1 The hypocrisy of the Dems knows no bounds. These facts should be known to a lot of people, and let them judge after that. God bless

2 As you have pointed out, history repeats itself time after time. With only a few changes, this could easily have been the recorded history of the Mormons being forced to leave Navoo in the middle of winter November, 1838. An extermination order was issued by the governor of Missouri, in effect giving mob rule the power to either kill or force the Mormons out of Missouri.

The point is that even in America, there has been sufficient evidence of hatred run rampant, for the purpose of race or religion it pops up from time to time in some very ugly ways.

3 Yeah judge a political party on the happenings of 100 years ago. You can do that and we can judge the GOPigs on little things like Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, difference is your shit happened in order 80, 33, and 18 years ago. G'head make that specios argument you hack ass hole

4 Hmmmmm -- so you equate a financial scandal, a second-rate burglary and a policy difference with the murder of 42 blacks and the overthrow of the elected government in a coup d'etat. Nice to know that you hold black lives to be so worthless.

But if you want more recent Democrat shenanigans, might I sugget that you consider the butterfly ballot created in 2000 in Palm Beach County by a Democrat official which is claimed to have disenfranchised thousands, the concerted effort by the Gore campaign to disenfranchise military voters in 2000, a century of Democrat efforts to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation championed by the GOP...

5 While my friend Effie is a little harsh in his language, any sensible person knows that the democrats of today are not the democrats of 100 years ago, and that your run of the mill racist redneck votes republican these days.

6 Yeah -- maybe some of them do, but the party denounces them and works to defeat them when they run for office.

On the other hand, very special racists get the title of "elder stateman" and, when the Democrats have a majority, President Pro Tem of the Senate

7 Democrats believe in redemption. Byrd has changed with the times, and cannot fairly be accused of racism in his current behavior anymore than Bush should still be tagged with his leaving the TANG so that he could campaign for a racist.

8 That's amusing -- given the fact that a courtly compliment to an old man on his 100th birthday (long after changing his stripes and supporting civil rights) was sufficient to get Trent Lott tarred as a racist.

Oh, yeah, that's right -- racist Democrats only believe in redemption for other racist Democrats. Republicans will be accused of racism without any significant evidence whatsoever. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that FDR is trumpeted as a friend of the blacks despite refusing to desegregate the military, refusing to push for civil rights or anti-lynching legislation, and putting a known Kluxer on the Supreme Court.

Oh, and by the way, your slur directed against Winton Blount has only one problem to it -- a lack of supporting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winton_Blount

I guess it is your own blind bigotry that leas you to presume that since the man was a Republican and a white southerner that he must be some sort of racist. I guess that makes you a lying liberal sack of shit, dan.

9 No, RWR, it wasn't blind bigotry that made me call Blount a racist. It was the fact that he was part of the infamous Republican "Southern Strategy", and that he used billboards claiming "A vote for Red Blount is a vote against forced busing . . . against coddling criminals . . . against welfare freeloaders."

You may be surprised that I agree with you that Trent Lott got shafted - it was a stupid thing to say, but it shouldn't have done the damage it did.

And your silly slams on FDR may be answered by the equally silly accusation that Lincoln did not integrate the army, did not support suffrage for women, and was, similarly, a product of his times.

10 In other words, you have no evidence to support an accusation of racism against Blount.

Let's look at those three points on the billboard.

1) Opposition to forced busing. A legitimate position, given that such plans broke up community ties and resulted in long bus rides for students based solely on the color of their skin. The major (if unstated) premise of the busing plans was that black students were incapable of learning if not exposed to a sufficient number of white students every day. In addition, it remains a reasonable proposition that the mandate of ending segregation set forth in Brown (designed to get kids sent to the closest school, regardless of race) did not require forced integration (which sent kids away from the closest school because of their race). In addition, the forced busing programs were imposed by judges who took away local control of schools in a fundamentally anti-democratic manner. Opposition to forced busing is therefore not proof of racism.

2) Opposition to coddling criminals. One of the major criticisms of the Warren Court of the 1960s was the emphsis on the rights of criminals and the accuse over the rights of society to punish criminals. The Warren Court revolutionized the criminal justice system in many ways -- but at the cost of making it more difficult to obtain evidence, obtain convictions, and punish criminals. Unless you believe -- as you obviously do, based upon your comment -- that "criminal" and :lack" are synonymous, there can be no case made for calling someone a racist for taking a hard-line on crime and criminal justice issues.

3) Opposition to the welfare state. Lyndon Johnson's great Society programs were controversial -- and, ultimately, a disasterous failure in that they created generational poverty and incentives to avoid getting off the government teat. Exactly as Blount and others warned at the time.

As for the Sputhern Strategy, popular left-wing mythology paints it as a plot to appeal to racism. Actually, it was a plan to strip the Democrats of their southern base by taking a middle ground between the liberal Democrats (Kennedy, et al.) of the North and the racist Democrats of the South (Wallace, maddox, Byrd, et al.). By creating a viable alternative to the racists that controlled the southern Democrats for decades (with the acceptance of the allegedly nn-racist liberal Democrats of the North), the Republicans built a non-racist conservative coalition that dominates American politics to this day.

And as for my points about FDR, i was trying to point out how Democrat Klansmen and other racists have always been embraced byt the Democrat party without really repenting of anything.

11 Hah. You're still defending the billboard. Umm, sorry, I wish I had a way to break this to your more gently, but, YOU LOSE!!!! Your strained arguments don't pass the giggle test.

I don't mean to prolong your pain any further, and, if I were you, I'd probably ignore all this and tell Bush to spy on more citizens, but, anyhow, why did the republicans apologize for the "sputhern strategy" if it was so noble???

12 Gee -- now we are into typo flames? That is the sure sign of a losing argument.

As for defending the billboard, you claimed that the points were racist and I explained that they are not.

And frankly, i don't think there should have been any apology for the Southern Strategy. Mehlman bought into the liberal Democrat mythology about it and pandered.

13 Sorry about the ding on the typo - I thought it was a pretty funny typo. But I certainly don't want to be held up for ridicule based on my typing difficulties, either.

You didn't explain that the billboard wasn't racist, you just came out with the same claptrap a racist back then would have used to excuse the positions.

And the fact that you understand the background and motivations behind the Southern Strategy better than Mehlman does is, to use a carefully chosen word, incredible.

14 Those are the arguments that would have been used because they were true three decades ago. I think it says more about liberals that they believe "Criminal=black" and "welfare cheat=black" than it does about conservatives.

By the way -- pat buchanan recently demolished the "racist southenr strategy" argument.

15 Is that the same Pat Buchanan who defends Nazis and admires Hitler? Is that the same Pat Buchanan who called Dr. Martin Luther King a fraud? The same one who thought WMDs were called BLTs? You run in some freaky circles, my friend . . .

16 Defends Nazis -- you must mean the fellow who was "conclusively" proven to have been a sadistic concentration camp guard by the government, only to have that identification thrown out by courts in both the US and Israel.

Admire Hitler? You care to prove that? A quick Google search shows no evidence of that.

As for the King comment, you seem to have taken that one out of context. What i have found is a quote that says others view him that way, not that he does.

And why do I cite him (even though I have little use for him)? Because he was one of the architects of the Southern Strategy. That might give him a certain expertise that we both lack.

17 He may have expertise in race-baiting in the south, but he doesn't have credibility. Not as much as me or you.

18 No, Dan, the only race-baiting I see is yours.