DiscussMormonism.com

A couple surgical dismantlings of Beastie's tendentious historical revisionism regarding the history of both respective parties on the matter of race.

http://hnn.us/articles/kevin-d-williams ... vil-rights

http://saintpaulrepublicans.us/blog/201 ... on-racism/

You've got to love the quote from Michael Scheuer that the Democrat Party is the party of the four S's, "slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism." It all rather "adds up," doesn't it? Slavery (socialism), segregation (multiculturist separatism), and the welfare state plantation (daycare center state social democracy).

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/larry-elde ... lack-vote/

Simple question, droopy.

Conservatives or liberals - which group generally opposed the civil rights movement?

Feel free to answer the question here:

viewtopic.php?p=703882#p703882

The Party of Racism: Guess Who?

Democrats almost exclusively.

Still waiting for you to answer my question. Still waiting for your rebuttal to the peonage thread.

bcspace wrote:

The Party of Racism: Guess Who?

Democrats almost exclusively.

Simple question: conservatives or liberals - which group opposed, in general, the civil rights movement?

Simple question: was the progressive Left in America, Britain, and on the Continent in the 1930s the ideological home of the eugenics movement or not?

Why?

(This is not a dodge, but just calling the bluff. Most conservatives were not against the civil rights movement per se but against certain features or aspects of it, and certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its also the case that to take a snapshot of the conservative movement in its infancy, some 60 years ago, and plaster it across contemporary conservatism is very likely a poor substitute for serious analysis. In the same way, taking a snapshot of "liberalism" from the mid-fifties through the early sixties and attempting to apply its salient features to what is termed "liberalism" today would not be logically or historically tenable along a number of fronts.

Droopy wrote:Simple question: was the progressive Left in America, Britain, and on the Continent in the 1930s the ideological home of the eugenics movement or not?

Why?

(This is not a dodge, but just calling the bluff. Most conservatives were not against the civil rights movement per se but against certain features or aspects of it, and certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its also the case that to take a snapshot of the conservative movement in its infancy, some 60 years ago, and plaster it across contemporary conservatism is very likely a poor substitute for serious analysis. In the same way, taking a snapshot of "liberalism" from the mid-fifties through the early sixties and attempting to apply its salient features to what is termed "liberalism" today would not be logically or historically tenable along a number of fronts.

Yes, this is a dodge. No, you don't read anything I respond to you. Yes, you are a nut.

beastie wrote:

Droopy wrote:Simple question: was the progressive Left in America, Britain, and on the Continent in the 1930s the ideological home of the eugenics movement or not?

Why?

(This is not a dodge, but just calling the bluff. Most conservatives were not against the civil rights movement per se but against certain features or aspects of it, and certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its also the case that to take a snapshot of the conservative movement in its infancy, some 60 years ago, and plaster it across contemporary conservatism is very likely a poor substitute for serious analysis. In the same way, taking a snapshot of "liberalism" from the mid-fifties through the early sixties and attempting to apply its salient features to what is termed "liberalism" today would not be logically or historically tenable along a number of fronts.

Yes, this is a dodge. No, you don't read anything I respond to you. Yes, you are a nut.

Answer the question. They are your intellectual and ideological progenitors, not mine.

Droopy wrote:
Answer the question. They are your intellectual and ideological progenitors, not mine.

Seriously? You demand I answer your question when you simply ignore mine?

And this after you IGNORED the fact that you cited an article I had already cited and quoted on the same daggone thread?

Do even have the ABILITY to feel embarrassed?