights of the working class, and today racial issues are inseparable from class issues.

There were so many wrong or misleading statements in that quote from Political Chic. Start with this. The entire Democratic Party was not behind secession. In the 1860 election, the Democrats fissioned and ran two candidates. The Southern Democrats ran a pro-slavery candidate, while the Northern Dems ran a compromise candidate. The two divided the Democratic vote, allowing Lincoln to win the election with a plurality, but not a majority, of the popular vote.

The Democrats were similarly divided for decades thereafter. The South was solidly Democratic (once Reconstruction was over and the black vote suppressed), and that gave the Democratic Party its racist tint, which was pretty much absent during this time from the Republicans. But it wasn't universal among Democrats, either. Tentative moves towards racial equality were made under Franklin Roosevelt, whose wife was a major civil rights campaigner. Harry Truman desegregated the armed services. (Dwight Eisenhower acted in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling to end segregated schools -- the Republicans had not lost their original raison dêtre yet.) Civil Rights legislation was passed under LBJ. More Republicans by percentage supported the Civil Rights Act than Democrats, but a majority of Democrats supported it, too.

Johnson is reported to have said, as he signed the law, that he was giving the South to the Republicans for a generation. He was right, or maybe understated the reality. The GOP started pursuing a southern strategy in the very next election. In order to win the white South, which the Democrats had left hanging, the Republicans changed, downplaying the party's commitment to racial equality and abandoning decades of Republican tradition.

Republican historical accomplishments towards achieving racial equality are a glorious legacy -- on which the party has turned its back. To claim that legacy for today's political purposes is just contemptible hypocrisy.

Abraham Lincoln, today, would not be a Republican.