AMERICA'S FUTURE LOOKS...

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:Z2fJa.16371$3o3.1282464@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bd2fi2$la7$1@panix1.panix.com...
> > In article <mumbles-A90876.05125921062003@news.verizon.net>,
> > Alexander Mendes <mumbles@nospam.com> said:
> >
> > > (and yes, I'm well aware of the fact the the democrats were
> > > intolerant of blacks until the mid-late 60s. It has nothing to do
> > > with the point I made, and frankly, it doesn't have much to do with
> > > current politics)
> >
> > Southern Democrats a/k/a Dixiecrats, yes. Who were basically
> > Republicans in most ways but had to call themselves Democrats
> >
> LOL! So there were some Democrats that embarrass you - so by all means
claim
> they were really Republicans. Do you expect any thinking person to take
such
> nonesense seriously? And I suppose the Republicans who put the first
Black
> Secretary of State into office are really Democrats! No wonder you guys
are
> having such trouble at the polls, but, keep it up - no conservative could
> give you worse publicity than you give yourselves. KM
>

Your knowledge of the political history of the United States is laughably
superficial. It is true that
the "Solid South" was a vital part of the coalition that made up the
Democratic Party going into the
Sixties. Nevertheless, a Democratic President was the first to recognize
desegregation as a moral
issue, and backed up this position by confronting defiant local racist
Democratic politicians with federal
force, risking the breakup of his own party. It was a Democratic President
from Massachusetts who
proposed the great Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was the nation's grief
over his assassination that enabled
a Democratic President from Texas to get it through a Democrat-controlled
Congress over a Southern
filibuster. As expected, the Democratic Party did split, with the racist
Dixiecrats bolting to the Republican
Party, where they were greeted with open arms, became the core of the modern
Republican Party in the South,
and in many cases rose to positions of power and presige in their new party;
prime example: Strom Thurmond
of South Carolina, so recently hailed as a great statesman by prominent
Republicans.

> P.S. When your party does something reprehensible, be honest and condemn
it.
> KM
>

I hope you will take your own advice. Probably the greatest service the
Democratic Party ever rendered this
nation was to rise above its own partisan interests and take a stand for
racial justice, knowing full well the advantage
it would give the Republicans in the South for decades to come. I doubt we
will ever see the Republicans make a
similarly principled sacrifice on any issue.

-- bostnbob

"bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:Z2fJa.16371$3o3.1282464@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:bd2fi2$la7$1@panix1.panix.com...
> > > In article <mumbles-A90876.05125921062003@news.verizon.net>,
> > > Alexander Mendes <mumbles@nospam.com> said:
>
> I hope you will take your own advice. Probably the greatest service the
> Democratic Party ever rendered this
> nation was to rise above its own partisan interests and take a stand for
> racial justice, knowing full well the advantage
> it would give the Republicans in the South for decades to come. I doubt we
> will ever see the Republicans make a
> similarly principled sacrifice on any issue.
> -- bostnbob
>

The idea that it was only Democrats who favored the racial justice is
patently absurd. Your double-standard is evident and hilarious. You excuse
the Democrats for the renegade Southern bigots in the South while they were
Democrats; but, the second the few who switched parties became Republicans
you condemn them and claim the entire Republican party agreed with their
biases. Utter hogwash. The majority of the Democrats who were racial bigots
DID NOT SWITCH PARTIES and most remained Democrats till the days they died
and some are still alive, still Democrats and still with us. Brown vs. The
Board of Education and the subsequent racial integration of the public
schools came down in 1954 under Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and Chief
Justice Earl Warren (former Republican governor of California.) The U.S.
Supreme Court consolidated five different cases from Kansas, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Virginia and South Carolina, so it was hardly a pure
North vs. South issue. That was long before the Civil Rights act you
reference and I urge you to look at how the Republicans voted for the Civil
Rights act of 1964 - it might shed some light on your biases. I defy you to
present one single publication or statement from the Republican Party that
supported racial segregation of the public schools or opposed the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Are you forgetting that the sole reason for the founding
of the Republican party was to end Negro (Black) slavery in the United
States? Remember, your sainted, "can-do-no-wrong" Democrats were either
pro-slavery or pro-choice. Twisting history and taking things out of context
may be an acceptable scheme for propagandists and those who argue with the
misinformed, but, fails to work with those who can see the transgressions of
individuals irrespective of their political parties. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > I hope you will take your own advice. Probably the greatest service the
> > Democratic Party ever rendered this
> > nation was to rise above its own partisan interests and take a stand for
> > racial justice, knowing full well the advantage
> > it would give the Republicans in the South for decades to come. I doubt
we
> > will ever see the Republicans make a
> > similarly principled sacrifice on any issue.
> > -- bostnbob
> >
>
> The idea that it was only Democrats who favored the racial justice is
> patently absurd. Your double-standard is evident and hilarious. You
excuse
> the Democrats for the renegade Southern bigots in the South while they
were
> Democrats; but, the second the few who switched parties became
Republicans
> you condemn them and claim the entire Republican party agreed with their
> biases. Utter hogwash.

True, what you're spouting *is* utter hogwash. Please show me where I said
only
Democrats favored racial justice, or excused Democratic bigots like Wallace
or
Thurmond. I dispised them then whatever their registration, and I dispise
them now.
But you cannot deny the facts as stated in my earlier post (which you
clipped):
a Democratic President proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights
Act of 1964,
and his death ensured its passage by a Democratic Congress under another
Democratic
President, this despite the fact that the electoral success of the
Democratic Party had in
large part depended on the "Solid (Democratic) South." Here are some more
undeniable
facts: at that crucial moment in the nation's political, social, and moral
history, the Republican
Party's 1964 Presidential candidate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Its
candidate in 1968 and
1972 openly pursued a "Southern strategy" which successfull exploited white
southern racial
bigotry to gain the White House. And your sainted Ronald Reagan chose to
open his 1984
Presidential campaign by going to Philadelphia, Mississippi to endorse
"States's Rights," the
traditional southern codeword for the "right" of whites to discriminate
against blacks. The only
significant thing ever to happen in Philadelphia, Mississippi, is that it
was there that three civil
rights workers were murdered in the 60's. Reagan's endorsement by the Ku
Klux Klan
followed shortly thereafter. Shamefully, the party of Lincoln now builds
its Presidential hopes
on the foundation of a solid bloc of white southern votes. Is it really a
mystery to you how
the Solid (Democratic) South became the Solid (Republican) South)? But I
have no regrets.
Do you?

-- bostnbob

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > I hope you will take your own advice. Probably the greatest service the
> > Democratic Party ever rendered this
> > nation was to rise above its own partisan interests and take a stand for
> > racial justice, knowing full well the advantage
> > it would give the Republicans in the South for decades to come. I doubt
we
> > will ever see the Republicans make a
> > similarly principled sacrifice on any issue.
> > -- bostnbob
> >
>
> The majority of the Democrats who were racial bigots
> DID NOT SWITCH PARTIES and most remained Democrats till the days they died
> and some are still alive, still Democrats and still with us.

I was referring to officeholders, such as Strom Thurmond, rather than
voters. Party registration
lagged behind actual voting behavior; the switch to the Republicans began at
the national level
in 1964 and gradually worked its way down the ticket until now, for example,
in Florida, my old
home state, I believe every statewide office is held by a Republican.

>
> Brown vs. The
> Board of Education and the subsequent racial integration of the public
> schools came down in 1954 under Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and Chief
> Justice Earl Warren (former Republican governor of California.)
>

The Republican Party in 1954 was a very different animal that it is today,
with a vigourous progressive
wing that has been wiped out almost to the last man. I certainly give
Eisenhower credit for doing his
duty in Little Rock, but he did it reluctantly, he never addressed
desegregation as a moral issue, and he
was later quoted as stating that appointing Warren was the worst decision he
ever made.

>
> That was long before the Civil Rights act you
> reference and I urge you to look at how the Republicans voted for the
Civil
> Rights act of 1964 - it might shed some light on your biases.
>

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 could not have passed without Republican votes;
a two-thirds majority was required
to break a filibuster, or virtually every non-southern vote. But since the
Republican Party did not depend on
southern votes the way the Democrats did, it did not have as much to lose.

-- bostnbob

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...

Sorry for breaking this response up, but my newsreader tends to die on long
posts.

>
> I defy you to
> present one single publication or statement from the Republican Party that
> supported racial segregation of the public schools or opposed the Civil
> Rights Act of 1964.
>

Check out the campaign statements of the party's 1964 Presidential
candidate, Barry Goldwater. I cannot
say for certain, but it is very likely his opposition to the Civil Rights
Act was written into that year's party
platform.

>
>Are you forgetting that the sole reason for the founding
> of the Republican party was to end Negro (Black) slavery in the United
> States?
>

You really need to brush up on your history. Lincoln was barely cold in his
grave before the Republican
Party sold the freed slaves down the river to steal their first Presidential
election. In the disputed election
of 1876, they made a deal with southern Democrats in the House whereby the
Democrats would vote for
the Republican Presidential candidate in return for the end of
Reconstruction and the opportunity to enact
Jim Crow legislation, the beginning of legally enforced racial segregation.
For more details, read "The
Strange Career of Jim Crow" by C. Vann Woodward.

>
>Remember, your sainted, "can-do-no-wrong" Democrats were either
> pro-slavery or pro-choice. Twisting history and taking things out of
context
> may be an acceptable scheme for propagandists and those who argue with the
> misinformed, but, fails to work with those who can see the transgressions
of
> individuals irrespective of their political parties.
>

Having lived through the sixties in the south, I can assure that my
knowledge of the history of the era is far
more fair and balanced than yours, with your apparent image of sainted,
"can-do-no-wrong" Republicans".
I suggest you look at a political snapshot of the south as it was in 1960
and one as it is today, and ask
yourself whether or not my explanation of the difference doesn't make a
great deal of sense.

-- bostnbob

"bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
news:bdfncl$7k6$0@pita.alt.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> > news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
>
> The Republican Party in 1954 was a very different animal that it is today,
> with a vigourous progressive
> wing that has been wiped out almost to the last man.
>
The Democrat Party in 1954 was a very different animal than it is today and
is being held hostage by the lunatic fringe. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
news:bdfncl$7k6$0@pita.alt.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> > news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
> I certainly give
> Eisenhower credit for doing his
> duty in Little Rock, but he did it reluctantly,
> -- bostnbob
>

Personally, I agree, that the worst decision Eisenhower ever made was
appointing Earl Warren to the bench. While I agree with Warren's stand on
racial issues, I think a lot of his other decisions were monumentally
illogical and did irreperable damage to the country. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
news:bdfo75$8vq$0@pita.alt.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> > news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
> >
> >Are you forgetting that the sole reason for the founding
> > of the Republican party was to end Negro (Black) slavery in the United
> > States?
>
> You really need to brush up on your history. Lincoln was barely cold in
his
> grave before the Republican
> Party sold the freed slaves down the river to steal their first
Presidential
> election.
> -- bostnbob
>

That is totally irrelevant to the reason why the party was founded and in no
way excuses the hundreds of Democrats who were pro-slavery while it existed
and pro-bigotry and segregation after slavery ended. I'm dumbfounded that
you can attack Republicans who don't have a good record regarding Civil
Rights and blithely ignore Democrats, many with worse records, and excuse
their actions because they're Southern (although many weren't Sourthern. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
news:bdfo75$8vq$0@pita.alt.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> newsE4Ka.19506$3o3.1558054@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@alt.net> wrote in message
> > news:bda9s5$ikq$0@pita.alt.net...
>
> Having lived through the sixties in the south, I can assure that my
> knowledge of the history of the era is far
> more fair and balanced than yours, with your apparent image of sainted,
> "can-do-no-wrong" Republicans".
> I suggest you look at a political snapshot of the south as it was in 1960
> and one as it is today, and ask
> yourself whether or not my explanation of the difference doesn't make a
> great deal of sense.
> -- bostnbob
>

Well, the oldest trick of the Communists is to blame someone else for what
they themselves are trying to hide. You have no idea what my views or my
actions are and have been regarding civil rights in the United States and I
assure you my values have nothing to do with politics or the unforgivably
slow progress the United States has made in that respect. Equal rights is a
moral issue irrespective of the political overtones. I never in my wildest
dream indicated the Republicans can do no wrong and went so far as to say I
think Republican Earl Warren hurt the country greatly. I've cast ballots for
candidates of the Democrat party everytime I've ever voted and in every
election. I voted for Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter for crying out loud.
But, I'm not going to buy the nonesense that Republicans oppose equal rights
and civil rights and that all democrats have flawless records when it comes
to racial issues. Your knowledge of the racial strife of the sixties isn't
in question; what I oppose is your lionizing one party and demonizing the
other. That is neither fair nor is it balanced. It's hogwash and it acts to
polarize opinion rather than work toward harmony. Violent action may called
for in the beginning of revolutions, but, if it continues, it causes the
proponents to fight retrogression rather thann work toward progress. The
American Revolution is a good example: in the beginning there was violent
action, followed by compromise and working toward harmony. It succeeded
admirably. The French and Russian Revolutions began with violent action and
the violence continued dooming the revolutions to failure. I do not want to
see this happen to the civil rights movement. The idea that civil rights is
an area that only one party is willing to address is ridiculous. In the
recent past it has been the tactic of the Democrats to attempt to divide the
nation rather than unite it - and that's one of the many reasons the party
has done so badly at the polls of late and can expect the same results until
they make some radical changes. If you don't believe me, hide and watch and
we'll see who is more accurate in their assessments. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

In article
<ePKKa.22507$0v4.1802323@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:

> That is totally irrelevant to the reason why the party was founded and in no
> way excuses the hundreds of Democrats who were pro-slavery while it existed
> and pro-bigotry and segregation after slavery ended. I'm dumbfounded that
> you can attack Republicans who don't have a good record regarding Civil
> Rights and blithely ignore Democrats, many with worse records, and excuse
> their actions because they're Southern (although many weren't Sourthern. KM

Hmmm. What about the here-&-now?

Does Trent Lott have "a good record regarding Civil Rights"?