What is Marxism?

[NeverCryWolf]

The fact of the matter is "Marxism" isn't just a 'political buzzword' ... it's a growing international political threat.

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan

A political buzzword used by politicians when they don't have a real argument. A convenient premise with which to presume that an argument is inherently wrong just because of any vaguest resemblance to the word.

Seriously. The Cold War is over folks, "marxism" is no longer a threat to American prosperity. Stop seeing it in every act the left passes that you don't like.

Oh, to be young and naive again.

.

[Warhawk1982]

Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan

Oh, I don't support most of Marx's philosophy. I'm just pointing out that the term is used as a buzzword almost every time it's brought up.

Other popular buzzwords:
1. Hope
2. Change
3. Forward
4. racist
5. racist
6. racist
7. bigot
Yeah, I know I listed racist three times, but it's used so frequently by the left that it warrants such attention. By the way, what philosophy of mr. marx DO you support? I only ask because if it's the idea of a utopia where everyone is the same I want to know which group you plan on erradicating in order to realize this dream just in case I'm a part of that group.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Warhawk1982

Other popular buzzwords:
1. Hope
2. Change

Hey; at least it's hopemongering, rather than hatemongering and fearmongering. And passage of the health care bill proves that Obama was at least honest on number 2, whether or not you agree with the measure.

3. Forward

Eh? I've never seen this one...

4. racist
5. racist
6. racist

Used by the left a lot, but certainly far more of a legitimate accusation than Marxism. Racism still exists today, and unlike Marxism it is still dangerous and a real presence in the lives of many. The right also has a really, really, really bad history* with race, while only the fringe left is associated with Marxism.

7. bigot

Dude, read your own signature.


Liberalism and Islam are diseases that should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

This isn't a buzzword.

Yeah, I know I listed racist three times, but it's used so frequently by the left that it warrants such attention. By the way, what philosophy of mr. marx DO you support? I only ask because if it's the idea of a utopia where everyone is the same I want to know which group you plan on erradicating in order to realize this dream just in case I'm a part of that group.

Nationalizing some industries. Maybe eventually healthcare, maybe the banks, and many roads/highways. Do you realize that a national highway system is technically a Marxist ideal? The complete separation of church and state would work as well (although any attempt to eradicate religion would be highly immoral and stupid) and heightened corporate regulation.

*you're on the wrong side of history on this, always. Whether Republican or Democrat, the conservative base has already opposed racial progress, from abolition to integration. They're only abandoned open racism very, very recently, because the liberals won that battle.

[Liberty]

Used by the left a lot, but certainly far more of a legitimate accusation than Marxism. Racism still exists today, and unlike Marxism it is still dangerous and a real presence in the lives of many. The right also has a really, really, really bad history* with race, while only the fringe left is associated with Marxism.

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you are lying. Either way, you've full of BS.

To stop the Democrats’ pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican Party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854. The party spread across the northern and western United States. The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan in July 1854. The Republican National Committee met for the first time in 1856, followed four months later by the first Republican National Convention.

In the election of 1860, Republicans swept to victory in the White House and won majorities in both houses of Congress. Just six years after the party’s founding, the Governor of every northern state in America was a Republican. That phenomenal progress was possible only because the Republican Party was based on the powerful idea that our nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality, must live up to its founding principles.

Despite fierce Democrat opposition, Republicans passed constitutional amendments banning slavery, extending the Bill of Rights to the states, guaranteeing equal protection of the laws and due process to all citizens, and extending the right to vote to persons of all races and backgrounds.

Republicans in Congress also enacted the nation’s first-ever Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds.In 1875, the Republicans expanded these protections to give all citizens the right of equal access to all public accommodations. Struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, this landmark legislation would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged about how, after voting (illegally) in 1872, she had voted a straight Republican ticket. The suffragists included two African-American women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great Republicans, both of them.

Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women’s suffrage amendment in 1878,though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. It was in 1916 that the first woman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin. The first woman mayor was elected in 1926, the Honorable Bertha Landes of Seattle, another great Republican.

Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the South, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party’s terrorist wing.

Every single African-American in Congress until 1935 was a Republican. Among the Republican pioneers were South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, the first black member of the House of Representatives, in 1870. Republican Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first black U. S. Senator the same year. Two years later, Pinckney Pinchback of Louisiana became the nation’s first blac Governor.

California was the first state to have a Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco, in 1875. The first Hispanic U. S. Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, came to Washington from New Mexico as a Republican in 1928. The first Jewish U.S. Senator outside the former Confederacy was a Republican from Oregon, Joseph Simon, and the first Jewish woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives was a California Republican, Florence Kahn.

In 2004, America marked the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which began with the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That landmark decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the three-term Republican Governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The author of Brown was also the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee.

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster.

The first Asian-American U.S. Senator was a Republican, Hiram Fong from Hawaii. The first African-American Senator after Reconstruction was a Republican, Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian-American federal judge was a Republican, Herbert Choy. The first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican, Sandra Day O’Connor. The first Hispanic presidential Cabinet member was a Republican, Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.

The longest- serving African-American in a leadership position of the U.S. House of Representatives was a Republican, J.C. Watts. The first women elected to the majority Leadership in both the House and the Senate were Republicans, Jennifer Dunn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. The highest-ranking women ever in the majority Leadership in Congress are Republicans: Kay Bailey Hutchison and Deborah Pryce.

Lets not forget it was a Republican President and a Republican Congress that passed the Civil Rights act of 1957.

In the book, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past", this was written about passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.....

The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnson’s determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination. The long filibuster of 1964 was only delaying the inevitable. That all the participants knew this only goes to show how deep their racism was. It’s one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort. Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

A similar story is told in the Senate. On the critical vote to end the filibuster by Southern Democrats, 71 senators voted to invoke cloture. With 67 votes needed, 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans joined together to bring the bill to a final vote. Of those voting “nay,” 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee. Again, it is clear that the civil rights bill would have failed without Republican votes. Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,” the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.”

And don't hand me that crap about how Republicans were for Civil Rights for the first 100 or so years and then turned against it. The Republicans never switched. The only thing that switched was the Democrats' rhetoric which apparently suckered you in hook, line and sinker.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Liberty

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you are lying. Either way, you've full of BS.

Given that my position on the party switch is a well accepted historical fact, found in any credible history textbook in the continent, I suppose that this is just yet another aspect of the Evil Liberal Conspiracy.

To stop the Democrats’ pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican Party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854. The party spread across the northern and western United States. The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan in July 1854. The Republican National Committee met for the first time in 1856, followed four months later by the first Republican National Convention.

In the election of 1860, Republicans swept to victory in the White House and won majorities in both houses of Congress. Just six years after the party’s founding, the Governor of every northern state in America was a Republican. That phenomenal progress was possible only because the Republican Party was based on the powerful idea that our nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality, must live up to its founding principles.

Parts that you missed: the Republican base of power was the north, in historically liberal states such as Massachusetts. They wanted a large federal government and US history's first income tax. But let's ignore this!

Despite fierce Democrat opposition, Republicans passed constitutional amendments banning slavery, extending the Bill of Rights to the states, guaranteeing equal protection of the laws and due process to all citizens, and extending the right to vote to persons of all races and backgrounds.

Parts you missed: the primary opposition consisted of states' rights advocates and those who supported the maintenance of traditional values. The scumbag Andrew Johnson was a fervent supporter of states' rights.

Republicans in Congress also enacted the nation’s first-ever Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds.In 1875, the Republicans expanded these protections to give all citizens the right of equal access to all public accommodations. Struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, this landmark legislation would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Parts you missed: disillusioned by the corrupt Grant administration, the primary leaders behind the former abolitionist movement and supporters of the women's suffrage movement broke off from the Republican party and formed...wait for it..the

Liberal Republican Party.

Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged about how, after voting (illegally) in 1872, she had voted a straight Republican ticket. The suffragists included two African-American women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great Republicans, both of them.

Parts you missed: very, very strangely, african americans switched over to the democratic party in the same century that my claim of party-switching took place. Please, rationalize this within your own theory.

Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women’s suffrage amendment in 1878,though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. It was in 1916 that the first woman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin. The first woman mayor was elected in 1926, the Honorable Bertha Landes of Seattle, another great Republican.

"another"? Sargent was an ardent proponent of the Chinese Exclusion act.

Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the South, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party’s terrorist wing.

That's funny. Read the Ku Klux Klan's statements sometime; they are obsessed with maintaining American traditional values and are white male protestants. Does this sound liberal to you?

Explain why KKK members are now strangely enough republican. Huh.

Every single African-American in Congress until 1935 was a Republican. Among the Republican pioneers were South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, the first black member of the House of Representatives, in 1870. Republican Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first black U. S. Senator the same year. Two years later, Pinckney Pinchback of Louisiana became the nation’s first blac Governor.

I love how you shoehorn in "until 1935" for accuracy, yet hope that nobody will notice it. Please, explain why this was the case.

California was the first state to have a Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco, in 1875. The first Hispanic U. S. Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, came to Washington from New Mexico as a Republican in 1928. The first Jewish U.S. Senator outside the former Confederacy was a Republican from Oregon, Joseph Simon, and the first Jewish woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives was a California Republican, Florence Kahn.

Speaking of the confederacy, if this commonly accepted party switch never took place, explain why all Confederate sympathizers today are republicans.

In 2004, America marked the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which began with the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That landmark decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the three-term Republican Governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The author of Brown was also the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee.

This has got to be among the most hilarious of all of your historical revisionist attempts. Are you attempting to imply that Earl Warren was a conservative?

What's next? Rush Limbaugh is a liberal?

Or, perhaps, are you arguing irrelevant party history rather than ideological history?

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster.

Eisenhower also extended many New Deal legislation.

The first Asian-American U.S. Senator was a Republican, Hiram Fong from Hawaii. The first African-American Senator after Reconstruction was a Republican, Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian-American federal judge was a Republican, Herbert Choy. The first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican, Sandra Day O’Connor. The first Hispanic presidential Cabinet member was a Republican, Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.

Irrelevant, as I've already explained to you that the two parties switched.

If they hadn't, explained to me in some other fashion why party demographics switched. Explain why the south and midwest went republican after the Civil Rights act of 1964. Explain why minorities turned democratic. Explain why the states' rights side is now republican.

The Republicans never switched. The only thing that switched was the Democrats' rhetoric which apparently suckered you in hook, line and sinker.

I love how you never provide an argument against the most important part of my point, other than just stating it.

1. Liberal Republican party. Look it up, and explain it.
2. Party demographics switched.
3. Party policies switched.

If the modern democratic party much more closely resembles the old republican party than the current republican party does, this should be ample proof that the two parties switched.

[Liberty]

Given that my position on the party switch is a well accepted historical fact, found in any credible history textbook in the continent, I suppose that this is just yet another aspect of the Evil Liberal Conspiracy.

Fine. Name the book, chapter and page.

Parts that you missed: the Republican base of power was the north, in historically liberal states such as Massachusetts. They wanted a large federal government and US history's first income tax. But let's ignore this!

I think I just heard President Hayes laughing in his grave. I strongly recommend you read "The Civil War Income Tax and the Republican Party" by Christopher Shepard. The Republican Party has always been of the "Classical Liberal", not to be confused with today's modern liberalism.

Parts you missed: the primary opposition consisted of states' rights advocates and those who supported the maintenance of traditional values. The scumbag Andrew Johnson was a fervent supporter of states' rights.

I love this revisionism you keep espousing. Its hilarious.

Republicans were not in opposition to States Rights. They were Strict Constitutionalists who's 1856 motto was "free labor, free land, free men." I strongly recommend reading the work of historians James McPherson and William H. Freehling. There is a marked difference in what was termed "states rights" by the South and the term as used by Jefferson.

Parts you missed: disillusioned by the corrupt Grant administration, the primary leaders behind the former abolitionist movement and supporters of the women's suffrage movement broke off from the Republican party and formed...wait for it..the Liberal Republican Party.

Sigh....here we go again. You realize that they joined the Democrat Party after their loss, right? And you realize that one of the reasons the LRP was opposed to the "Radical Republicans" was that the RR's wanted slave owners not to be compensated for the loss of slaves. The LRP opposed civil rights and voting rights for freed slaves which the RR supported.

Parts you missed: very, very strangely, african americans switched over to the democratic party in the same century that my claim of party-switching took place. Please, rationalize this within your own theory.

Simply put, the Democrats changed their rhetoric. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to Congress to re-establish Civil Rights for Black people. At that time, Democrat Senator Lyndon Johnson, who was the Senate majority leader, would not allow the bill to pass in its original form.

The Senate Democrats removed the substance and enforcement aspects of the bill and allowed it to be passed and signed into law. But because of the Senate democrats, blacks were still disenfranchised in the south—until Senator Lyndon Johnson ran for president.

Senator Johnson ran on a platform to restore Civil Rights for Blacks in the south. After Lyndon Johnson won the presidency, he restored the substance of the Civil Rights Act and signed it in 1964.

And with television taking a larger role in political news coverage at the time, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats appeared to be the party that supports the Black Community. So within 10 years, after the election of 1964, blacks drifted back into the hands of the Democrat Party.

"another"? Sargent was an ardent proponent of the Chinese Exclusion act.

Yep. Strongly supported by labor unions and various left-wing organizations. In fact, the only union to oppose the act was the IWW. You might want to consider reading "The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and Asian Workers" by Jennifer Choi. Link for the Lazy

That's funny. Read the Ku Klux Klan's statements sometime; they are obsessed with maintaining American traditional values and are white male protestants. Does this sound liberal to you?

Sounds like Democrats to me. Lets ask Democrat Senator Robert Byrd. He was a Kleagle and recruiter for the KKK.

Explain why KKK members are now strangely enough republican. Huh.

They're not. You're projecting. You forget that people like David Duke were roundly rejected by the Republican Party and had even recommended its members vote for his Democrat opponent.

BTW, here in North Carolina, Carrol Crawford (Democrat) is running for political office. He's was a proud member of the KKK.

I love how you shoehorn in "until 1935" for accuracy, yet hope that nobody will notice it. Please, explain why this was the case.

LOL! One of the things I learned when studying Law was to never ask a question that you didn't know the answer to. Otherwise, you risk looking like an idiot.

The first black Democrat was Arthur Mitchell. He entered politics as a Republican. He shifted his allegiance to the Democratic Party in the early days of the New Deal. Mitchell was a big fan of FDR and his public-relief policies which had been gaining popularity during that time.. His win over Republican DePriest was only by a narrow margin.

Speaking of the confederacy, if this commonly accepted party switch never took place, explain why all Confederate sympathizers today are republicans.

You're projecting again. You need to talk to Carrol Crawford.

This has got to be among the most hilarious of all of your historical revisionist attempts. Are you attempting to imply that Earl Warren was a conservative?

Show me where I said he was a conservative. He was a moderate appointed by a moderate Republican. Again, it was the Republicans who opposed racism. Not the Democrats. Nice try.

Or, perhaps, are you arguing irrelevant party history rather than ideological history?

Nonsense. You're simply ignorant.

Eisenhower also extended many New Deal legislation.

Big deal. Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts. Does that make him a closet Republican?

Irrelevant, as I've already explained to you that the two parties switched.

And you're wrong. The Democrats simply changed their rhetoric.

If they hadn't, explained to me in some other fashion why party demographics switched. Explain why the south and midwest went republican after the Civil Rights act of 1964. Explain why minorities turned democratic. Explain why the states' rights side is now republican.

Already answered in the above responses.

I love how you never provide an argument against the most important part of my point, other than just stating it.

1. Liberal Republican party. Look it up, and explain it.
2. Party demographics switched.
3. Party policies switched.

If the modern democratic party much more closely resembles the old republican party than the current republican party does, this should be ample proof that the two parties switched.

Already answered in the above responses.

Its quite obvious that your level of critical thinking is pretty shallow.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Liberty

Fine. Name the book, chapter and page.

Very well.

[Nixon] devised a political strategy to form a Republican majority by appealing to the millions of voters who had become disaffected by antiwar protests, black militants, school busing to achieve racial balance, and the excesses of the youth counterculture. Nixon referred to these conservative Americans as the "silent majority".

...

To win over the South, the president asked the federal courts in that region to delay integration plans and busing orders. He also nominated two southern conservatives (Clement Haynsworth and G. Harold Carswell) to the Supreme Court...his strategy played well with southern white voters. At the same time, Nixon authorized Vice President Spiro Agnew to make verbal assaults against both war protestors and the liberal press.

AMSCO, 622.


George Wallace, at this time a fervent racist, was clearly conservative:

The growing hostility of many whites to federal desegregation, antiwar protests, and race riots was tapped by Governor George Wallace of Alabama. He was the first politician of contemporary, late-20th-century America to marshal the general resentment against the Washington establishment ("pointy-head liberals," as he called them) ...

pg 610

I think I just heard President Hayes laughing in his grave. I strongly recommend you read "The Civil War Income Tax and the Republican Party" by Christopher Shepard. The Republican Party has always been of the "Classical Liberal", not to be confused with today's modern liberalism.

Funny thing, given that the republican party was the first to impose an income tax.

I love this revisionism you keep espousing. Its hilarious.

Yeah, like the republicans being the party for smaller government in the 19th century. You know, even though its main base came from former Whigs, supporters of the American System, with federally funded internal improvements. Yep, that sounds small-government to me.

Republicans were not in opposition to States Rights.

Relatively speaking, they were. They put an emphasis on national authority over state sovereignty when compared to the democrats. Ergo, they were the big-government dudes of their day.

They were Strict Constitutionalists who's 1856 motto was "free labor, free land, free men."

Your motto does not prove your claim in the slightest.

the Dred Scott decision was based on strict constitutionalism. Later, the Southern Manifesto used strict constitutionalism and states' rights as its primary arguments.

I strongly recommend reading the work of historians James McPherson and William H. Freehling. There is a marked difference in what was termed "states rights" by the South and the term as used by Jefferson.

Whoever said Jefferson was a conservative? He was a libertarian, by today's standards.

Sigh....here we go again. You realize that they joined the Democrat Party after their loss, right? And you realize that one of the reasons the LRP was opposed to the "Radical Republicans" was that the RR's wanted slave owners not to be compensated for the loss of slaves. The LRP opposed civil rights and voting rights for freed slaves which the RR supported.

It did oppose the hardline attitude towards the south. However, one of its supporters was Charles Sumner, one of the most fervent advocates of civil rights of the era who was "perhaps the least racist man in America in his day."

They did not oppose additional civil rights laws on principle, but rather because they believed that the 13/14/15th amendments were already sufficient.

But really, I found your revisionist fantasy that the republicans were good old conservatives and the [b]Confederacy was relatively liberal/b] to be amusing and hilarious.

Simply put, the Democrats changed their rhetoric.

And, at the exact same time, lost the south, where the KKK was statistically the strongest.

Now, explain this.

The Senate Democrats removed the substance and enforcement aspects of the bill and allowed it to be passed and signed into law. But because of the Senate democrats, blacks were still disenfranchised in the south—until Senator Lyndon Johnson ran for president.

Senator Johnson ran on a platform to restore Civil Rights for Blacks in the south. After Lyndon Johnson won the presidency, he restored the substance of the Civil Rights Act and signed it in 1964.

And with television taking a larger role in political news coverage at the time, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats appeared to be the party that supports the Black Community. So within 10 years, after the election of 1964, blacks drifted back into the hands of the Democrat Party.

Whatever his previous actions were, LBJ's presidency passed more far reaching civil rights legislation than any president before, since or after. Coincidentally enough, he was perhaps the most liberal president in our nation's history. Huh.

Yep. Strongly supported by labor unions and various left-wing organizations. In fact, the only union to oppose the act was the IWW. You might want to consider reading "The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and Asian Workers" by Jennifer Choi. Link for the Lazy

Stop contradicting yourself. You brought up Sargant and implied that he was a conservative, and now you're claiming that he was a liberal?

Sounds like Democrats to me. Lets ask Democrat Senator Robert Byrd. He was a Kleagle and recruiter for the KKK.

Stop using the "democrat = liberal" card, the point you are trying to prove, to prove that democrats were all liberals, OK? This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

Furthermore, Robert Byrd supported the Vietnam war when he was a self identified racist. Then, he renounced his racist past...and opposed the Iraq war. He also supported social welfare. Coincidence?

They're not. You're projecting. You forget that people like David Duke were roundly rejected by the Republican Party and had even recommended its members vote for his Democrat opponent.

Duke ran as a republican for a senate seat in Louisiana, a red state. He received 43.51 percent of the vote. The next year, he ran for governor, and received 32% of the vote.

Now, show me a single instance in recent history in which a for-the-time racist candidate ever made a serious run for office in, say, the liberal northeast.

BTW, here in North Carolina, Carrol Crawford (Democrat) is running for political office. He's was a proud member of the KKK.

And I heard that the state democratic party leaders are denouncing him. Did he receive 42% of the vote from liberal voters?

LOL! One of the things I learned when studying Law was to never ask a question that you didn't know the answer to. Otherwise, you risk looking like an idiot.

No, I'm well aware of the answer. Blacks shifted over to the democratic party during FDR's election. Please, explain how this fits with your assertion that conservatism has been a friend of race.

MLK jr was not a conservative. None of the civil rights leaders were conservative. Please, where was conservatism during the civil rights movement? Why wasn't the "Family First Christian foundation", to make up a name, actively endorsing the Civil Rights movement?

I'll tell you why: the civil rights movement was once a fringe, leftist coalition, in a similar way that gay marriage is now, and abolitionism once was in the 19th century. Conservatives (such as Nixon, see my quote) would try to one-up one another in expressing their opposition to civil rights in the same manner that they do for gay marriage and Obamacare today.

You can attempt to revise history all you wish, but the facts and evidence clearly show an active conservative opposition to civil rights. Why else was the conservative south so racist?

You're projecting again. You need to talk to Carrol Crawford.

Cite his support for social welfare and anything vaguely liberal.

Show me where I said he was a conservative. He was a moderate appointed by a moderate Republican. Again, it was the Republicans who opposed racism. Not the Democrats. Nice try.

Would a moderate have ruled his way in Gideon v Wainwright? Or Baker v Carr? Or Yates v US? Or Engel v Vitale? Or Griswold v Connecticut? Read up on these ruling; all of them are liberal. He rules against school prayer, he votes for the state providing counsel for the poor, how is he a "moderate"?

The word implies that he ruled liberal in some cases and conservative in others. Show me his conservative rulings. And explain why conservatives hated the man's guts.

Already answered in the above responses.



Already answered in the above responses.

You've answered two or three out of the above. You use this as a convenient excuse to ignore the ones you have not, such as why party demographics shifted sharply at the same time the Civil Rights acts of the '60s were passed.