America’s Only Black Senator Not Invited To MLK Event Because He’s A Republican…

[mac]

You do understand that you are admitting that your earlier statement was untrue - right? You do, don't you? And so what if an African American was a Republican in the 1920s and 30s while living in the South? Do you think he would have been accepted into Republican Party meetings in much of the North?

The Republicans of that era would not recognise the Republicans of today.

Why are you and many others continuing to use this excuse. It is rather blatant but still a failing attempt to shunt aside the racism found in much of the present day Republican Party?

I am admitting what earlier statement is untrue? I didn't claim he was a Republican...he quite famously chastised both parties. I am not claiming there is no racism in the Republican party, I am refuting the notion that there is none in the Democrat party or that the Democrats have been more supportive of equal rights than Republicans.

 

[Somerville]

I am admitting what earlier statement is untrue? I didn't claim he was a Republican...he quite famously chastised both parties. I am not claiming there is no racism in the Republican party, I am refuting the notion that there is none in the Democrat party or that the Democrats have been more supportive of equal rights than Republicans.

My mistake. It was Μολὼν λαβέ who posted the "earlier statement" - not you. My apologies

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It is a bit strange that the only King family member who says MLK was a Republican is a niece who has a rather chequered past and now is "saved" and works with Glenn Beck.

MLK was an active campaigner against Barry Goldwater during the election of 1964. Dr King is not known to have ever registered as a member of any party. During the 1960s, he was frequently attacked for "his Communist inclinations"


What a shock. LBJ, a man infamous for his foul language thru out his career using a word that was very common used at the time, particularly by white males who had grown up in the South in the 1920s and 30s. :roll:

Its interesting, according to you, that current day Republicans are racists but when LBJ used a pejorative denigrating black Americans "that was just the way it was back then."

What a racist statement and bull****, but expected.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What you are doing is sperating one party into two and treating them as if they were seperate parties. You're ignoring the racism in the Democrat party up to that point and you're ignoring that lack of will in the Northern Democrats to stand against the Southern Democrats on matters of civil rights.

What you are doing is refusing to acknowledge that regionalism was the main issue in regards to civil rights. The Democratic Party WAS split, and to some extent, so was the Republican Party. You cannot honestly say that Democrats of urban areas in the North had similar beliefs to Democrats of the South. This issue was governed by regional social mores. Partisanship was incidental.

No, I'm not wrong. In the 1957 Civil rights act, more Republicans than Democrats supported the bill (by a huge margin), also, the bill was chopped and edited by southerners (mostly) to make it a bill both southerns and northerners would vote for. Again, yes, while southerners were more strongly against civil rights, northern Democrats did nothing (or at least very little) to alter that, and had quite the history of disenfranchisement themselves.

Yes you are wrong as I showed by a breakdown of the numbers. Again, you are refusing to acknowledge that the pervading issue was the difference in regional beliefs.

It's simply ludicrous to claim that the Democratic Party was more supportive of Civil rights than Republicans.

It is simply ludicrous to use partisanship as a way to split this issue.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Pointing out that 14 Republican Congressmen voted "No" is inconsequential to fact when the majority of Republicans vote "Yea" in Congress especially after LBJ and Eastland ripped the guts out of the bill. Unless you can point out any nefarious action by those 14 Congressmen. I make the claim that you are parsing and attempting to obfuscate the racial bigotry of Democrats on a whole in discriminating against Afro-Americans on a national basis.

And your claim has been easily and completely summarily dismissed. I showed the numbers. This was a regional issue. If it wasn't, you would have seen Norther Democrats vote "Nay". Not ONE did... but 14 Republicans did not. Your dismissal of that fact is done solely because it is an inconvenient truth that sinks your argument.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And most of those republicans voted no out of a belief that it allowed too much federal overreach, not because they opposed civil rights.

And yet no Northern Democrat voted "Nay". And we also have the constant issue of Southern segregationist beliefs to contend with which affected nearly all Southern Representatives, including Republican ones.

This was a regional issue, not a partisan one.

 

[mac]

What you are doing is refusing to acknowledge that regionalism was the main issue in regards to civil rights. The Democratic Party WAS split, and to some extent, so was the Republican Party. You cannot honestly say that Democrats of urban areas in the North had similar beliefs to Democrats of the South. This issue was governed by regional social mores. Partisanship was incidental.

No, what I can say is that voters from the north voted for southerners. Regionalism was an issue, sure, but it was not the only issue, and it only became an issue post WWII-ish. This great northern democratic enlightenment was very new.

Yes you are wrong as I showed by a breakdown of the numbers. Again, you are refusing to acknowledge that the pervading issue was the difference in regional beliefs.

I have not refused to acknowledge it was an issue, you have refused to acknowledge that it was still the Democratic party.

It is simply ludicrous to use partisanship as a way to split this issue.

Ha! No, it is not.

 

[mac]

And yet no Northern Democrat voted "Nay". And we also have the constant issue of Southern segregationist beliefs to contend with which affected nearly all Southern Representatives, including Republican ones.

This was a regional issue, not a partisan one.

No it was not solely a regional issue. As I've shown, there was plenty of Northern support for Southern Democrats.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, what I can say is that voters from the north voted for southerners.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense.

Regionalism was an issue, sure, but it was not the only issue, and it only became an issue post WWII-ish.

Regionalism was an issue since the founding of the US.

This great northern democratic enlightenment was very new.

The Democratic Party was the party of states rights until after WWII. Now the Republican Party is. This was brought about mostly because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though these changes had been slowly occurring since FDR's Presidency. Why do you think this shift happened? Did Republicans suddenly decide to adopt states rights and Democrats suddenly decide to abandon it? Nope... states rights has always been more of a Southern issue than a Northern one. When many in the South altered their affiliation from Democrat to Republican, the states rights issue went with them. Regionalism, not partisanship.

I have not refused to acknowledge it was an issue, you have refused to acknowledge that it was still the Democratic party.

No, I have dismissed the partisanship of the issue as incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it was the Democratic Party is as relevant as the fact that it is now the Republican Party.

Ha! No, it is not.

Ha! Yes it is.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No it was not solely a regional issue. As I've shown, there was plenty of Northern support for Southern Democrats.

You haven't shown that at all.

 

[mac]

Huh? This doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson...etc.

Regionalism was an issue since the founding of the US.

It did not inhibit the formation of two cross regional political parties.

The Democratic Party was the party of states rights until after WWII. Now the Republican Party is. This was brought about mostly because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though these changes had been slowly occurring since FDR's Presidency. Why do you think this shift happened? Did Republicans suddenly decide to adopt states rights and Democrats suddenly decide to abandon it? Nope... states rights has always been more of a Southern issue than a Northern one. When many in the South altered their affiliation from Democrat to Republican, the states rights issue went with them. Regionalism, not partisanship.

It was brought about as much by the shift in the Democratic party towards socialism and neo-liberalism, if not more so, than by the civil rights act.

No, I have dismissed the partisanship of the issue as incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it was the Democratic Party is as relevant as the fact that it is now the Republican Party.

Which is a superficial and incorrect assessment.

Ha! Yes it is.

Nope, and we can do this all day.

 

[mac]

You haven't shown that at all.

I'm sure nothing will break your partisan bias on the issue.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sure it does. Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson...etc.

The only one of those who was a Northerner was Kennedy.

It did not inhibit the formation of two cross regional political parties.

With the accent on the word REGIONAL.

It was brought about as much by the shift in the Democratic party towards socialism and neo-liberalism, if not more so, than by the civil rights act.

Or as much as the shift in the Republican Party towards religious zealousness, neo-conservatism, and dogmatism. See? Works both ways.

Which is a superficial and incorrect assessment.

Nope, which is completely on target.

Nope, and we can do this all day.

We have before.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm sure nothing will break your partisan bias on the issue.

The only partisan one here is you.

 

[mac]

The only one of those who was a Northerner was Kennedy.

Right, and shouldn't have been in that list. However, Wilson and Johnson were southerners...voted for by northerners as much as southerners.

With the accent on the word REGIONAL.

Not in your favor. There were no regional parties. (except briefly, which failed)

Or as much as the shift in the Republican Party towards religious zealousness, neo-conservatism, and dogmatism. See? Works both ways.

The religious right didn't become a major factor in the Republican party until the 80s while American Protestantism has been a major factor in the Democrat party back to the 1870s.

Nope, which is completely on target.

nope.

We have before.

Exactly, and it's pointless.

 

[mac]

The only partisan one here is you.

Hardly, I've repeatedly acknowledged the faults in both parties, rather than stick behind a manipulated excuse for a poor reading of history.

 

[mac]

Giving up again, CC?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Giving up again, CC?

No. I understand it seems like I post here continuously, sometimes issues in RL do prevent me from responding in a debate. You might want to consider this possibility... since RL issues have gotten in the way of my activity level at DP.

 

[mac]

No. I understand it seems like I post here continuously, sometimes issues in RL do prevent me from responding in a debate. You might want to consider this possibility... since RL issues have gotten in the way of my activity level at DP.

Ok, no reason to get testy. Since you ran off last time, I just assumed it happened again. So, my apologies.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ok, no reason to get testy. Since you ran off last time, I just assumed it happened again. So, my apologies.

Didn't run off last time. Same thing happened. Life has been busy as of late.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Attention : This seed is based on misinformation repeated from FOX NOOZE!
Every member of congress Senators, house members Democrats and Republicons were ALL invited to attend and participate in the MLK events... including Senator Scott.
NOT ONE REPUBLICON MEMBER OF CONGRESS ACCEPTED THE INVITATION FROM THE EVENT ORGANIZERS!
It has been long enough now that this MIS-information could EASILY have been researched and the truth known.
AT this point this OP would need to be called a blatant LIE!

 

[mac]

Didn't run off last time. Same thing happened. Life has been busy as of late.

Coincidentally at the the very same point in the conversation...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Coincidentally at the the very same point in the conversation...

Coincidentally it's been a very, VERY busy summer for me at work. I've had to take a few semi-breaks from DP which is unlike me.

 

[mac]

Coincidentally it's been a very, VERY busy summer for me at work. I've had to take a few semi-breaks from DP which is unlike me.

Well, I hopeit calms down for you...specially at this point in the conversation

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, I hopeit calms down for you...specially at this point in the conversation

Keep being snarky, mac.