More from the "religion of Peace"

[elder999]

Well, the KKK, a democrat organization, wanted the government to discriminate against people because of their race. That isn't a conservative point of view or a free market capitalist point of view either.

So, the democrats are far right? Because the KKK is and, with the exception of their first iteration in Reconstruction, always has been virulently anti-communist-like you :lol: along with anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, and white supremacist. That first iteration was largely Democratic, but the so-called second Klan, which grew in the Midwest during the Depression, was largely bipartisan-though in the south it remained Democratic.

The modern KKK is not just one organization, but several, and if members have an affilliation with a "mainstream" political party, and not one of the American Nazi parties, they are invariably Republican or Libertarian.....and, I'd gather, Tea Party members.

In short, the Klan you refer to as a "Democrat organization," no longer exists, any more than that Democratic Party exists-this isn't the Klan you're looking for, move along, move along.....

 

[billc]

As an intelligent guy elder, the smear against the tea parties is just wrong headed. The racism you see today is coming mainly from the left and the tea parties are definitely not left. And once again, American or German, Nazis are socialists, Republicans, not the east coast type, but mainstream republicans are not socialists by any stretch of the imagination, and they are not even close to being nazis. When David Duke tried to run as a republican, he was kicked out. If you watch any of the video of the various gatherings of the tea party, the healthcare town halls or the latest gathering in wisconsin, the racial animosity is coming from the left, unions and democrat supporters. the democrats also embrace their racists, the republicans do not.

 

[billc]

Remember, the nazis were also anti-communist as well, but that was simply one group of socialists trying to supplant an earlier type of socialist. The kkk wants to use the power of the state to discriminate and deprive individuals of their rights. This is not a "right" position. conservatives are the ones who believe in individual rights, not based in race, and oppose the kind of large government that would be required to do what the democrat kkk would like to do.

an article on racism in the democrat party, and then back to the original thread for me.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).

Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.

Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.

- Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters

 

[elder999]

As an intelligent guy elder, the smear against the tea parties is just wrong headed. The racism you see today is coming mainly from the left and the tea parties are definitely not left. And once again, American or German, Nazis are socialists, Republicans, not the east coast type, but mainstream republicans are not socialists by any stretch of the imagination, and they are not even close to being nazis. When David Duke tried to run as a republican, he was kicked out. If you watch any of the video of the various gatherings of the tea party, the healthcare town halls or the latest gathering in wisconsin, the racial animosity is coming from the left, unions and democrat supporters. the democrats also embrace their racists, the republicans do not.

Oh, and David Duke was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives as a Republican.

When he ran for the U.S. Senate-as a Republican-he got 45% of the vote.

When he ran for Louisiana Governor-as a Republican, he got 55% of the white vote, and 38% of all votes-losing to another Republican...........

It's okay, though, I like to talk about things I know nothing about, too. :lfao:

Oh, here, this is for you:

Remember, the nazis were also anti-communist as well, but that was simply one group of socialists trying to supplant an earlier type of socialist. The kkk wants to use the power of the state to discriminate and deprive individuals of their rights. This is not a "right" position. conservatives are the ones who believe in individual rights, not based in race, and oppose the kind of large government that would be required to do what the democrat kkk would like to do.

an article on racism in the democrat party, and then back to the original thread for me.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).

Uhh...you do know that Cuomo is governor of NY, right? I clicked on the (source) link, and it came back as not available ...:

Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.

....oh, and the mental hoops and gyrations you jump through to make all that is "bad" equal "socialist/left/liberal/Democrat" is rather absurd and tiring.:lol:

 

[billc]

I don't know why the link didn't work for you elder, but it is working when I have checked it. Yeah, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York is a democrat.

Another piece from the article:

A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as "playing the race card" but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond's recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond's statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.

Here is the link again:

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html It worked so maybe it was a temporary glitch.

From the huffington post:

Cuomo made a disastrous run for governor in 2002, sparking racial tension by challenging a well respected black Democrat, Carl McCall, for the nomination and offending many by suggesting that during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, then-Gov. George Pataki had done little more than hold New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's coat. Cuomo dropped out of the race a week before the primary

Hence, the idea that democrats embrace their slightly more racially insensitive members.

 

[billc]

This was from his first attempt at running for governor.

The attorney general, considered political roadkill after a disastrous 2002 gubernatorial run, stood beaming and blowing kisses before confirming the worst-kept secret in New York politics.

 

[elder999]

I don't know why the link didn't work for you elder, but it is working when I have checked it. Yeah, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York is a democrat.

Another piece from the article:

A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as "playing the race card" but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond's recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond's statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.

Here is the link again:

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html It worked so maybe it was a temporary glitch.

Not a glitch-I clicked the sourcing in that article for the Andrew Cuomo story, and it came back with the message I posted. Additionally, John Ashcroft made comments in Southern Partisan magazine, to the effect that David Duke represented the "American ideal"; that slave-owners were concerned about the ""peace and happiness" of slave families"; that ethnic groups from outside of Northern Europe "have no temperament for democracy"; and that only "Italians, Jews and Puerto Ricans" live in New York, not "Americans." He also famously said in that magazine:

Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

So, Julian Bond's comments, whatever they actually were, were not far from the truth,if not totally true.

 

[billc]

Far from Republicans embracing Duke, as opposed to the democrats embracing their racists.

1990 campaign for U.S. Senate

In 1990, in the October 6 primary, Duke ran as a Republican against three Democrats including incumbent Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr.[38]
The Republican Party endorsed state Senator Ben Bagert of New Orleans, but national GOP officials anticipated that Bagert could not win and was fragmenting Johnston's support; so funding for Bagert's campaign was halted, and he dropped out two days before the election, though his name remained on the ballot.[39]
Duke's views prompted some of his critics (including Republicans) to form the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism, which directed media attention to Duke's statements of hostility to blacks and Jews.[40]
Duke received 43.51 percent (607,391 votes) of the vote to Johnston's 53.93 percent (752,902 votes).[38]
In a 2006 editorial, Gideon Rachman (The Economist, the Financial Times) recalled interviewing Duke's campaign manager (from his 1990 campaign) who said, "The Jews just aren't a big issue in Louisiana. We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There's no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway."[41]

 

[billc]

Again, not embracing Duke:

In 1988, Republican State Representative Charles Cusimano of Metairie resigned his District 89 seat to become a 24th Judicial District Court judge, and a special election was called early in 1989 to select a successor. Duke entered the race to succeed Cusimano and faced several opponents, including fellow Republicans, John Spier Treen, a brother of former Governor David C. Treen, Delton Charles, a school board member, and Roger F. Villere, Jr., who operates Villere's Florist in Metairie. Duke finished first in the primary with 3,995 votes (33.1 percent).[22] As no one received a majority of the vote in the first round, a runoff election was required between Duke and Treen, who polled 2,277 votes (18.9 percent) in the first round of balloting. John Treen's candidacy was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other notable Republicans,[23] as well as the Democrat Victor Bussie (president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO) and Edward J. Steimel (president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and former director of the "good government" think tank, the Public Affairs Research Council). Duke, however, hammered Treen on a statement the latter had made indicating a willingness to entertain higher property taxes, anathema in that suburban district.[24] Duke with 8,459 votes (50.7 percent) defeated Treen, who polled 8,232 votes (49.3 percent).[25] He served in the House from 1990 until 1992.[26]

 

[billc]

I'm looking at some excerpts from that magazine and I don't believe that all of those quotes belong to Ashcroft, if any of them, outside of the Rober E. Lee quote. Still checking.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.185/pub_detail.asp On the article you mentined,

Southern Partisan has been described, correctly, as a magazine that defends the South in the Civil War. But Ashcroft has just pointed out that "liberty" — not slavery — was "at the core" of the founding, and that Washington was not a racist. His praise of the three Confederate leaders, therefore, must be taken in context as respect for men of honor and talent, but in no way for the pro-slavery policies of the Old South.

In the quotation above, Ashcroft worries that revisionists will teach our children that "these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

This language is telling. It is a clear reference to the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders "pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The "perverted agenda" to which Ashcroft alludes is the political ideology of pro-slavery, which he is utterly rejecting here.

In this tactful way, Ashcroft is actually criticizing the Confederate cause, insofar as it was the cause of slavery, with the words of the Declaration.




Frustrated by the absence of any real dirt on Sen. John Ashcroft, his ideological opponents have descended into dishonesty and distortion. He is being attacked as a racist and a defender of slavery. Ashcroft's 1998 interview with Southern Partisan magazine has been denounced with particular venom.

In that interview, Ashcroft expresses not the slightest support for slavery or racism. Quite the opposite. In a passage ignored by the major media, he speaks indignantly against "revisionists" who have falsely attempted to turn America's Founders into defenders of slavery. Here is the full quotation:

Revisionism is a threat to the respect that Americans have for their freedoms and liberty that was at the core of those who founded this country, and when we see George Washington, the founder of our country, called a racist, that is just total revisionist nonsense, a diatribe against the values of America. Have you read Thomas West's book Vindicating the Founders?

Interviewer: I've met Professor West, and I read one of his earlier books, but not that one.

Ashcroft: I wish I had another copy: I'd send it to you. I gave it away to a newspaper editor. West virtually disassembles all of these malicious attacks the revisionists have brought against our founders.
​

 

[billc]

"Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, 'Where are the Americans?' for I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans."--Patrick Brophy, Second Quarter/1991

NOT JOHN ASHCROFT'S STATEMENT(caps just for emphasis, not shouting)

The above statements that you seem to be attributing to ashcroft are not in fact his statements but from the magazine. Not thorough research. The comments about Robert E. Lee are clarified above in the previous post.


"Slave owners . . . did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness."--First Quarter/1996

NOT ASHCROFT'S STATEMENT, but from the magazine.


Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.) asked Ashcroft to respond to a series of quotes from the magazine, each of which had appeared in FAIR's January 12 media advisory on Ashcroft and Southern Partisan. The statements included claims that David Duke represented the "American ideal"; that slave-owners were concerned about the "peace and happiness" of slave families; that ethnic groups from outside of Northern Europe "have no temperament for democracy"; and that only "Italians, Jews and Puerto Ricans" live in New York, not "Americans."
In response to this questioning, Ashcroft responded: "On the magazine, frankly, I can't say that I knew very much at all about the magazine. I've given magazine interviews to lots of people. Mother Jones has interviewed me. I don't know if I've ever read the magazine or seen it. It doesn't mean I endorse the views of magazines. It's a telephone interview. And I regret that speaking to them is being used to imply that I agree with their views."
Of course, it is not his speaking with Southern Partisan that implies that he agrees with its ideas, but his telling the magazine: "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." Presumably, he did not make a similar statement to Mother Jones. Given several chances to explicitly distance himself from Southern Partisan, Ashcroft declined, saying carefully, "I condemn those things which are condemnable." When asked directly whether he thought the magazine was racist, he said, "I should probably do more due diligence on it. I know they've been accused of being racist.... I would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely accuse someone of being a racist."

At no point do I see jphn ashcroft making any statement other than the one about Robert E. Lee, the others essentially come from the magazine and seem to have been falsely and partisanly attributed to John Ashcroft.

 

[billc]

This language is telling. It is a clear reference to the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders "pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The "perverted agenda" to which Ashcroft alludes is the political ideology of pro-slavery, which he is utterly rejecting here.

In this tactful way, Ashcroft is actually criticizing the Confederate cause, insofar as it was the cause of slavery, with the words of the Declaration

 

[elder999]

Again, not embracing Duke:

I'd say winning the election was embrace enough, from people who called themselves

REPUBLICANS.



Oh, and you were right about the Ashcroft "quotes," but his interview in the magazine and subtle endorsement of "southern pride" would be enough for lots of black people to say he endorsed the Confederacy and slavery, especially given the magazine's content.

In fact, I'd say that of the two, denying that David Duke getting elected as a Republican wasn't "embracing Duke," was the larger.....:lol:

back on topic, though, do you really think that Islamic fundamentalism is left wing/socialist/ not conservative/not right wing?

 

[Twin Fist]

the PARTY shunned him, even if the voters didnt. Thats worth noting.

 

[Twin Fist]

interesting thought.

the islamic fanatics are right wing, if you took a republican, brain washed him, gave them "religious steroids" and multiplied the result by about 10K

it is such an exageration of the "american" right that it really isnt even the same genus

 

[billc]

Last on Ashcroft: Is John Aschcroft a racist, definitely no. He suffered from poor vetting of the magazine by his "people" which almost all politicians fall for in the busy lives they lead, on campaign or in office.

I first heard about Ashcroft during the Bush-gore debate(?) when Mel carnahan's plan crashed on the way to the debate. Carnahan and I believe his son were both killed in the crash. His name was on the ballot already against John Ashcroft so essentially, John Ashcroft had no opponent. The democrat governor, who ignored the state law that said you had to be a resident to hold elected office, I don't think being in a cemetery plot counts, told the democrat voters, if you elect dead Mel, I will appoint his wife for his term. Dead mel won and He appointed Mrs. Carnahan to the seat. Now, Ashcroft had every legal opinion on his side and could have fought the election to the supreme court. Ashcroft refused saying, I think Mrs. Carnahan has been through enough, she took the seat unopposed by Ashcroft.

When Ashcroft was being confirmed to be the attorney general, Mrs. Carnahan was asked if she would endorse Mr. Ashcroft. You might expect, one good turn deserves another, but you would be wrong. Mrs. Carnahan refused to support John Ashcroft, in another show of democrat rudeness and politcs over decency.

 

[billc]

I think radical islam has more in common with socialism than conservativism, religous side not withstanding, because it believes in a big government, religously controlled, controlling every aspect of the lives of the people. Conservatives, who believe in the bill of rights, and the constitution, which are directly in contradiction with Sharia, believe in 1) religous freedom, no state controlled religion for example, for one, Islam does not believe in this, Islam will be the religion of the state, and any others will at a minimum recieve dhimmi status, 2)individual rights, islam believes in submission, and 3) free market captialism, which, once again, the radical muslims do not believe in.

The top down government model, and antaganism to individual rights would put radical islam more in line with socialism than capitalism or conservatism.

Even Jesus acknowledged a seperation of church and state, radical islam doesn't.

I would say radical islam is collectivist in nature, conservatism is not.

 

[elder999]

I think

No, you don't.

Conservatives, who believe in the bill of rights, and the constitution, which are directly in contradiction with Sharia, believe in 1) religous freedom, no state controlled religion for example, for one, Islam does not believe in this, Islam will be the religion of the state, and any others will at a minimum recieve dhimmi status, 2)individual rights, islam believes in submission, and 3) free market captialism, which, once again, the radical muslims do not believe in.

The top down government model, and antaganism to individual rights would put radical islam more in line with socialism than capitalism or conservatism.

Once again, please look to a broader definition of what "conservative" means. Recognize that it can be applied to other political schools besides the American one of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and free market capitalism. From the very excellent MErriam Webster English Language Technical Manual (that's engineerspeakk for dictionary, bill):

con·ser·va·tism

noun \kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm\
Definition of CONSERVATISM

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party

2a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirementincome or health-care coverage)


3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

With that in mind, one can easily recognize that almost all fundamentalisms are de facto forms of conservatism, and that Islamic fundamentalism is a form of conservatism-that there could even be, in spite of the seeming contradiction within the Americanpolitical system, socialist or communist conservatives.

please.

 

[Twin Fist]

Jeff, you just ad hom'd

 

[elder999]

Jeff, you just ad hom'd

No, it was an outright attack, and the truth: to me, at any rate, he hasn't demonstrated thought; he has only parroted the often faulty (the first Thanksgiving demonstrates the failure of socialism?)thoughts of others.

I'll take the hit, though......it's worth it.