Is Eugenics Ever Okay?

[noddy]

in aus it was the rightest of right wing governments with john howard that banned guns and massively increased middle class welfare during the mining boom.

funnily enough, it was the left wing government of the 1980's paul keating which broke the back of the unions and stopped the government control of the central bank and exchange rate.

the left/right thing is very context dependent.

[Mr. Perfect]

The context is often people who sell out principle for interests.

[YMix]

However, the problem is and where you continue to obstruct truth is that we see both Euro and American leftists try to smear American rightists with Hitler, which is why it is not a waste of time to point out that Hitler had much more in common with European and American leftists and virtually nothing in common with US right wingers like me from a uniquely ideological point of view. We may share a similar diet and hobbies, I wouldn't know one way or the other.

Because on some issues, right wingers are close to Hitler. Even European ones. The GOP tends to take a dim view of blacks, Latin Americans, women, gays, Muslims and leftists, which is quite close to the "Blood and Earth" xenophobia and rejection of leftists that Hitler was known for. The official ideology of the left wing parties was and still is to accept other people, regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation.

Issues such as gun bans, economic stimulus and single payer medical services didn't even figure in the politics of the time in Europe, so I don't understand why you keep bringing them up. Hitler killed a lot of people because they were untermenschen or hated communists, not because they were gun owners or libertarians.

[Mr. Perfect]

Because on some issues, right wingers are close to Hitler. Even European ones. The GOP tends to take a dim view of blacks, Latin Americans, women, gays,

Pure unadulterated slanderous ibs level horse$#!t. The GOP has put blacks, Hispanics, women and gays at the highest levels of government. Margaret Thatcher is one of the most beloved conservative icons of all time. You are simply perpetrating leftwing MSM horse$#!t lies.

Blacks, hispanics, women and gays have done worse under obama than whites and males. And Democrats are fine with it.

And your comparison is even more disgusting when you add that having a "dim view" of someone is anywhere near the equivalent of putting them in ovens. Nobody has a monopoly on bigotry or or "tolerance", leftist history is full of bigotry.

Muslims

Of course that is not unique to the right and is far more complex than you let on.

and leftists,

Guilty as charged.

which is quite close to the "Blood and Earth" xenophobia and rejection of leftists that Hitler was known for. The official ideology of the left wing parties was and still is to accept other people, regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation.

Puerile nonsense, I can quote bomb this forum for years over the nasty things leftists say about right wing teabagging Christians, bigoted statements made by leftists that area swept under the rug by the compliant MSM. I don't mind adding platitudes that parties put on their tracts in the discussion but they must be measured against actions and where they contradict in other areas. Leftists tolerate who they want to tolerate and don't tolerate who they don't want to tolerate ("Right winger teabagging Christofascists"). That of course is not tolerance. Tolerance is tolerating people you don't want to tolerate.

On Xenophobia, which of the European countries have an open border.

Issues such as gun bans, economic stimulus and single payer medical services didn't even figure in the politics of the time in Europe,

Haha. Political issues aren't political issues.

so I don't understand why you keep bringing them up.

Because they are points of left wing doctrine. Simple enough. He was a leftist. He implemented left wing policies. That makes him a leftist. If you implement left wing policy then you are a sell out or a leftist. Seeing how they are congruent with his long term political statements that makes him a leftist. He spoke of workers rights and left wing ideology in his books, joined a party with the platform Doc has already published that named itself National SOCIALISM.

It is very simple and straightforward. Hitler was a leftist.

Your argument is so strange. Why would a right winger join a left wing party? Did Reagan run as a Democrat? Did obama run as a Republican? The Cog Dis here is expanding faster than the universe.

Hitler killed a lot of people because they were untermenschen or hated communists,

I think you may want to look into why Hitler hated the communists and provide supporting material. I think it will surprise you.

Leftists have a long history of hating and killing other leftists.

not because they were gun owners or libertarians.

The gun owners were compliant and I don't know of any libertarians to speak of from that time and place.

[YMix]

Pure unadulterated slanderous ibs level horse$#!t. The GOP has put blacks, Hispanics, women and gays at the highest levels of government. Margaret Thatcher is one of the most beloved conservative icons of all time. You are simply perpetrating leftwing MSM horse$#!t lies.

Some token minority figures aren't enough to offset the fact that the GOP's base is the white, conservative, older people. Not to mention that the GOP took the Southern Bourbons to its bosom. Deal with it.

Blacks, hispanics, women and gays have done worse under obama than whites and males. And Democrats are fine with it.

Not the point.

And your comparison is even more disgusting when you add that having a "dim view" of someone is anywhere near the equivalent of putting them in ovens.

You asked about common issues, I answered.

Puerile nonsense, I can quote bomb this forum for years over the nasty things leftists say about right wing teabagging Christians, bigoted statements made by leftists that area swept under the rug by the compliant MSM. I don't mind adding platitudes that parties put on their tracts in the discussion but they must be measured against actions and where they contradict in other areas. Leftists tolerate who they want to tolerate and don't tolerate who they don't want to tolerate ("Right winger teabagging Christofascists"). That of course is not tolerance. Tolerance is tolerating people you don't want to tolerate.

<shrug> Whatever.

Haha. Political issues aren't political issues.

The political issues that define today's US right wing are not the political issues that defined the circa 1930 German right wing.

Because they are points of left wing doctrine. Simple enough. He was a leftist. He implemented left wing policies. That makes him a leftist. If you implement left wing policy then you are a sell out or a leftist. Seeing how they are congruent with his long term political statements that makes him a leftist. He spoke of workers rights and left wing ideology in his books, joined a party with the platform Doc has already published that named itself National SOCIALISM.

It is very simple and straightforward. Hitler was a leftist.

See above.

Your argument is so strange. Why would a right winger join a left wing party? Did Reagan run as a Democrat? Did obama run as a Republican? The Cog Dis here is expanding faster than the universe.

Because the NSDAP wasn't exactly leftist and it was deeply anti-Semitic. Hitler was really into that. You could at least read the Wikipedia article on the NSDAP and what its founders meant by national-socialism before posting.

I think you may want to look into why Hitler hated the communists and provide supporting material.

Anti-Semitism. Plenty of books on this topic.

The gun owners were compliant and I don't know of any libertarians to speak of from that time and place.

Precisely.

[Simple Minded]

Trying to fit everything into American left/right paradigms is ludicrous.

The Soviet regime was actually pretty CONSERVATIVE if you give it any thought at all.

Even better. Every old Russian who dreams of a return of the USSR is a conservative. Every old Eastern European who yearns for the good old days of socialism is also a conservative.

So your contention is that starting a left wing labor union, single payer hc, keynesian stimulus, gov't control of industry, guns bans and so forth are right wing. How do you resolve that cognitive dissonance.

There is no cognitive dissonance. No government control of the industry and gun ownership are pillars of right wing doctrine in the USA, not in Europe and especially not in early 20th century Europe. If you can't understand that your view of what is right wing and what not is not shared by many people outside of the USA, this conversation is pretty much a waste of time.

Amen YMix! If I had a nickel for every time I explained to one of my European co-workers that the common definitions of "right" and "left" are reversed in most of the US from the definitions common in most of Europe. I'd buy you a really great Christmas present!

This is progress. Soon we should be ready to tackle "east," "west," "north," "south," "rich," "poor," "up," "down," etc. and whose girlfriend is hotter...

[Simple Minded]

in aus it was the rightest of right wing governments with john howard that banned guns and massively increased middle class welfare during the mining boom.

funnily enough, it was the left wing government of the 1980's paul keating which broke the back of the unions and stopped the government control of the central bank and exchange rate.

the left/right thing is very context dependent.

amen again Bro.

blind men and elephants....

Tell a Merikan you own a Subaru, and they will automatically think you are a left winger, tell them you own a hacksaw, and they will assume the opposite.

I think the real rub with labels occurs when someone else labels one differently than one labels oneself. Oh.... how I hate THOSE PEOPLE! What a bunch of HATERS they are!

the left/right labels also have very short self lives.... deteriorate rapidly in sunlight...... and like the fat chick down at the end the bar..... perception seems influenced by consumption..... both for the observer and the observee!

Luckily labels are good for GDP!

[Mr. Perfect]

Some token minority figures aren't enough to offset the fact that the GOP's base is the white, conservative, older people.

Why would you assume white people have a "dim view" of the people you listed. Why do you think they would send them to ovens. Do you think white people are more prone to bigotry than other people? Is this because of genetics or DNA do you think? Is this something Orpah Winfrey told you.

Why are white conservative old people happy to put people in the highest offices in the land that they have a dim view of.

Not to mention that the GOP took the Southern Bourbons to its bosom. Deal with it.

The GOP version of the South is incredibly less racist than the old Democrat version (the Democrats that Woodrow, FDR, and JFK and Clinton took to their bosoms. You should look into Bill Clinton's mentor someday) so of course they are very easy to deal with. I'm glad they've made so much progress. We should all celebrate it. I'm glad that as they became less racist they joined the GOP.

Democrats today however have La Raza and Reverend Wright types for starters, but I would never accuse them of wanting to send anyone to an oven.

BTW which European country has an open border.

Not the point.

I get a lot of leftists who say that. They don't seem to care about the damage done by them to the people you mentioned. Maybe the leftists have a dim view of them.

You asked about common issues, I answered.

You haven't listed any issues uniquely in common with the US right. Not a single example. Bigotry is found in all peoples and all political persuasions.

<shrug> Whatever.

Capitulance. Like dominoes, they start falling.

The political issues that define today's US right wing are not the political issues that defined the circa 1930 German right wing.

They are left wing issues going back over a century. Adolph Hitler joined left wing political parties that believed in socialism and traditional leftist workers rights issues. It is simply historical fact.

See above.

I did. Hitler was a leftist by modern standards and standards of his time.

Because the NSDAP wasn't exactly leftist and it was deeply anti-Semitic. Hitler was really into that. You could at least read the Wikipedia article on the NSDAP and what its founders meant by national-socialism before posting.

There is nothing uniquely right wing about anti-semitism. Anti semitism has history with left right and center, along with all kinds of bigotry. As Doc has pointed out when he really shouldn't have had to, the left has a long history with eugenics, the weeding out of undesirables.

BTW at least read the wiki of the Labor Front. You will see that the NSDAP was very leftist. Socialism is a left wing concept. If you read the wiki page you see they were preceded by the "German Workers Party", a leftist party. This is all leftism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wor ... membership

While monitoring the activities of the DAP, Hitler became attracted to the founder Anton Drexler's antisemitic, nationalist, anti-capitalist, and anti-Marxist ideas.[1] Drexler favoured a strong active government, a non-Jewish version of socialism, and solidarity among all members of society. While attending a party meeting at the Sterneckerbräu beer hall on September 12, 1919, Hitler got involved in a heated political argument with a visitor, Professor Baumann who questioned the soundness of Gottfried Feder's arguments against capitalism and proposed that Bavaria should break away from Prussia and found a new South German nation with Austria. In vehemently attacking the man's arguments he made an impression on the other party members with his oratory skills and, according to Hitler, the "professor" left the hall acknowledging unequivocal defeat.[5] Impressed with Hitler, Drexler invited him to join the DAP. Hitler accepted on September 12, 1919,[6] becoming the party's 55th member.[7]

Leftist anti-capitalist argument propelled Hitler on his path to power. An historic moment.

Anti-Semitism. Plenty of books on this topic.

Indeed. When you read them you will find anti-semitism right left and center. Anti semitism goes back way before anyone ever said "left vs right".

Precisely.

Precisely why he didn't go after them. He went after those he thought were a threat, ie his fellow leftists.

[Doc]

Because on some issues, right wingers are close to Hitler. Even European ones. The GOP tends to take a dim view of blacks, Latin Americans, women, gays,

Pure unadulterated slanderous ibs level horse$#!t. The GOP has put blacks, Hispanics, women and gays at the highest levels of government. Margaret Thatcher is one of the most beloved conservative icons of all time. You are simply perpetrating leftwing MSM horse$#!t lies.

Blacks, hispanics, women and gays have done worse under obama than whites and males. And Democrats are fine with it.

And your comparison is even more disgusting when you add that having a "dim view" of someone is anywhere near the equivalent of putting them in ovens. Nobody has a monopoly on bigotry or or "tolerance", leftist history is full of bigotry.

Not to mention that which I pointed out previously:

http://thecitysquare.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -1957.html

LBJ vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1957
James Taranto digs up some history:

As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past" (available from the OpinionJournal bookstore):


In his January 10, 1957, State of the Union Address, Eisenhower renewed his request for civil rights legislation, which had passed the House but died in the Senate in the previous Congress due to Southern Democratic delaying tactics. . . .

Everyone knew that the critical fight on the civil rights bill would be in the Senate. . . . In that body, the key figure was Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson's record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. . . .

After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .

At the same time, the Senate's master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster. . . . So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell's strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible. . . .

Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. "I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in '57 than I could get," he later lamented. "But the Democrats . . . wouldn't let me have it."

Liberals criticized Eisenhower for getting such a modest bill at the end of the day. But Johnson argued that it was historically important because it was the first civil rights bill to pass Congress since 1875. "Once you break virginity," he said, "it'll be easier next time."

To put it mildly, LBJ was not a consistent advocate of racial equality. Bartlett (both in his book and in this article) quotes LBJ's explanation of why he backed the Civil Rights Act of 1957:


"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

[YMix]

Why would you assume white people have a "dim view" of the people you listed. Why do you think they would send them to ovens. Do you think white people are more prone to bigotry than other people? Is this because of genetics or DNA do you think? Is this something Orpah Winfrey told you.

Why wouldn't I? And I don't watch US TV, which includes Oprah.

Why are white conservative old people happy to put people in the highest offices in the land that they have a dim view of.

You need a definition of "token"?

The GOP version of the South is incredibly less racist than the old Democrat version (the Democrats that Woodrow, FDR, and JFK and Clinton took to their bosoms. You should look into Bill Clinton's mentor someday) so of course they are very easy to deal with. I'm glad they've made so much progress. We should all celebrate it. I'm glad that as they became less racist they joined the GOP.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

I get a lot of leftists who say that. They don't seem to care about the damage done by them to the people you mentioned. Maybe the leftists have a dim view of them.

Or maybe it's not the point of this discussion.

You haven't listed any issues uniquely in common with the US right. Not a single example. Bigotry is found in all peoples and all political persuasions.

If it's found everywhere, that kind of makes it a common issue.

Capitulance. Like dominoes, they start falling.

There's no point in explaining to people who don't want to listen.

They are left wing issues going back over a century. Adolph Hitler joined left wing political parties that believed in socialism and traditional leftist workers rights issues. It is simply historical fact.

He joined an anti-Marxist party. That's not any kind of traditional leftist.

I did. Hitler was a leftist by modern standards and standards of his time.

Sure he was. That's why the NSDAP's base was in Bavaria, a stronghold of right wing politics. That's why he got the support of the rich Bavarian businessmen, all of them conservatives.

There is nothing uniquely right wing about anti-semitism. Anti semitism has history with left right and center, along with all kinds of bigotry. As Doc has pointed out when he really shouldn't have had to, the left has a long history with eugenics, the weeding out of undesirables.

You asked why Hitler joined, I answered. He was fiercely anti-Semitic and pro-German. The German leftists of the time were internationalists.

BTW at least read the wiki of the Labor Front. You will see that the NSDAP was very leftist. Socialism is a left wing concept. If you read the wiki page you see they were preceded by the "German Workers Party", a leftist party. This is all leftism.

The NSDAP rejected all association with leftism. That kind of makes it... non-leftist. National Socialism is an offshoot of Prussian Socialism, a concept developed by Oswald Spengler, who was by no means a leftist. I understand that the word Socialism makes you think "leftist", but the aims of these movements were not leftist. The NSDAP rejected both Marxism and capitalism because they saw these doctrines simply as eastern and western flavors of Jewish thinking, which they wanted to have nothing to do with. The aim of the NSDAP was to establish a third way, a German-centric way rooted in a strong state. If a strong government that controls every aspect of the state is leftist, then almost every monarchy in Europe and Asia was leftist.

It would be correct to argue that many people were attracted to the party by the word Socialism, but that Socialism never came about. The NSDAP made an alliance with some of the big business figures in order to get power and Röhm and his people were purged. And that was that.

Indeed. When you read them you will find anti-semitism right left and center. Anti semitism goes back way before anyone ever said "left vs right".

True, but the NSDAP's explicitly anti-Semitic platform and members allowed Hitler to put that anti-Semitism into practice in the worst kind of way. I doubt that Hitler would've stayed with the NSDAP if the party leaders had told him to cut the sh*t and leave the Jews alone.

Precisely why he didn't go after them. He went after those he thought were a threat, ie his fellow leftists.

Probably because Libertarians were such a small fringe movement that they didn't even register.

[YMix]

Not to mention that which I pointed out previously:

This has already been discussed. I recommend Robert Caro's four volumes on Lyndon Johnson for a better explanation of the man's statements and views.

[Doc]

Not to mention that which I pointed out previously:

This has already been discussed. I recommend Robert Caro's four volumes on Lyndon Johnson for a better explanation of the man's statements and views.

LBJ's statements and views are very clear as to where he was coming from:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

[YMix]

LBJ's statements and views are very clear as to where he was coming from:

Even clearer when you know the rest of the story.

[Doc]

LBJ's statements and views are very clear as to where he was coming from:

Even clearer when you know the rest of the story.

LBJ's statement is pretty clear as to what his view and intentions were.

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

And there are a lot of such statements. Not only that there is the filibusters of civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. There is also the single parent rate among inner city blacks since the great society. Innumerable examples of why democratic programs have not served African Americans.

Yet you insist in proclaiming to the world in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary:

Because on some issues, right wingers are close to Hitler. Even European ones. The GOP tends to take a dim view of blacks, Latin Americans, women, gays

[YMix]

You want to judge LBJ's view of blacks based on a single statement, without context? Be my guest.

[Enki]

LBJ despite his work on Civil Rights was a known racist.

[Doc]

You want to judge LBJ's view of blacks based on a single statement, without context? Be my guest.

You need to open your eyes then That is all it takes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... nd_passage

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans were registered to vote. Despite comprising the majority population in numerous counties and Congressional districts in the South, discriminatory voter registration rules and laws had effectively disfranchised most blacks in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Civil rights organizations had collected evidence of discriminatory practices, such as administration of literacy and comprehension tests, poll taxes and other means. While the states had the right to establish rules for voter registration and elections, the federal government found an oversight role in ensuring that citizens could exercise the constitutional right to vote for federal officers, such as the president, vice president, and Congress

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... 7s_mandate

Toward the end of his presidency, President Eisenhower supported civil rights legislation. In his message to Congress, he proposed seven recommendations for the protection of civil rights:

Strengthen the laws that would root out threats to obstruct court orders in school desegregation cases
Provide more investigative authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in crimes involving the destruction of schools/churches
Grant Attorney General power to investigate Federal election records
Provide temporary program for aid to agencies to assist changes necessary for school desegregation decisions
Authorize provision of education for children of the armed forces
Consider establishing a statutory Commission on Equal Job Opportunity Under Government Contracts (later mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to create the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
Extend the Civil Rights Commission an additional two years[1]

Passage in the House of Representatives

The bill, H.R. 8601, began in the House of Representatives under jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee. The chairman of the committee, Congressman Emmanuel Celler of New York, was known to be a firm supporter of the civil rights movement. The bill was easily approved by the Judiciary Committee, but the Rules Committee attacked the Judiciary Committee to prevent the bill coming to the floor of the House of Representatives.[2] The bill was introduced to the House on March 10, 1960.

The "voter referees" plan was part of a House amendment to the original bill to substitute Representative Robert Kastenmeier's "enrollment officers" plan. After several amendments, the House of Representatives approved the bill on March 24, 1960 by a vote of 311-109.[1][3] 179 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted Aye. 93 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 1 Independent Democrat voted Nay. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted present.[4]

Passage in the Senate

The Senate's Judiciary Committee also faced attempts to dislodge the bill. Democrats had long acted as a voting block to resist or reject legislation to enforce constitutional rights in the South and made it difficult for proponents of civil rights to add strengthening amendments.[2] After amendments in the Senate, H.R. 8601 was approved by the Senate on April 8, 1960 by a vote of 71-18.

The House of Representatives approved the Senate] amendments on April 21, 1960 by a vote of 295-288 and the bill was signed into law by President Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.[1] No Republican Senators voted against the Bill.

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
The political history of Civil rights in the US:

Democrat Race Lie

This whopper deserves all the attention it can get. Again, it shows the ignorance and contempt of the electorate liberals depend on.

In 2010, Democrats gave their website a facelift and whitewash. Click on the screenshot above to see what they used to say about their civil rights history.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they “are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”…

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

And I’m tired of the recitation that Southern Democrats became racist Republicans and took those tendencies with them. Even today, it never takes long for a Democrat to play the race card purely for political advantage.

[Doc]

LBJ despite his work on Civil Rights was a known racist.

Thank you Tinker.

What Malcom X had to say about the Democrats and civil rights

XkgA2rUAY-o

[YMix]

You need to open your eyes then That is all it takes:

<Katharine Hepburn in Philadelphia Story> My eyes are open.

But I guess we can trade quotes.

All his life, he had had what George Brown called a “knack” for simultaneously convincing people on opposite sides of an issue that he was on their side, and that knack was desperately needed now. He was the only bridge between the two sides, and if he was to keep them negotiating through him, he had to convince each side that it was in its best interest to negotiate through him, that he was trying to obtain for it the best deal that could be obtained; that while it was necessary for him to maintain a veneer of neutrality for the benefit of the outside world, in reality he was on their side, that he believed what they believed, that he was their friend, that he wanted them to win. And never had this knack been more vividly displayed. He did it with the tone of his voice: with northerners, his Texas twang became harder, more clipped; when he talked to southerners the twang softened into a full-fledged southern drawl. He did it with words. “If we’re going to have any civil rights bill at all, we’ve got to be reasonable about this jury trial amendment,” he said to Paul Douglas in the cloakroom one day. Five minutes later, he was at the opposite end of the cloakroom, telling Ervin to “be ready to take up the Nigra bill again.” “Let’s face it, our ass is in a crack—we’re gonna have to let this nigger bill pass,” he told Stennis.

With the southern senators, the key words—in addition to “nigger” and “Nigra”—were we and us, to emphasize that he was one of them. Keeping the South in line—persuading Thurmond not to march on the White House and Eastland not to give the Judiciary Committee a monthlong vacation and Olin Johnston not to deliver his forty-page speech—was, despite all that Richard Russell could do, becoming increasingly difficult. He had to persuade the southerners to allow some sort of civil rights bill to pass, not to employ the filibuster to kill it, even though their constituents were expecting them to use the filibuster if necessary. To do so, he made things personal. Over and over again, he told the southerners, “We have to give them something”—and, he told them, as long as they trusted him, the something would be as little as possible. “I’m on your side, not theirs. Be practical. We have to give them something. But we don’t have to put teeth in it.” He made it political. “You always thought you wouldn’t have to worry about Republican opponents. Well, look around you. I look around and I see the Republicans shaking bushes all over the South. Well, one day, they’ll shake the right bush and flush out an opponent for you…. My ass is on the line, and your ass is on the line, and the Democratic Party’s ass is on the line….” He tried to make them understand that as long as the bill contained a jury trial amendment, its passage would have minimal political repercussions for them. “You can go back [home] and say, ‘Listen, we couldn’t stop them entirely. They just had too many votes, so they rolled over us. But look what we got. We fought and fixed it up so that those damned Yankee carpetbaggers couldn’t come back, and also they couldn’t brand you a criminal without a jury trial.’” He played on their pride as southerners. We’ve got a chance to show the Yankees that we’re not all ignorant redneck racists down here like they’d like to think, he said. He played on their hopes: their hope that he might become President, and that if he did, that would be a victory for the South, a victory so great that its possibility should overrule all other considerations. “He used this feeling, he played on it—this was a deliberate tactic of his,” Reedy says. He played on their fears for the South. For the first time, he said, Negroes have a real leader. “A religious leader. A nonviolent man of the cloth. You all know what that means, don’t you? A colored Baptist preacher? That’s one man who controls the colored community…. The colored are not going to give up. They’re determined…. We can’t continue to push these things down their throats. They won’t sit still any longer. We have to give them something.” He told them, “If we don’t allow progress on this issue, we’re going to lose everything. There’s going to be cloture. Rule 22 is going to go. And our opportunity to delay, or to slow down, and to bring some kind of an order to change, will be gone.” Or: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they’ve never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all kinds of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

And he played on their fears for themselves—an effective tactic, because Matt Neely’s death, expected daily, would reduce the number of Democrats in the Senate to forty-eight. There were currently only forty-six Republicans, but the Republican Governor of West Virginia was expected to name a Republican to Neely’s seat, so there would be forty-seven. Joe McCarthy had died in May, and a special election to fill his seat would be held on August 28, between a Democrat, William Proxmire, and a Republican, Walter J. Kohler, a popular former governor. Since no Democrat had won a Senate seat from Wisconsin in twenty-five years, it was expected that after the special election, the Republicans would have forty-eight seats. The party count would be tied, a tie would be broken by the Vice President—the Republicans were planning to reorganize the Senate as soon as Kohler was sworn in. A confidential memo sent to Lehman in Switzerland by Julius Edelstein reported that “Lyndon Johnson [has] been warning all the southerners that unless they relaxed a little and let some kind of a civil rights bill go through, they were in danger of losing their chairmanships. He urged them not to filibuster because to filibuster the civil rights bill would ensure a victory for Kohler….”

With the liberals—not with the most ardent “red-hots,” for with them there was no hope, but with the rest of the Democratic liberals—the key words were also we and us. He made them feel that they were in a battle, and that in that battle he was on their side. Warning one liberal senator that there must be a liberal “sentry” on the floor at all times to guard against a sudden southern legislative maneuver, he told him, “They’ll get us on the floor if we’re not manned on the floor at all times, so we always have to have a man there.” He told him, “They’ll pick our moment of least resistance and move in.” He played on their fears—the fear of what southern power in the committees could do to their vital projects. Once, when Wayne Morse was threatening, in order to bring the South to heel, to block a unanimous consent agreement some southerners wanted, Johnson told him, “Look, you’re going to be in the position of wanting [their] support in the future. This [the jury trial amendment] isn’t that hurtful to your state’s interest or to your own convictions. Don’t build it up into a blockage.”

He had to persuade the northerners to allow some sort of jury trial amendment in the bill, even though such an amendment stripped the bill of its teeth. He tried to make them understand that the important thing was to get some bill, any bill, passed “to show them we can do it”—“Once we’ve got the first one passed, we can go back and improve it”—and that the only way to get it passed was to vote for the amendment. “Jim Eastland knows we have to have a civil rights bill,” he said to them. “But he has to have a jury trial amendment. We’ve got to give him a jury trial amendment.” He tried to make them understand that so long as the bill contained provisions for voting rights, it was still worth passing: “Give them the vote, that’s what matters. Then things’ll change, you’ll see,” he said. When Humphrey tried to argue with him, he said, “Yes, yes, Hubert, I want all those other things—buses, restaurants, all of that—but the right to vote with no ifs, ands or buts, that’s the key. When the Negroes get that, they’ll have every politician, north and south, east and west, kissing their ass, begging for their support.”

Keeping the liberals from forcing the issue to a vote was becoming more and more difficult, for, knowing that they had a majority of the Senate on their side, they thought only about the vote, not about the maneuvers that would precede it, and he tried to make them understand. Because of their distrust of him, he often relayed his word through others. In one liberal caucus, Clint Anderson interrupted a barrage of red-hot bravado about their chances of carrying some amendment to tell them their vote count was wrong (“Let me give you some advice,” Anderson said. He named five Democratic senators whom the liberals were counting on their side. You’re right in thinking that “you’re going to need their help,” he told them. “But you haven’t got it now”) and to advise them to stick with a man whose counts were more accurate (particularly since that man was of their party): “I remember that for many years whenever we tried to do something on civil rights, Bob Taft would go over and whisper to Dick Russell and we’d be licked. So let’s follow our own leader and not these recent Republican converts.” Once, John Carroll told his administrative assistant, Harry Schnibbe, “Goddammit, we’ll go on the floor with this. McNamara will do this, and Paul will do that, and we’ll make an issue of this.” Having learned of the liberals’ plans, Johnson sent Bobby Baker to intercept Schnibbe on the floor: “Harry, this is a grave mistake. If you do this, Russell will do this, and Ellender will do this…. The Majority Leader has got to cool this down before we can go forward.” And sometimes he delivered the warning himself. “Look, if you press too hard, if you insist on perfection, you’ll get it, but it won’t be passed.” Day after day, he was arguing one side of a point with the southerners and the other side with the liberals—and arguing both sides with equal persuasiveness. At the same time that he was telling the South that he had counted votes and had found that a filibuster couldn’t win, he was telling liberals that he had counted votes and had found that they couldn’t beat a filibuster. “He was playing it out of both sides,” Harry McPherson was to recall. “He was down in the trenches with guys who were determined not to let the bill pass, and he was doing his damnedest by every conceivable device to bring them around. He warned them [the southerners] that much worse would come unless they would pass this modest bill.” They believed him. “He made them think … he’d be with them forever.” At the same time, McPherson says, “he would tell some of the northerners that if they would only let this modest bill go through, they would get a better bill later.” And they believed him. He told Joe Rauh, “You can’t beat a filibuster,” and Rauh says he was correct: “We had the majority, but we didn’t have two-thirds.”

I'm not saying Johnson liked black people. He didn't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he liked black people, but because he wanted to get elected president. But I doubt he was an actual racist. He certainly played both the conservative (US-style, circa 1960) and the liberal (US-style, circa 1960).

[Ibrahim]

in aus it was the rightest of right wing governments with john howard that banned guns and massively increased middle class welfare during the mining boom.

That sentence will just read like ancient cuneiform to most Americans.

funnily enough, it was the left wing government of the 1980's paul keating which broke the back of the unions and stopped the government control of the central bank and exchange rate.

the left/right thing is very context dependent.

Almost entirely context dependent.

[Mr. Perfect]

Why wouldn't I? And I don't watch US TV, which includes Oprah.

Well you could, it would just make you racist. And according to you like Hitler. You would be like Hitler according to your standards.

You need a definition of "token"?

What is token about Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Sandra Day O'Connor, Alberto Gonzalez, Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin, Nikki Hailey, Bobby Jindal etc. Can you actually name one token non white male in the history of the party. And then support it with evidence. Remember, your example must conform to the defintion of "token", which would not necessarily mean they were stupid or unqualified, stupid and unqualified politicians come from every walk of life with popular support. And to save you trouble, Colin Powell is no longer popular because he is now a liberal, but before then he was a serious Presidential contender long before anyone heard of barack obama who he endorsed 2 times. I'll even save you trouble with Clarence Thomas, I think GHWB DID pick him as a token, but he is a beloved by the conservative base as anyone in politics so in that sense he is not a token because any Conservative would have been happy with him as a Conservative regardless of how he came up.

So good luck on that. And when you can't come up with anything I look forward to a retraction.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

In your reality did the Democrat South or the GOP South practice segregation. Did woodrow franklin and jfk take the segregationists to their bosoms or no in your reality. Please answer this question. Please start listening.

Or maybe it's not the point of this discussion.

It bears directly on a point you and not me brought to this discussion. On what evidence would we assume that anyone takes a "dim view", why wouldn't we take into account punitive policies that have resulted in worsened lives of the groups in question.

If it's found everywhere, that kind of makes it a common issue.

Then most political groups would be like Hitler and there would be no reason to single out the GOP as you have done.

Also please let me know of significant GOP/Conservative person who wants to put people in gas ovens.

Also let me know which European countries have open borders.

There's no point in explaining to people who don't want to listen.

Boy are you right about that.

He joined an anti-Marxist party. That's not any kind of traditional leftist.

Political movements have internal disputes all the time. You are a big fan of one, teabaggers vs Rinos. There is no question that there were disputes between Socialists and Communists in the past, just are there were disputes between communists and communists and socialists and socialists. Power plays, disagreements on policy and doctrine often ending in dead bodies. You see that in movements and ideologies all across the spectrum. Malcom X split with Elijah Muhammed and yet both remained Muslims. Pretty straightforward.

But they (socialists and communists) despite internal dispute are all leftist.

Sure he was. That's why the NSDAP's base was in Bavaria, a stronghold of right wing politics. That's why he got the support of the rich Bavarian businessmen, all of them conservatives.

Where you live determines your ideological orientation? I've been accused of living in a blue district, would that make me a liberal.

Leftists have never shied away from rich businessmen when they need money for politics. Nothing new really there. It's called "realpolitic".

Have you looked at the data I provided on how Hitler was a socialist who joined and founded workers rights socialist parties that implemented socialist policies. It is overwhelming. It makes him a leftist.

You asked why Hitler joined, I answered. He was fiercely anti-Semitic and pro-German. The German leftists of the time were internationalists.

There is no question there. It just now seems settled that his anti-semitism would not make him right wing in the slightest. So on all other issues, such as unions, national control of industry, keynesian fiscal policy single payer health care, gun bans and so forth he is firmly left wing.

As for nationalism, as you say and could be right german leftists (if you now think left and right can be divided as such at that time) at the time were "internationalist" whatever that may be "at the time". We see leftist movements all over the world across different time spans who have also been "nationalists", such as Communist Russia/USSR/China/N Korea/Cuba and of course a left leaning nation like France has no shortage of national Pride. So clearly not right wing on that basis.

The NSDAP rejected all association with leftism. That kind of makes it... non-leftist.

Certainly not. They were an anti-capitalist socialist party. That is true blue left wing.

National Socialism is an offshoot of Prussian Socialism, a concept developed by Oswald Spengler, who was by no means a leftist.

Socialist is left wing.

I understand that the word Socialism makes you think "leftist", but the aims of these movements were not leftist. The NSDAP rejected both Marxism and capitalism because they saw these doctrines simply as eastern and western flavors of Jewish thinking, which they wanted to have nothing to do with. The aim of the NSDAP was to establish a third way, a German-centric way rooted in a strong state.

All leftist concepts. Central planning of an economy from a strong state. They carried out those polices right from a leftist playbook of any era. Single payer healthcare, keynesian stimulus, strong labor union, workers rights, and on and on. No relation to US right wing whatsoever.

If a strong government that controls every aspect of the state is leftist, then almost every monarchy in Europe and Asia was leftist.

Well duh.

It would be correct to argue that many people were attracted to the party by the word Socialism, but that Socialism never came about.

Single payer HC and Keynesian fiscal policy are all socialist and Labor having a strong influence over commerce are all socialist. They all came about. You really need to read up on the Labor Front, it puts this whole thing to bed. This is like the TInker argument that communism never existed, what do the kids call it, "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

The NSDAP made an alliance with some of the big business figures in order to get power and Röhm and his people were purged. And that was that.

All political groups left right and center make alliances with big business. It;s called realpolitic. It doesn't make anyone right wing. Ronald Reagan took money from labor unions, I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a leftist on that basis. And that is always a funny story.

True, but the NSDAP's explicitly anti-Semitic platform and members allowed Hitler to put that anti-Semitism into practice in the worst kind of way.

Sure. It just has not bearing on the left/right thing.

I doubt that Hitler would've stayed with the NSDAP if the party leaders had told him to cut the sh*t and leave the Jews alone.

Who knows. If he had to choose between jew killing and socialism who knows really what he would have chosen. If you had to choose between abortion and socialism what would you choose? If I had to choose between guns and property rights, hoo boy. Tough decisions for people.

Probably because Libertarians were such a small fringe movement that they didn't even register.

I'm sure that is part of it. Of course that proves the larger point which is that he attacked those who threatened him, regardless of ideology.

[Mr. Perfect]

That sentence will just read like ancient cuneiform to most Americans.

Sort of creating an ersatz race there ibs. Are you saying that Americans as a group are dumber than everyone else. Sort of bigotry on your part. Hate speech. We should seek out a tribunal for you.

Almost entirely context dependent.

Why do you routinely reject the context then.

[Mr. Perfect]

[
I'm not saying Johnson liked black people. He didn't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he liked black people, but because he wanted to get elected president. But I doubt he was an actual racist. He certainly played both the conservative (US-style, circa 1960) and the liberal (US-style, circa 1960).

You would be in a small minority there.

In 1960 segregationists were all Democrats, and embraced by woodrow, franklin, and jfk. You promulgate a dishonest partisan edited version of history.

[Doc]

You need to open your eyes then That is all it takes:

<Katharine Hepburn in Philadelphia Story> My eyes are open.

But I guess we can trade quotes.

All his life, he had had what George Brown called a “knack” for simultaneously convincing people on opposite sides of an issue that he was on their side, and that knack was desperately needed now. He was the only bridge between the two sides, and if he was to keep them negotiating through him, he had to convince each side that it was in its best interest to negotiate through him, that he was trying to obtain for it the best deal that could be obtained; that while it was necessary for him to maintain a veneer of neutrality for the benefit of the outside world, in reality he was on their side, that he believed what they believed, that he was their friend, that he wanted them to win. And never had this knack been more vividly displayed. He did it with the tone of his voice: with northerners, his Texas twang became harder, more clipped; when he talked to southerners the twang softened into a full-fledged southern drawl. He did it with words. “If we’re going to have any civil rights bill at all, we’ve got to be reasonable about this jury trial amendment,” he said to Paul Douglas in the cloakroom one day. Five minutes later, he was at the opposite end of the cloakroom, telling Ervin to “be ready to take up the Nigra bill again.” “Let’s face it, our ass is in a crack—we’re gonna have to let this nigger bill pass,” he told Stennis.

With the southern senators, the key words—in addition to “nigger” and “Nigra”—were we and us, to emphasize that he was one of them. Keeping the South in line—persuading Thurmond not to march on the White House and Eastland not to give the Judiciary Committee a monthlong vacation and Olin Johnston not to deliver his forty-page speech—was, despite all that Richard Russell could do, becoming increasingly difficult. He had to persuade the southerners to allow some sort of civil rights bill to pass, not to employ the filibuster to kill it, even though their constituents were expecting them to use the filibuster if necessary. To do so, he made things personal. Over and over again, he told the southerners, “We have to give them something”—and, he told them, as long as they trusted him, the something would be as little as possible. “I’m on your side, not theirs. Be practical. We have to give them something. But we don’t have to put teeth in it.” He made it political. “You always thought you wouldn’t have to worry about Republican opponents. Well, look around you. I look around and I see the Republicans shaking bushes all over the South. Well, one day, they’ll shake the right bush and flush out an opponent for you…. My ass is on the line, and your ass is on the line, and the Democratic Party’s ass is on the line….” He tried to make them understand that as long as the bill contained a jury trial amendment, its passage would have minimal political repercussions for them. “You can go back [home] and say, ‘Listen, we couldn’t stop them entirely. They just had too many votes, so they rolled over us. But look what we got. We fought and fixed it up so that those damned Yankee carpetbaggers couldn’t come back, and also they couldn’t brand you a criminal without a jury trial.’” He played on their pride as southerners. We’ve got a chance to show the Yankees that we’re not all ignorant redneck racists down here like they’d like to think, he said. He played on their hopes: their hope that he might become President, and that if he did, that would be a victory for the South, a victory so great that its possibility should overrule all other considerations. “He used this feeling, he played on it—this was a deliberate tactic of his,” Reedy says. He played on their fears for the South. For the first time, he said, Negroes have a real leader. “A religious leader. A nonviolent man of the cloth. You all know what that means, don’t you? A colored Baptist preacher? That’s one man who controls the colored community…. The colored are not going to give up. They’re determined…. We can’t continue to push these things down their throats. They won’t sit still any longer. We have to give them something.” He told them, “If we don’t allow progress on this issue, we’re going to lose everything. There’s going to be cloture. Rule 22 is going to go. And our opportunity to delay, or to slow down, and to bring some kind of an order to change, will be gone.” Or: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they’ve never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all kinds of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

And he played on their fears for themselves—an effective tactic, because Matt Neely’s death, expected daily, would reduce the number of Democrats in the Senate to forty-eight. There were currently only forty-six Republicans, but the Republican Governor of West Virginia was expected to name a Republican to Neely’s seat, so there would be forty-seven. Joe McCarthy had died in May, and a special election to fill his seat would be held on August 28, between a Democrat, William Proxmire, and a Republican, Walter J. Kohler, a popular former governor. Since no Democrat had won a Senate seat from Wisconsin in twenty-five years, it was expected that after the special election, the Republicans would have forty-eight seats. The party count would be tied, a tie would be broken by the Vice President—the Republicans were planning to reorganize the Senate as soon as Kohler was sworn in. A confidential memo sent to Lehman in Switzerland by Julius Edelstein reported that “Lyndon Johnson [has] been warning all the southerners that unless they relaxed a little and let some kind of a civil rights bill go through, they were in danger of losing their chairmanships. He urged them not to filibuster because to filibuster the civil rights bill would ensure a victory for Kohler….”

With the liberals—not with the most ardent “red-hots,” for with them there was no hope, but with the rest of the Democratic liberals—the key words were also we and us. He made them feel that they were in a battle, and that in that battle he was on their side. Warning one liberal senator that there must be a liberal “sentry” on the floor at all times to guard against a sudden southern legislative maneuver, he told him, “They’ll get us on the floor if we’re not manned on the floor at all times, so we always have to have a man there.” He told him, “They’ll pick our moment of least resistance and move in.” He played on their fears—the fear of what southern power in the committees could do to their vital projects. Once, when Wayne Morse was threatening, in order to bring the South to heel, to block a unanimous consent agreement some southerners wanted, Johnson told him, “Look, you’re going to be in the position of wanting [their] support in the future. This [the jury trial amendment] isn’t that hurtful to your state’s interest or to your own convictions. Don’t build it up into a blockage.”

He had to persuade the northerners to allow some sort of jury trial amendment in the bill, even though such an amendment stripped the bill of its teeth. He tried to make them understand that the important thing was to get some bill, any bill, passed “to show them we can do it”—“Once we’ve got the first one passed, we can go back and improve it”—and that the only way to get it passed was to vote for the amendment. “Jim Eastland knows we have to have a civil rights bill,” he said to them. “But he has to have a jury trial amendment. We’ve got to give him a jury trial amendment.” He tried to make them understand that so long as the bill contained provisions for voting rights, it was still worth passing: “Give them the vote, that’s what matters. Then things’ll change, you’ll see,” he said. When Humphrey tried to argue with him, he said, “Yes, yes, Hubert, I want all those other things—buses, restaurants, all of that—but the right to vote with no ifs, ands or buts, that’s the key. When the Negroes get that, they’ll have every politician, north and south, east and west, kissing their ass, begging for their support.”

Keeping the liberals from forcing the issue to a vote was becoming more and more difficult, for, knowing that they had a majority of the Senate on their side, they thought only about the vote, not about the maneuvers that would precede it, and he tried to make them understand. Because of their distrust of him, he often relayed his word through others. In one liberal caucus, Clint Anderson interrupted a barrage of red-hot bravado about their chances of carrying some amendment to tell them their vote count was wrong (“Let me give you some advice,” Anderson said. He named five Democratic senators whom the liberals were counting on their side. You’re right in thinking that “you’re going to need their help,” he told them. “But you haven’t got it now”) and to advise them to stick with a man whose counts were more accurate (particularly since that man was of their party): “I remember that for many years whenever we tried to do something on civil rights, Bob Taft would go over and whisper to Dick Russell and we’d be licked. So let’s follow our own leader and not these recent Republican converts.” Once, John Carroll told his administrative assistant, Harry Schnibbe, “Goddammit, we’ll go on the floor with this. McNamara will do this, and Paul will do that, and we’ll make an issue of this.” Having learned of the liberals’ plans, Johnson sent Bobby Baker to intercept Schnibbe on the floor: “Harry, this is a grave mistake. If you do this, Russell will do this, and Ellender will do this…. The Majority Leader has got to cool this down before we can go forward.” And sometimes he delivered the warning himself. “Look, if you press too hard, if you insist on perfection, you’ll get it, but it won’t be passed.” Day after day, he was arguing one side of a point with the southerners and the other side with the liberals—and arguing both sides with equal persuasiveness. At the same time that he was telling the South that he had counted votes and had found that a filibuster couldn’t win, he was telling liberals that he had counted votes and had found that they couldn’t beat a filibuster. “He was playing it out of both sides,” Harry McPherson was to recall. “He was down in the trenches with guys who were determined not to let the bill pass, and he was doing his damnedest by every conceivable device to bring them around. He warned them [the southerners] that much worse would come unless they would pass this modest bill.” They believed him. “He made them think … he’d be with them forever.” At the same time, McPherson says, “he would tell some of the northerners that if they would only let this modest bill go through, they would get a better bill later.” And they believed him. He told Joe Rauh, “You can’t beat a filibuster,” and Rauh says he was correct: “We had the majority, but we didn’t have two-thirds.”

I'm not saying Johnson liked black people. He didn't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he liked black people, but because he wanted to get elected president. But I doubt he was an actual racist. He certainly played both the conservative (US-style, circa 1960) and the liberal (US-style, circa 1960).

I would say your eyes are not anything near open Ymix. Look at johnson's movtives Southern Blacks were terrified of JOhnson being president because... Wait for it .... Wait for it... He did not like black people very much.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072- ... e-next-200

“I'll have those n-----s voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

Civil Wrongs: Lyndon B. Johnson
Racism 33 comments
Not only did Lyndon B. Johnson most likely steal the 1948 Senatorial election, he was also WRONGLY attributed for championing civil rights laws!

civil wrongs lbj

Another exclusive graphic of Civil Wrongs…

It was the Republicans who fought for and were responsible for the passage of civil rights laws, not LBJ. Revisionist history, taught by Liberal dogma saturated educators, has propagated lies about the civil rights movement for almost 50 years!

Lyndon Johnson remarking on civil rights in 1957:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

And concerning LBJ’s civil rights record:

Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson’s record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. . . .

After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .


Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/civil ... b-johnson/

But wait there is more !!!

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."

-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

But my guess is no matter how much I show you and to this point it has been quite a lot you will never see the truth.

[Ibrahim]

I would say your eyes are not anything near open Ymix. Look at johnson's movtives Southern Blacks were terrified of JOhnson being president because... Wait for it .... Wait for it... He did not like black people very much.

Good thing Nixon was the next president then.