Which is the Real ‘Racist’ Party?
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Which is the Real ‘Racist’ Party?
For a more accurate prespective:
Big Journalism-Which is the Real ‘Racist’ Party: Fifteen Questions for Democrats
History doesn't lie.
Read the article if you don't already know the answers.
Big Journalism-Which is the Real ‘Racist’ Party: Fifteen Questions for Democrats
Originally Posted by Big Journalism-Which is the Real ‘Racist’ Party: Fifteen Questions for Democrats
Question #1. During whose administration did the signature of an African-American first appear on U.S. currency? During that of a Republican or a Democrat President?
Question #2. Was the first African-American diplomat appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President?
Question #3. Was the first African-American popularly elected U.S. Senator a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #4. During the late 1950’s, William Monroe “Willie” Rainach, Sr., a Louisiana state legislator, led the “Massive Resistance” to desegregation in his state. Was Willie a Republican, or a Democrat?
Question #5. In 1957, nine African-American students attempted to enroll in Little Rock’s Central High School. When they were barred entry by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, the President of the United States ordered federal troops to the school to assure their access to an education. Was Faubus a Republican, or a Democrat? Was that President a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #6. In September 1962, U.S. Air Force veteran James H. Meredith enrolled as the first African-American student at the University of Mississippi. Governor Ross Barnett strongly opposed his entry into the school. Was Barnett a Democrat or a Republican?
Question #7. In 1965, the nation’s eyes were focused on the Selma Voting Rights Movement and three Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Marchers were opposed by the White Citizens’ Council and the Ku Klux Klan. On “Bloody Sunday,” March 7, 1965, about 600 civil rights marchers left Selma and walked east. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge they were confronted and attacked by state troopers and sheriff’s deputies. During this time, Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner, became infamous for his brutal tactics against Civil Rights activists. Was “Bull” a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #8. A sitting U.S. Senator once held the position of Exalted Cyclops in the Klu Klux Klan. Although he never served in the Armed Forces, he once wrote, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side.” Of which party is he a member? Republican or Democrat?
Question #9: In the U.S. Senate’s passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which political party had the highest percentage of its Senators vote for the Act? Republicans or Democrats?
Question #10. Was the first female African-American Cabinet member appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President? (Trick question.)
Question #11. When you compare the makeup of the Cabinet members who served under Democrat President Jimmy Carter with the Cabinet members appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, which President appointed the highest percentage of African-Americans to his Cabinet?
Question #12. Was the first African-American popularly elected Governor a Republican, or a Democrat?
Question #13. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Secretary of State of the United States? Under a Republican or Democratic administration?
Question #14. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces? During a Republican or Democrat President’s administration?
Question #15. When the first African-American member of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in action for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, was the President at the time a Democrat or a Republican?
Question #2. Was the first African-American diplomat appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President?
Question #3. Was the first African-American popularly elected U.S. Senator a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #4. During the late 1950’s, William Monroe “Willie” Rainach, Sr., a Louisiana state legislator, led the “Massive Resistance” to desegregation in his state. Was Willie a Republican, or a Democrat?
Question #5. In 1957, nine African-American students attempted to enroll in Little Rock’s Central High School. When they were barred entry by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, the President of the United States ordered federal troops to the school to assure their access to an education. Was Faubus a Republican, or a Democrat? Was that President a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #6. In September 1962, U.S. Air Force veteran James H. Meredith enrolled as the first African-American student at the University of Mississippi. Governor Ross Barnett strongly opposed his entry into the school. Was Barnett a Democrat or a Republican?
Question #7. In 1965, the nation’s eyes were focused on the Selma Voting Rights Movement and three Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Marchers were opposed by the White Citizens’ Council and the Ku Klux Klan. On “Bloody Sunday,” March 7, 1965, about 600 civil rights marchers left Selma and walked east. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge they were confronted and attacked by state troopers and sheriff’s deputies. During this time, Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner, became infamous for his brutal tactics against Civil Rights activists. Was “Bull” a Republican or a Democrat?
Question #8. A sitting U.S. Senator once held the position of Exalted Cyclops in the Klu Klux Klan. Although he never served in the Armed Forces, he once wrote, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side.” Of which party is he a member? Republican or Democrat?
Question #9: In the U.S. Senate’s passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which political party had the highest percentage of its Senators vote for the Act? Republicans or Democrats?
Question #10. Was the first female African-American Cabinet member appointed by a Republican or a Democrat President? (Trick question.)
Question #11. When you compare the makeup of the Cabinet members who served under Democrat President Jimmy Carter with the Cabinet members appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, which President appointed the highest percentage of African-Americans to his Cabinet?
Question #12. Was the first African-American popularly elected Governor a Republican, or a Democrat?
Question #13. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Secretary of State of the United States? Under a Republican or Democratic administration?
Question #14. When was the race barrier broken with regard to the position of Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces? During a Republican or Democrat President’s administration?
Question #15. When the first African-American member of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in action for which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, was the President at the time a Democrat or a Republican?
Read the article if you don't already know the answers.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Each party has racists, its just a fact. so what if a president of a certain party did things to break the race barrier? Its not dependent on their party affiliation its more dependent on the kind of person they are!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Wit...the difference is that the parties have evolved from the 1950s and 1960s and today neither the Democrat or Republican parties are remotely similar to what they were back then.
That being the case, Abe Lincoln would be a villain to today's Republicans.
Think about it...he was for greater Federal Power than state power. Right there the Republicans would be going nuts. This was one of the biggest reasons behind the Civil War.
The southern Democrats like Robert Byrd are long gone from the party.
That being the case, Abe Lincoln would be a villain to today's Republicans.
Think about it...he was for greater Federal Power than state power. Right there the Republicans would be going nuts. This was one of the biggest reasons behind the Civil War.
The southern Democrats like Robert Byrd are long gone from the party.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,522
Likes: 6
From: Utah
Well Lincoln was a Republican and the southern states where all Democrat back then. over time the party's morphed kind of flip flopping. Th New England states were mostly Republican before the civil war and for many decades after the war a Republican could not get elected in the south.. FDR and then Johnson's civil right act pretty much turned the south off to the democratic party.. Then the religious right took over the base of the Republican party after roe V Wade and all.. Depends on your perspective i guess. There both racist just in different ways..
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
But those who don't want to be Racist "anymore" DO become libera.....rated.Take for example, Dem. Robert Carlyle Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who was quoted saying in 1944:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision —a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Yes, good example.
In his "stint" in the KKK he he held the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. He recruited 150 members and received a $10 bounty for each of them.
It was a fleeting experience, just for a couple years in the 1940's. He saw the error in his ways. Well at some point, becasue he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. I guess he got over his hatred after that, when he realized that he could benefit.....
In his "stint" in the KKK he he held the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. He recruited 150 members and received a $10 bounty for each of them.
It was a fleeting experience, just for a couple years in the 1940's. He saw the error in his ways. Well at some point, becasue he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. I guess he got over his hatred after that, when he realized that he could benefit.....
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Progressives have always had to have a boogieman. When the majority public opinion no longer agreed with their assessment of black people, they realized that there was something that they could gain by making black people victims rather than the boogieman. It is at this time that the progressives taught the Democrats that there were a whole lot of people who could be cast as victims and could easily be exploited for political gain.
You've really got to give the Democrats credit for making this work to their full advantage. They're constantly expanding the pool of victims that they can expoit, while creating a dependant class. By creating this dependant class, they create new boogiemen. They create class warfare, so that corporations and rich people are the boogiemen. They target the Tea Party types because they know that they can successfully exploit the race card, claiming that anyone who criticizes the first black president is a racist.
Really what the progressives, liberals and democrats are doing now is quite similar to what they did back when they were beating, raping and murdering black people. Now they claim that Tea Party types are intellecutally inferior to democrats. They claim that they don't think for themselves, but democrats do. Hopefully they don't resort to hanging Tea Party types form trees, but really they still harbour a lot of hatred. It's just been redirected to others who they feel are a threat to their agenda.
Yeah, completely different.
Oh, and thoes evil republicans? Yeah, they changed too. Back then they wanted to free the slaves so that they could enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. Today though, they want to see that everyone can enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. And get rich too, if you are willing to work your *** off.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 10
From: Douglasville GA
I agree.
Progressives have always had to have a boogieman. When the majority public opinion no longer agreed with their assessment of black people, they realized that there was something that they could gain by making black people victims rather than the boogieman. It is at this time that the progressives taught the Democrats that there were a whole lot of people who could be cast as victims and could easily be exploited for political gain.
You've really got to give the Democrats credit for making this work to their full advantage. They're constantly expanding the pool of victims that they can expoit, while creating a dependant class. By creating this dependant class, they create new boogiemen. They create class warfare, so that corporations and rich people are the boogiemen. They target the Tea Party types because they know that they can successfully exploit the race card, claiming that anyone who criticizes the first black president is a racist.
Really what the progressives, liberals and democrats are doing now is quite similar to what they did back when they were beating, raping and murdering black people. Now they claim that Tea Party types are intellecutally inferior to democrats. They claim that they don't think for themselves, but democrats do. Hopefully they don't resort to hanging Tea Party types form trees, but really they still harbour a lot of hatred. It's just been redirected to others who they feel are a threat to their agenda.
Yeah, completely different.
Oh, and thoes evil republicans? Yeah, they changed too. Back then they wanted to free the slaves so that they could enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. Today though, they want to see that everyone can enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. And get rich too, if you are willing to work your *** off.
Progressives have always had to have a boogieman. When the majority public opinion no longer agreed with their assessment of black people, they realized that there was something that they could gain by making black people victims rather than the boogieman. It is at this time that the progressives taught the Democrats that there were a whole lot of people who could be cast as victims and could easily be exploited for political gain.
You've really got to give the Democrats credit for making this work to their full advantage. They're constantly expanding the pool of victims that they can expoit, while creating a dependant class. By creating this dependant class, they create new boogiemen. They create class warfare, so that corporations and rich people are the boogiemen. They target the Tea Party types because they know that they can successfully exploit the race card, claiming that anyone who criticizes the first black president is a racist.
Really what the progressives, liberals and democrats are doing now is quite similar to what they did back when they were beating, raping and murdering black people. Now they claim that Tea Party types are intellecutally inferior to democrats. They claim that they don't think for themselves, but democrats do. Hopefully they don't resort to hanging Tea Party types form trees, but really they still harbour a lot of hatred. It's just been redirected to others who they feel are a threat to their agenda.
Yeah, completely different.
Oh, and thoes evil republicans? Yeah, they changed too. Back then they wanted to free the slaves so that they could enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. Today though, they want to see that everyone can enjoy the rights granted to us by our creator, which include life, liberty and persuit of happieness. And get rich too, if you are willing to work your *** off.
Conservatives opposed civil rights. But I'm sure you knew that of course, because you're our Republican spokesperson.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I'm not really a big fan of either. I don't hold the republican party to some high regard like a lot of people supporting the democrats seem to be doing. In fact, I'm one of thoes people who wants to make them all acountable, and replace the ones who don't live up to the oath that they took.
I have yet to see any heros in our government. We don't need heros, we need humble servants. The people we elect are supposed to represent us, not recieve hero worship from us.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally Posted by The Claremont Institute-Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement
Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged "wholly defensible" and "wholly commendable." He also praised a forerunner to the socially responsible mutual fund, an investment venture started in 1965 to raise capital for racially integrated housing developments, calling it "a project divorced from government that is directed at doing something about a concrete situation," one that "depends for its success on the spontaneous support of individual people."
The corollary was that conservatism opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on Big Government. "We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.
The corollary was that conservatism opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on Big Government. "We frown on any effort of the Negroes to attain social equality by bending the instrument of the state to their purposes," Buckley wrote in 1960.
I don't give away my vote. It's got to be earned. You show me a democrat representative who will be the humble representative, and I'll vote for them over a liberal republican.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,628
Likes: 0
From: Clemson SC US of A
The problem with today's republican party is its take over by fundamentalist who practice a whole illogical set of principles that are hypocritical. They want less government interference in their lives yet then want the government to interfere with others lives. They contradict each of their principles by wanting to dictate behavior of others in their private lives. They want the government out of their private lives but then want them to be in the bedroom of others. And it talks the talk of conservative fiscal policy and never walks the walk. It doesn't know how to bend and adjust anymore.
The problem with the Democratic party these days is that it wants no limits to what it wishes to have the government do for them. It wants to be subjects to its government and not in charge of its government. It sees no problem what so ever with restricting basic rights by its government if it makes it easier to subdue those it disagrees with and sees no problem at all with keeping others from expressing their views. It doesn't want freedom, it wants followers and conformers.
Race is not even the central issue anymore, for the most part. Its just what is used to scare people to make them chose sides of what they consider the lesser evil. No one would chose one side or the other if they had to be in 100% agreement with that side in order to chose it. No one can really feel comfortable with either party. It simply comes down to a choice. And the REAL reason they want you to chose it, they want to retain power. They want the influence and power and money that comes with it.
We went from being run by big Oil to being run by big banking and organized labor. Which is better?
The problem with the Democratic party these days is that it wants no limits to what it wishes to have the government do for them. It wants to be subjects to its government and not in charge of its government. It sees no problem what so ever with restricting basic rights by its government if it makes it easier to subdue those it disagrees with and sees no problem at all with keeping others from expressing their views. It doesn't want freedom, it wants followers and conformers.
Race is not even the central issue anymore, for the most part. Its just what is used to scare people to make them chose sides of what they consider the lesser evil. No one would chose one side or the other if they had to be in 100% agreement with that side in order to chose it. No one can really feel comfortable with either party. It simply comes down to a choice. And the REAL reason they want you to chose it, they want to retain power. They want the influence and power and money that comes with it.
We went from being run by big Oil to being run by big banking and organized labor. Which is better?
Last edited by cphilip; May 3, 2011 at 08:34 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
The Republicans should certainly win this game of "moralism." Hopefully, Democrats will learn that it is impossible to out-moralize the racists. Instead, they should abandon extreme moralism as a destructive force in American life.
Frankly, the Republicans so misused their racism moralism once they got control over the legislature, that it would be better for the Democratic party to, in an era of divided government, try to capture the legislature and let the Republicans have the presidency. Nothing much will get done, but that is normal in divided government. At least, Democrats would not have to go through the nonsense they had to go through when Clinton was in office and now that Obama is in power. There is only one president and so he is an easy target. There are too many Democratic legislators for them all to fall to charges raised against their personal morals by the "moralistic" Republicans.
The United States should becoming like the South rather than the South being transformed into a non-racist area.
So please, vote Ron Paul's 2011.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,778
Likes: 10
From: Douglasville GA
The problem with today's republican party is its take over by fundamentalist who practice a whole illogical set of principles that are hypocritical. They want less government interference in their lives yet then want the government to interfere with others lives. They contradict each of their principles by wanting to dictate behavior of others in their private lives. They want the government out of their private lives but then want them to be in the bedroom of others. And it talks the talk of conservative fiscal policy and never walks the walk. It doesn't know how to bend and adjust anymore.
The problem with the Democratic party these days is that it wants no limits to what it wishes to have the government do for them. It wants to be subjects to its government and not in charge of its government. It sees no problem what so ever with restricting basic rights by its government if it makes it easier to subdue those it disagrees with and sees no problem at all with keeping others from expressing their views. It doesn't want freedom, it wants followers and conformers.
Race is not even the central issue anymore, for the most part. Its just what is used to scare people to make them chose sides of what they consider the lesser evil. No one would chose one side or the other if they had to be in 100% agreement with that side in order to chose it. No one can really feel comfortable with either party. It simply comes down to a choice. And the REAL reason they want you to chose it, they want to retain power. They want the influence and power and money that comes with it.
We went from being run by big Oil to being run by big banking and organized labor. Which is better?
The problem with the Democratic party these days is that it wants no limits to what it wishes to have the government do for them. It wants to be subjects to its government and not in charge of its government. It sees no problem what so ever with restricting basic rights by its government if it makes it easier to subdue those it disagrees with and sees no problem at all with keeping others from expressing their views. It doesn't want freedom, it wants followers and conformers.
Race is not even the central issue anymore, for the most part. Its just what is used to scare people to make them chose sides of what they consider the lesser evil. No one would chose one side or the other if they had to be in 100% agreement with that side in order to chose it. No one can really feel comfortable with either party. It simply comes down to a choice. And the REAL reason they want you to chose it, they want to retain power. They want the influence and power and money that comes with it.
We went from being run by big Oil to being run by big banking and organized labor. Which is better?