Democrats in history - Let's take a look.

[PannieMonster]

Realclearpolitics has a decent article on the subject.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/04/race_realignment_and_the_elect.html

That article appears to back up what Karen said.

Look up the class-action Reparation lawsuit against the Democratic Party, heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Case No. 05-35890

In their brief to the court, Democrat's did not arguing that they did not commit horrific inhumane acts, their only defense is that according to Lujan v The Defenders of Wildlife case, the Plaintiff, Rev. Wayne Perryman, an inner-city minister from Seattle, did not have the legal authority (or "standing") to bring this matter to the court.

In their brief to the court, attorney David Burman (representing the Democratic Party) told the court: "Conceding to the horrors of slavery and racism and even accepting for purposes of this motion that the Democratic Party in the past supported or acquiesced in those horrors, nowhere does the Complaint make the required showing of any 'concrete and personalized injury' necessary to confer standing. The Plaintiff's injuries are the same injuries that were inflicted on all African Americans over a 200 year period and affect the entire African American Community."

 

[PannieMonster]

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have had more. And with the recent announcement that Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture we could see a heck of a lot more coming down the tubes.

Democrat controlled witch hunt? Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy to me.

 

[TurdFergeson]

You can get a tabletop machine to keep that brain squeaky clean.

http://kassandraproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/brainwashing02.gif

Haha..what will they think of next?

Wait...don't answer that.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That article appears to back up what Karen said.

Look up the class-action Reparation lawsuit against the Democratic Party, heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Case No. 05-35890

In their brief to the court, Democrat's did not arguing that they did not commit horrific inhumane acts, their only defense is that according to Lujan v The Defenders of Wildlife case, the Plaintiff, Rev. Wayne Perryman, an inner-city minister from Seattle, did not have the legal authority (or "standing") to bring this matter to the court.

In their brief to the court, attorney David Burman (representing the Democratic Party) told the court: "Conceding to the horrors of slavery and racism and even accepting for purposes of this motion that the Democratic Party in the past supported or acquiesced in those horrors, nowhere does the Complaint make the required showing of any 'concrete and personalized injury' necessary to confer standing. The Plaintiff's injuries are the same injuries that were inflicted on all African Americans over a 200 year period and affect the entire African American Community."

No shit. I don't argue that the Democratic Party never had a hand in slavery and segregation. However, after Truman attempted to abolish segregation and the mainstream Democratic Party moved toward civil rights and liberties. The southern faction of the Democratic party still supportive of those ideals split off on it's own and later was absorbed into the Republican party as it moved farther right. the election maps showing support by party shows the realignment as staunch conservatives of the south left and later joined forces with the Republican Party.

 

[RightField]

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have had more. And with the recent announcement that Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture we could see a heck of a lot more coming down the tubes.

If I had to estimate, I'd say there's 10 corruption cases amongst the democrats for every 1 Republican. We have a thread around here somewhere about that. Republicans want to decentralize and put power in the hands of the public and individuals. They want lower tax so people can keep the money they earn (less money in the hands of the Government). Democrats want to build a larger, richer, more powerful central government where lots of tax dollars float in and lots of favortism floats out...naturally there's far more corruption when the "pot" of money is bigger and more complex and more easily "rigged" for friends and relatives.

They say power corrupts. Republicans want power in the hands of the people. Democrats want power in the hands of the central government...power in their hands...now, which is more likely to be tempted by corruption?

 

[Powertone]

here's a Democrat deserving the spotlight,too...Whites Only,please...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg&feature=related

 

[KingOrfeo]

George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998) was a Governor of Alabama for four terms; 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987. "The most influential loser" in 20th-century U.S. politics according to biographers Dan T. Carter[1] and Stephan Lesher,[2] he ran for President four times, running officially as a Democrat three times and in the American Independent Party once. He is best known for his Southern populist[3] pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period, convictions he abandoned later in life.

Yes -- and Nixon's 1972 campaign strategy was based on attracting those who had voted for Wallace in 1968. And it worked. And over the following decade, most white-racist-conservative Southern Dems migrated to the GOP, changing that party's demographic and geographic and ideological composition permanently.

 

[sphy2]

If I had to estimate, I'd say there's 10 corruption cases amongst the democrats for every 1 Republican. We have a thread around here somewhere about that.

It really is a non-debatable issue. If they've broken the law, off to jail! At least that's how it is supposed to work.

 

[RightField]

No shit. I don't argue that the Democratic Party never had a hand in slavery and segregation. However, after Truman attempted to abolish segregation and the mainstream Democratic Party moved toward civil rights and liberties. The southern faction of the Democratic party still supportive of those ideals split off on it's own and later was absorbed into the Republican party as it moved farther right. the election maps showing support by party shows the realignment as staunch conservatives of the south left and later joined forces with the Republican Party.

Didn't happen till '64. The dems voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights act.

 

[PannieMonster]

No shit. I don't argue that the Democratic Party never had a hand in slavery and segregation. However, after Truman attempted to abolish segregation and the mainstream Democratic Party moved toward civil rights and liberties. The southern faction of the Democratic party still supportive of those ideals split off on it's own and later was absorbed into the Republican party as it moved farther right. the election maps showing support by party shows the realignment as staunch conservatives of the south left and later joined forces with the Republican Party.

Yes -- and Nixon's 1972 campaign strategy was based on attracting those who had voted for Wallace in 1968. And it worked. And over the following decade, most white-racist-conservative Southern Dems migrated to the GOP, changing that party's demographic and geographic and ideological composition permanently.

Yes, boys, politics makes for strange bedfellows. It's kind of like electing a comedian to the US Senate, or giving GM billions of dollars to support the union when you know that if you don't do something, you might lose that voting block. It doesn't matter whether it is Republicans or Democrats, the fact is, both sides will take in anybody who will vote them back into power.

Politics really isn't about right and wrong as you suppose but more about who controls the power.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[sphy2]

It seems that the main point of this thread has been lost, so let me recap:

Two Legs = BAD
Four Legs = GOOD

 

[KingOrfeo]

They didn't come to the Republican Party, the party that voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act, to shelter their racism; they came because they didn't like the anti-American, unpatriotic bent, of the evolving 60s Democrat Party.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party (which had been historically more racist than the Pubs, and which partly but not exclusively got us into 'Nam in the first place -- it's really more on Ike) evolved into being solidly pro-civil-rights and pro-feminist and anti-Vietnam-War -- none of which is anti-American or unpatriotic. As you know. This salubrious process was, of course, facilitated by the migration of RW racist asstards over to the GOP, as described above.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Karen Kraft]

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have had more. And with the recent announcement that Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture we could see a heck of a lot more coming down the tubes.

Word of warning: being pretty sure of something like that, without thinking it through, may tend to make people throw you in the dust bin with some of the *ahem* alt-poster-folks cluttering up my thread. Not by me, necessarily, but by the less gullible and naive.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're nuttier than a fruitcake. What got us into Nam was JFK and LBJ, what got us out of Nam was a pusillanimous Democrat Congress, Nixon, insisting that we be allowed to leave standing up, led the withdrawal. The "Democrat" Party has been full of unpatriotic, anti-American, assholes ever since.

Now, waitaminnit. What was unpatriotic or anti-American about wishing an end on any terms to the Vietnam War, which even Nixon perceived from the start as pointless and unwinnable?! Yet he lied in 1968 when running on an end-the-war platform, when he never intended to end it on any terms that could not be considered an American victory, despite the needless added cost in American (and the far greater needless cost in Vietnamese) lives. Not only that, Nixon, before he was even president, used his connections in 1968 to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks from behind the scenes, just to make sure the Vietnam War would still be there as an issue for him to run against that year. (See Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.) That's unpatriotic and anti-American!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Didn't happen till '64. The dems voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights act.

Wrong, started in 1948 when Truman tried to abolish segregation the the Dixiecrats formed a third party and ran Strom Thurmond for President. After that stunning defeat the party was slowly integrated into the Republican party over the next 4 election cycles. earlier actually, as tey refused to support Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.

Truman's State of the Union speech in 1948:

"The United States has always had a deep concern for human rights. Religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of thought are cherished realities in our land. Any denial of human rights is a denial of the basic beliefs of democracy and of our regard for the worth of each individual.

Today, however, some of our citizens are still denied equal opportunity for education, for jobs and economic advancement, and for the expression of their views at the polls. Most serious of all, some are denied equal protection under the laws. Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy."

In the next few weeks he asked the Republican controlled congress to consider the following.

-Establishing a permanent Commission on Civil Rights
-Strengthening existing civil rights statutes.
-Providing federal protection against lynching.
-Protecting the right to vote.
-Establishing a Fair Employment Practice Commission.
-Prohibiting discrimination in interstate transportation facilities.
-Giving D.C. suffrage and self-determination.

The Republican controlled congress of 1948 acted on not a single one of these requests.

But.. I thought they were the progressive ones and the Democrats were the suppressive, segregationists..

The Dixiecrats didn't completely align themselves with the Republican party until after 1964 and did try to obstruct social reforms and civil rights, that much is true. So your statement, technically, is true.. as much as the Republicans are the "Party of Lincoln". But like the Republican Party today, they bear little resemblance to their former incarnations.

 

[RightField]

Wrong, started in 1948 when Truman tried to abolish segregation the the Dixiecrats formed a third party and ran Strom Thurmond for President. After that stunning defeat the party was slowly integrated into the Republican party over the next 4 election cycles.

Truman's State of the Union speech in 1948:

"The United States has always had a deep concern for human rights. Religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of thought are cherished realities in our land. Any denial of human rights is a denial of the basic beliefs of democracy and of our regard for the worth of each individual.

Today, however, some of our citizens are still denied equal opportunity for education, for jobs and economic advancement, and for the expression of their views at the polls. Most serious of all, some are denied equal protection under the laws. Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy."

In the next few weeks he asked the Republican controlled congress to consider the following.

-Establishing a permanent Commission on Civil Rights
-Strengthening existing civil rights statutes.
-Providing federal protection against lynching.
-Protecting the right to vote.
-Establishing a Fair Employment Practice Commission.
-Prohibiting discrimination in interstate transportation facilities.
-Giving D.C. suffrage and self-determination.

The Republican controlled congress of 1948 acted on not a single one of these requests.

But.. I thought they were the progressive ones and the Democrats were the suppressive, segregationists..

The Dixiecrats didn't completely align themselves with the Republican party until after 1964 and did try to obstruct social reforms ad civil rights, that much is true. So your statement, technically, is true.. as much as the Republicans are the "Party of Lincoln". But like the Republican Party today, they bear little resemblance to their former incarnations.

MLK was a Republican.

 

[unregistered]

 

[PannieMonster]

Wrong, started in 1948 when Truman tried to abolish segregation the the Dixiecrats formed a third party and ran Strom Thurmond for President. After that stunning defeat the party was slowly integrated into the Republican party over the next 4 election cycles. earlier actually, as tey refused to support Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.

Truman's State of the Union speech in 1948:

"The United States has always had a deep concern for human rights. Religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of thought are cherished realities in our land. Any denial of human rights is a denial of the basic beliefs of democracy and of our regard for the worth of each individual.

Today, however, some of our citizens are still denied equal opportunity for education, for jobs and economic advancement, and for the expression of their views at the polls. Most serious of all, some are denied equal protection under the laws. Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy."

In the next few weeks he asked the Republican controlled congress to consider the following.

-Establishing a permanent Commission on Civil Rights
-Strengthening existing civil rights statutes.
-Providing federal protection against lynching.
-Protecting the right to vote.
-Establishing a Fair Employment Practice Commission.
-Prohibiting discrimination in interstate transportation facilities.
-Giving D.C. suffrage and self-determination.

The Republican controlled congress of 1948 acted on not a single one of these requests.

But.. I thought they were the progressive ones and the Democrats were the suppressive, segregationists..

The Dixiecrats didn't completely align themselves with the Republican party until after 1964 and did try to obstruct social reforms and civil rights, that much is true. So your statement, technically, is true.. as much as the Republicans are the "Party of Lincoln". But like the Republican Party today, they bear little resemblance to their former incarnations.

Opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.

Kind of says it all doesn't it?

 

[Karen Kraft]

Opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.

Kind of says it all doesn't it?

No, PM! That's not the Democrats fault!

Bush did it!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

MLK was a Republican.

Has no bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand. but..

MLK Sr. was definitely a Republican.
However, according to the Martin Luther King Research and Education Institute at Stanford University no record of Martin Luther King jr.'s political affiliation exists. He was non-partisan in his quest for civil equality. Martin Luther King never endorsed anyone for president; he was committed to challenging injustice.

The closest King came to an endorsement was his lack of such for 1964 GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater, as a senator, failed to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So no, I don't believe that MLK jr. was a Republican. Prove it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[PannieMonster]

However, according to the Martin Luther King Research and Education Institute at Stanford University no record of Martin Luther King jr.'s political affiliation exists.

That is true. MLK Jr. had no party affiliation.