KKK crucial to building the South’s enduring Republican majority, study finds

Today's conservatives? No.

 

I'm saying what I posted, which is clear. To expand on the point, we have had runaway central progressivism in the US for 100 years. At some point in such an institution's entrenchment, those defending it become "conservative," and those opposing it become "liberal." In that clear and logical light, the Tea Party are today's "liberals," and the progressive statists are today's "conservatives." The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have no static meanings whatsoever outside of the context and mores of the time in question. This is not my idea, but Herbert Spencer's from 1884:

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS1.html#The New Toryism

 

Good point.

 

Actually it is Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Holder that increased the number of republicans in the South and everywhere.

 

Progressive and Liberal aren't even synonyms. The US is the only country in the world in which anyone would even make such an assertion. And there is nothing in particular in the Progressive agenda that is in particular antithetical to slavery. The only complaint Progressives have against slavery is that they think the government ought to be the owners as they think the government should own directly or indirectly everything else.

 

Central control of everyone is considered progress by progressives.

 

But boy do they grouse the minute someone other than themselves is in charge of the collective.

 

altho many of todays conservatives share openly (as expressed in threads on PF) the sentiment with proponents of slavery of years ago, don't u dare relate them in any way to theses people, they had nothin to do with slavery and neither do conservative ideologies - it was all them damn democrats

also: obviously the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have a static meaning, even in political talk, its quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise; of course that doesn't necessarily mean that these words don't also have an elastic meaning in the US flagus:) but i doubt it; seems to me the true meaning of the word (its not such a difficult word to grasp anyway) fits pretty well to the proponents of slavery back then as well as to the people who are labeled as conservatives nowadays (that doesn't even remotely mean that those two share ideologies etc. btw - in this case tho the two groups are incredibly similar)

of course todays conservatives get related to the conservatives from back then, the present popular notion or argument:"im republican, slavery was by democrats, so im on the side that helped to end slavery" is ridiculous; u get related to them, not because you both are called conservative, but because not much has changed since those days - the notion that blacks are inherently less worth then white people still prevails, back then it was the conservatives (proponents of slavery) telling u that and today its fox-"news"

 

Do you even know what a physiologist is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology

 

Since you have never in your life read any of the writings by the 19th century proponents of slavery, how the (*)(*)(*)(*) would you know?

It's real easy to formulate opinions when you have read jack (*)(*)(*)(*).

Here is a start. If you think that rights come from government and are not inherent you share the sentiments of the proponents of slavery.

Boy who the hell does that sound like???

 

Conservatism is not an ideology, has never been, will never be. Conservatism is a specific response to the prospect of political change in a particular status quo regime. If red haired people haven't been allowed to vote for 100 years, then conservatives in that regime ON THAT ISSUE want to maintain that institution and liberals seek to change it. If only red haired people have been allowed to vote for 100 years, then conservatives in that regime ON THAT ISSUE want to maintain that institution and liberals seek to change it. There is no "absolute conservatism" despite silly leftists and others on this forum making that mistake over and over on this forum, day in day out. The terms are useful only as political shorthand in the NOW to describe political campaigns in the NOW. As they are applied more remotely in time, they become near-instantly fallacious.

No they don't. The only ridiculous proposition here is yours and other leftists who commit the error over and over.

Yet neither you nor any others bother to define the word in any way other than a circular fallacy (conservative = bad, because X,Y things conservatives believe are bad... conservatism is everything that doesn't agree with ME). Here, for convenience, let's start with wiki, which demonstrates that my view is correct and yours wrong, tells you as much right in the introduction. If you have some more thorough source, please cite it.

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

The error here is that most EVERYONE back then was "conservative" with respect to social and legal mores generally, if we are to use your mistaken conception of "conservative." The only realistic division in a world where everyone is conservative by today's standards, is by the political parties of the time, Democrat and Republican. Spencer makes this abundantly clear in my link, which I notice no lefties have read or offered comment.

and the above has all the credibility of the statement, "Bigfoot is riding on a unicorn through my backyard."

 

There's a masterpiece for my wingnut wisdom file!!!!!!

The KKK is Catholic!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here. And, given the far right's propensity towards the ridiculous, this one is really really ridicuous!!!!!!

 

Of course you bypass Clinton's disgusting, compound LIE in the video in an effort to deflect from the very real racist history of Robet Byrd and the Democrats generally. Maybe add some more exclamation points and people will not see how disingenuous you are being? Oops... guess it didn't work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Your rant has nothing to do with my post.

 

You are right. The Progressive Socialist Democrats found the wearing of Hoods and White robes and burning crosses of the 19th Century lost their effect. Today wearing the Hoodie and torture, rape, mutilation and murder are still their mainstay but is directed in Black on Black, or Black on White Crime. It still remains the domain of the Progressive Socialist Left.

 

Zipper boy Clinton didnt mention that Harry Truman another democrat was also a member of the KKK!

 

nobody is denying that the democrats used to be the party of racists. The denial occurs when republicans try to avoid the fact that they have taken up that mantle.

 

Same people different name. The intellectual laziness they use to get from A to B is quite astounding. I love how in the beginning of this thread someone said that they only found this article on liberal sites as if the conservative ones would want their base to read it. Bias doesn't mean people are lying but it often leads to people avoiding the truth.

 

The above is a plain, unsubstantiated lie no matter how many times it's parroted out by you or anyone else. Repeating it over and over for the last 30 years doesn't make it true, the internet is shining more and more light daily on its dishonesty, and anyone who engages in it is a plain bigot.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's topical, and points out your hypocrisy simultaneously. Win-win for me.

 

why then, pray tell, did the chairman of the RNC feel compelled to apologize to the NAACP?

 

He apologized for the GOP not seeking to be more assertive in seeking the black vote and addressing black issues, and tagged on a vague reference to a perception of racist attitudes IN LIGHT OF 50 YEARS OF LEFTIST LIES ABOUT GOP RACISM that have been remarkably successful. That's pure apples and oranges NOT an apology for being racist. Also, it was a political speech seeking to curry political support, not some kind of policy statement or platform. The reason for such a speech is that the relatively "identity free" politics of the nonleft hasn't been a success in the black community in the face of pervasive leftist propaganda narratives and vote buying there for 50+ years.

Thankfully the net and the dismal, multi decade record of Democrats running black communities into the ground is changing things, and the days of the leftist deathlock on cultural narrative is coming to a close. Blacks are hearing and stating other views now, and despite a cognitive dissonance period, the left shouldn't get too comfy with its stratospheric % of the black vote in the future. Especially not running a cranky old 1%er establishment woman.

 

Sums it up. It always seems amazing to me that current day Republicans do not admit that the party they support has morphed into something unrecognizable when compared to the Republican party of earlier times...and I mean really earlier times.

 

Where is their 1 Million White Hoodie march ?

And would their right to do so peaceably be protected by the "establishment"?


Moi
I do wish they had shown up to Ferguson!

r > g

No ​

 

Neither of your claims is remotely true.

 

Here is a little known fact;

In the late 1920s, the new Russian communist government set up an acount in a German bank to support any anti British or anti American agendas. Some of that money went to the newly reactiveted KKK. Stalin was in favor of anything that made one group of Americans hate and maybe kill another group.

USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Republic? Republican? Wow, Stalin was a lot more far seeing than anyone could have ever imagined.

Most Republicans are not racist. But most racists vote Republican, and you are known by the company you keep.