The latest Obama scandal

Seeing you post something unscripted and/or intelligent is akin to seeing a yeti or Sasquatch - no one has ever truly witnessed it, but a lot of dumb white southerners like to pretend.

 

Forget the idea of Republicans and Democrats, the idea that any rightie has ever been for a progressive ideal like civil rights, or gay marriage, or women's equality is just absurd on the face of it. Civil rights was and still is a progressive ideal. The notion that the Right had any anything to do with bringing civil rights to the table and then served as the champions of that cause is utterly laughable. Progress ideals do not nor have they ever come from the Right no matter which label the two political parties choose to adopt. What's next, the Right will claim that they were the champions of gay rights? I guess that they are so dishonest with themselves that it is only natural for them to be dishonest with the rest of us too. Lie to yourselves or simply rationalize it anyway you like but don't expect us to crawl in bed with the likes of George Wallace, David Duke, and Jessie Helms as civil rights leaders. That ain't gonna happen.

 

Barry Goldwater, the Right Wing icon who by today's standards would be considered a scrupulously principled politician, joined in the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and unashamedly opposed federally mandated desegregation. While claiming to support integration personally, he stated that it was an issue of "states rights". He also stated that an individual or group had the right to operate a business open to the public while excluding those members of the public whose skin color said person or group found objectionable.

He appeared to think, although based on what be didn't say, that if left to themselves, white southerners and black southerners would work things out to everyone's satisfaction. This even though the 1964 Mississippi Republican Platform stated that segregation was, “absolutely essential to harmonious racial relations.” Doesn't sound like there's much room for compromise there.

Predictably the only states he won in 1964 were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Plus AZ. The message was not lost on Republicans. Or on Goldwater himself, whose "extremism in the defense of liberty" apparently did not apply to non-white Americans. And you have to give him credit for being prescient.

States rights indeed.

There is so much more on this subject. Would be glad to continue if anyone is interested.

 

This all flies in the face of the nonsense little Davy is spewing and I'm sure actually believes. A true believer will always disregard anything that runs counter to their beliefs even actul history. Where history is inconvenient, they just ignore the parts that do not fit into their neat little fictional world view. I fully acknowledge that the northern Democrats had an alliance of convenience with the Dixiecrats until the Dixiecrats changed sides unwilling to give up their racism, but little Davy being a true believer must truncate history at that point and write a new history that has these Dixiecrats suddenly becoming enlightened to racial issues but switching to a party that catered to their racism anyway. That is how you know that you are dealing with a true believer. They take a piece if real history pervert it into something unrecognizable to the rest of us.

 

Back in the day, even people who supported civil rights in principle were often not that comfortable with it when it came to its practical application in their own neighborhood. And the Democrats had some nasty political compromises in place for a long time. There's no denying this, nor have we tried to. Not every Democrat was a hardcore Southern segregationist but not every Democrat was Eleanor Roosevelt either. By probably the late 1940s though the latter represented the way the party was going. The Dixiecrats were, as you say, the glaring exception. And we know where the vast majority of them, both the politicians and the people who supported them, ended up don't we.

A while up the thread it was rather sneeringly suggested that we had nothing to back our claims. I think we've made a good start and there is plenty more where that came from. We haven't even begun on Kevin Phillips yet and that's still just scratching the surface. Wonder where our True Believer is.

 

That's a very big issue, compromise. We have two diametrically opposed political groups that control our government, and compromise is usually the only way to get anything done.

I usually prefer compromise, since it's all we have, but I'm tired of republicans making life a misery for the poor. I'm tired of them taking money meant to ease suffering and giving it to rich people. I'm tired of them gerrymandering and creating laws that violate voting rights. I'm tired of them blocking meaningful legislation. I'm tired of them abusing everyone's civil rights.

I'm done compromising with these pricks.

 

I "liked" this post, but "like" is a little misleading. How can you "like" the fact that people are being driven to this? Better to say that I understand it and like you I don't think compromise is a viable or achievable option and hasn't been for some time now. Hold firm and fight back until they succeed in making themselves irrelevant, die of old age, or drown in their own bile and greed.

 

I think that little Davy may not have noticed yet but even rimmer and coiny haven't supported this asinine idea that it was the Republicans that were the ones that brought about civil rights in this country. They have gone silent on the issue of Republicans being the ones who ushered in civil rights and unless they want the same shellacking little Davy is experiencing, they'll stay that way.

 

Maybe you should listen to you Democratic predecessors - the ones before they lost all sense.

Oh! And it would not hurt if you learned how to read.

 

...so, you have conceded your claim that the Republicans weren't the leaders in Civil Rights advances?

 

Hey, so what about those supposed employees of yours....union or not?

 

Unlike you and your little parrot cohort, David needs absolutely no help putting someone in their place... which is exactly what he's done.

 

Is it just that you can't comprehend more than a half sentence in any one reading? You tend to pick one sentence, or this case, half a sentence, and then spin your true believer mojo all over it's out of context ass. You simply come off as a pathetic little troll straight out of the sticks. You haven't proven one of your claims yet. You have been slapped down again and again but just come back with nonsense like this post. I'm glad that I don't know people like you outside of this forum. You are such a sniveling little coward. Let me make this perfectly clear in terms your peanut brain can understand. Nobody, I mean nobody, will ever believe you and Glenn Beck's version of civil rights history no matter how long you freaks try to rewrite the past. Progressives change this country, not assbackwards repukes like you. You simply slither around pretending like you are relevant when the truth is that you are nothing but a parasitic sponge living off of the good people that actually fought and died for the ideals like civil rights in this country. Ideals that, if you had been alive at the time, would have vehemently opposed and fought against. You and your ilk are the problem and have never been the solution.

 

Really? So my little baiting trick got you to respond. So do you agree with his insane ideal? Just wanted to get it on the record. Are you as crazy as little Davy? Do tell.

 

From 2002, but still as valid today:

The Democratic Party’s Legacy of Racism

Editorial
December 2002
by Mackubin T. Owens

Under pressure from fellow Republicans, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments he made earlier in the month. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.

Of course, Democrats have used the Lott affair to pillory the Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. "Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are," Senator Daschle told CNN. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.

It’s about time that Republicans quit pussy-footing around on the issue of race. They need to point out that in both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, they need to stress that on the issues that most affect African-Americans today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.

Republicans can begin by observing that their Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln. He himself recurred to the principles of the American Founding, specifically the Declaration of Independence, so we can say that the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. In essence these principles hold that the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.

We should remember that the Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a "positive good." While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.

Calhoun’s fundamental enterprise was to defend the institution of slavery. To do so, he first had to overturn the principles of the American Founding. He started with the Declaration of Independence, arguing that "[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors….We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Thus Calhoun transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery.

The most liberal position among ante-bellum Democrats regarding slavery was that slavery was an issue that should be decided by popular vote. For example, Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the 1858 Illinois senate race and the 1860 presidential campaign, advocated "popular sovereignty." He defended the right of the people in the territories to outlaw slavery, but also defended the right of Southerners to own slaves and transport them to the new territories.

The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.

Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential "liberal racist," a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.

As the incomparable Ann Coulter has observed, when Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the "n" word on national TV?

"Ah, but this is all in the past," say the Democrats. "Now we push a pro-African-American agenda." But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and "in-kind" support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.

"Affirmative action" has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a "color-blind society" that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos" by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.

Mackubin Thomas Owens is professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, RI, and an adjunct fellow of the Ashbrook Center. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the War College, Navy Department, or Department of Defense.

 

... and, Joe, YOU are to blame for Chicago's schools' woes because you're a rich, white person:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/2...ident-‘rich-white-people’-blame-schools’-woes

 

"putting someone in their place," what a clown.

View attachment 1780

 

I usually don't care to do this, but they do it all the time to everyone else, and this one is just too funny to ignore:

"listen to you Democratic predecessors"..."it would not hurt if you learned you to read."...too funny.

Telling someone they can't read, when they themselves can't write?

Weeeeeeeeeeeak.

 

Did David ever answer a direct question here?

I almost got him to once, but he just couldn't do it and all I got was a vague response.

And that was before he turned 45 and retired.

Now he's got all that time on his hands and he likes to spend it ignoring the questions people ask him here. Well, that and him asking the same retarded question over and over again to someone because he has no idea how to do anything else but ask retarded questions.

Right-wing nut, through and through. The squirrel above his head proves it.

Watch your nuts, David, the squirrel's after 'em!

Runnnnnnnn!

 

Apparently so. Nuts as nuts can be. I say we build a chitload of sanitariums for the little fellas. Stock 'em up with cork-guns and loads of monopoly money and just let them fight over the "loot". FOX could broadcast from the restrooms there. We could throw a few Obama masks in the mix and viola: "Look, it's Obama! He's trying to take your money!" and let the corks rip through the air. I smell an Emmy nomination. A stinky Emmy nomination, if FOX "News" is covering the fun.