5 million Texas Children will receive textbook that whitewashes America's past

[chucky2]

Sorry, just skimmed through the post, (I was on the phone) Doubt they'd get much support or change nationally if they did form their own party, much like the independent party or the Green party. Like it or not the two party system is deeply entrenched in this country.

You know, nationally, it might not be great in the short term, but the blow to the Dem party might be painful enough to at least get the Dems to start taking the blacks seriously other than at voting time. The problem with that is, now that we've got 10's of millions of latinos we didn't need here, Dems don't really need to court the black vote all that much (I mean, are blacks going to vote for Reps? No, so, who else will they vote for? They'll either vote Dem or stay home), so the blacks are sorta now screwed...still somewhat relevant, but not at the forefront.

State and local, I think it would actually be a boon to them. No longer would blacks have to kowtow to the Dems, they'd actually be in charge in some of their locales where they have large majorities. Imagine a Chicago area where instead of having black Pols that are hindered by being Dems, they are under their own party. The Dems can't just do whatever and leave the blacks sold down the river with scraps, they'd actually have to work with the black party to get shit accomplished.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And even with his history, in the end, he made an attempt at doing the right thing. And some people try and demean/diminish this uncomfortable fact (that he could change while they apparently can't) with crap like "free stuff" and the flag of the Slaver's Rebellion is just a symbol of 'freedom'.

Thankfully, folks like that are going to eventually end up in history's trash heap.

Watch out for garbage trucks.

LBJ was a ruthless political carnivore and political expediency was his game. Nice idol.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Most Democrats supported racist agendas throughout history, now we have the whitewashing going on to claim the opposite.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries.

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

 

[chucky2]

Your post was asinine. Not even worthy of correction or debate; just scorn.

LOL emperus talking about asinine posts that are worthy of correction or debate, just scorn. Hahahaha....

...

...

Hahahahaahaha......

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You attempted to misrepresent the results. You were caught. Watch out for garbage trucks.

Really? ALL the results support my argument.

 

[First]

Most Democrats supported racist agendas throughout history, now we have the whitewashing going on to claim the opposite.

You're confused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tates-switch-to-the-democrats-and-vice-versa/

http://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...-Republicans-used-to-be-the-Progressive-party

 

[FelixDeCat]

You're confused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tates-switch-to-the-democrats-and-vice-versa/

http://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...-Republicans-used-to-be-the-Progressive-party

I'm confused? You posted a non answer to my historically correct facts regarding rampant racism in the Democratic party. The articles you posted do not mention or address the facts I posted.

You are in denial.

 

[First]

I'm confused? You posted a non answer to my historically correct facts regarding rampant racism in the Democratic party. The articles you posted do not mention or address the facts I posted.

You are in denial.

You're still confused; the party terms "Democrat" and "Republican" meant something entirely different in the mid-20th century. You posting facts about the origins of the party are out of scope, and crystallize absolutely nothing about what you stated. Get it? I sure hope so.

 

[waggy]

You're still confused; the party terms "Democrat" and "Republican" meant something entirely different in the mid-20th century. You posting facts about the origins of the party are out of scope, and crystallize absolutely nothing about what you stated. Get it? I sure hope so.

lol

 

[Victorian Gray]

LBJ was a ruthless political carnivore and political expediency was his game. Nice idol.

Whose idol? Certainly not mine. Got any more imaginary points to argue against?

 

[First]

lol

It is indeed funny to hear today's conservative Republicans (particularly in South) attempt to take credit for the policies of their pre-60's Northern liberal Republican foes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Really? ALL the results support my argument.

I'd say that the 8% difference is relatively significant. More importantly, the point you failed to address, the gap is growing.

 

[HeXen]

But what about the native indians...no one talks about them anymore:|..no, only the blacks suffered and whitey is to blame. That's all many people and the media seem to take from history.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Democrats opposed the 1964 Equal Rights Amendment and started the Klu Klux Klan.

 

[emperus]

In this forum you've shown yourself to be incredibly racist, intellectually dishonest and worthy of zero respect. You're a joke and too stupid to realize it. Just please shut up and go away.

Unfortunately you don't know the definitions of any of those words you used. Intellectually dishonest is your attempt in this post to equate the democrats of today with the democrats during the civil rights movement. And we've already been over the definition of Racism and you still choose to use it incorrectly. Again, Intellectually dishonest.

And to define stupid, you should merely look at your post below..

The textbooks should show how Republicans fought to end slavery and how fiercely Democrats fought against civil rights for blacks. People need to know that it was Democrats who gave us the KKK and Jim Crow laws and that their beloved FDR's New Deal screwed blacks and how he didn't lift a finger to stop the lynchings. And they need to know how LBJ won over blacks to vote for Democrats the next 200 years. People need to know these things.

Southern Democrats were the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

Ask yourself what type of comments can flow from a post so ridiculous, void of any rational analysis and objective thought.

 

[realibrad]

Democrats opposed the 1964 Equal Rights Amendment and started the Klu Klux Klan.

On the KKK you are right. The democrats were not opposed as that would imply that the majority opposed it, and that is not true. The majority of democrats voted for the amendment, so please check your claims.

What you are likely thinking is that the group that mainly filibustered were democrats, but the majority of democrats voted yes. Its why LBJ said that the democrats would likely lose the south, and he was correct.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Unfortunately you don't know the definitions of any of those words you used. Intellectually dishonest is your attempt in this post to equate the democrats of today with the democrats during the civil rights movement. And we've already been over the definition of Racism and you still choose to use it incorrectly. Again, Intellectually dishonest.

And to define stupid, you should merely look at your post below..



Ask yourself what type of comments can flow from a post so ridiculous, void of any rational analysis and objective thought.

I never tried to equate today's Democrats with Democrats during the civil rights movement. NEVER. This is just one more example of how completely irrational you've become and the extent of your disconnection with reality. I have nothing to say to you that you want to hear.

 

[FelixDeCat]

On the KKK you are right.

But yet todays neolibs and touchy feely teenaged libs want to re-write history and delete the fact that most Democrats opposed civil rights in 1964 and started the KKK. In fact many famous Democrats were members of the KKK including like Robert Byrd.

Join me in putting a stop to this white washing of history!

 

[nickqt]

But yet todays neolibs and touchy feely teenaged libs want to re-write history and delete the fact that most Democrats opposed civil rights in 1964 and started the KKK. In fact many famous Democrats were members of the KKK including like Robert Byrd.

Join me in putting a stop to this white washing of history!

Dixiecrats opposed civil rights.

And they're the Republican base now.

They left the Democratic party, and joined the Republican party.

Enjoy.

 

[ivwshane]

The textbooks should show how Republicans fought to end slavery and how fiercely Democrats fought against civil rights for blacks. People need to know that it was Democrats who gave us the KKK and Jim Crow laws and that their beloved FDR's New Deal screwed blacks and how he didn't lift a finger to stop the lynchings. And they need to know how LBJ won over blacks to vote for Democrats the next 200 years. People need to know these things.

Southern Democrats were the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

I actually agree with doc on this. Curiously though, I've never heard doc speak about or acknowledge that the current Republican Party has it's base which consists of essentially of those same southern democrats (politically speaking).

I wonder why?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Dixiecrats opposed civil rights.

And they're the Republican base now.

They left the Democratic party, and joined the Republican party.

Enjoy.

So at what point did KKK leader Byrd switch parties?

He didn't.

:|

 

[nickqt]

So at what point did KKK leader Byrd switch parties?

He didn't.

:|

At what point did Strom Thurmond run for President as a pro-segregation Dixiecrat? 1948, after Truman desegregated the Army.

Thurmond didn't become a Republican until 1964 and LBJ's Civil Rights push though...and the complete changeover of the South from almost totally Democrat to almost totally Republican took until the 1990s.

So, there's that.

 

[FelixDeCat]

At what point did Strom Thurmond run for President as a pro-segregation Dixiecrat? 1948, after Truman desegregated the Army.

Thurmond didn't become a Republican until 1964 and LBJ's Civil Rights push though...and the complete changeover of the South from almost totally Democrat to almost totally Republican took until the 1990s.

So, there's that.

Byrd is not Thurmond.....two different people, 30 years difference. Nice comeback. :hmm:

(Your hero Truman was also Republican)

 

[realibrad]

So at what point did KKK leader Byrd switch parties?

He didn't.

:|

The party platforms pretty much flipped though. The Democrats that started the KKK would not be Democrats today. Just like how the Republicans that freed the slaves would not be considered Republicans today.

For example, Republicans used to be for high tariffs and high wages. That position has flipped and now is considered a Democrat position.

The Democrats used to be for the following.

The party favored republicanism, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank, close ties to Great Britain, and business and banking interests.

Are you trying to say that the actions of the parties from when they started should taint what the parties are now?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't think this matters much, if you've ever watched interviews in the street most people including those who are getting or have higher education can't answer many of the questions that immigrants need to know to pass the citizenship test.