Dec 9, 2010: KKK Wedding

[Shawnee123]

Do you have an alternate source to back up your post?

[Shawnee123]

Oh, and welcome!

[monster]

yup, the KKK manifesto.....

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Since classic is not around, I fixed that for you.
Sadly, the neo-nazi movement (and several other racial or ethnic gangs), are still popular, especially in the republican party.

You might want to know the history of one of the major political parties in the country. Because the above quote is certainly inaccurate.


It was the Democrats who set up the Jim Crow laws of the South, and fought so hard against racial equality, negro voter registration, civil right, fair housing, and integration.

"The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP). The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the political spectrum, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats." -- Wikipedia.

It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head, because it fits much better with their liberal left agenda, but you can look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...ited_States%29

And please, check the accuracy of this article!

Check out one of the major Southern Democrats of the 20th century:
Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

A real Democrat.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Jim Spaza

Yeah. And we know that Wiki is never inaccurate about anything...

In fact, when even slightly inaccurate information has been posted on Wikipedia as a test of it's self-correcting ability, errors have been shown to be corrected within three hours at maximum. And this is for innocuous minutia.

Here's a link to the Cellar thread where I posted about this in 2006.

[Lamplighter]

A talking head on TV recently attributed the current split between Dems and Repubs
to the civil rights "Voter's Registration" bill of the Johnson administration.

The racially intolerant southern Dems moved to the Republican party,
and the moderate Repubs disappeared or moved into the Democrats

If true, it's an another example of the "law of unintended consequences"

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head,
...

Not the Democrats; Nixon's Southern Strategy turned that fact on its head.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

A talking head on TV recently attributed the current split between Dems and Repubs
to the civil rights "Voter's Registration" bill of the Johnson administration.

The racially intolerant southern Dems moved to the Republican party,
and the moderate Repubs disappeared or moved into the Democrats

If true, it's an another example of the "law of unintended consequences"

Are you really insinuating that the repubican platform not anti-minority?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

(I do not know why the image is reversed)

I think that it's a legal or technological defense against being accused of copyright infringement. I've seen other reversed videos of TV shows.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Adak

You might want to know the history of one of the major political parties in the country. Because the above quote is certainly inaccurate.


It was the Democrats who set up the Jim Crow laws of the South, and fought so hard against racial equality, negro voter registration, civil right, fair housing, and integration.

"The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the Grand Old Party (GOP). The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the political spectrum, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats." -- Wikipedia.

It was a Republican who freed the slaves, (Lincoln), not a Democrat, and the bigots never forgot that.

Of course, the Democrats have turned that fact on it's head, because it fits much better with their liberal left agenda, but you can look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...ited_States%29

And please, check the accuracy of this article!

Check out one of the major Southern Democrats of the 20th century:
Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

A real Democrat.

Good points. Just a point to make about Republicans and Democrats of Yore. The only thing today's Republicans and Democrats have in common with the 1800's Republicans and Democrats is the name of the party. For a while it seemed they'd traded places ideologically, now, I find it rather tough to separate them at all unless I get out my hairsplitter.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I think that it's a legal or technological defense against being accused of copyright infringement. I've seen other reversed videos of TV shows.

I had been told that YouTube has a scanning algorithm (that of course they will not admit to as it would be proprietary) that can match any uploaded video against a database of copyrighted data, thus weeding out at least a certain number of the copyright violations without the need for a human to view each one. Flip the image, and it no longer matches.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I had been told that YouTube has a scanning algorithm (that of course they will not admit to as it would be proprietary) that can match any uploaded video against a database of copyrighted data, thus weeding out at least a certain number of the copyright violations without the need for a human to view each one. Flip the image, and it no longer matches.

Margaret Gould Stewart discusses it here on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_st...copyright.html

[Adak]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Good points. Just a point to make about Republicans and Democrats of Yore. The only thing today's Republicans and Democrats have in common with the 1800's Republicans and Democrats is the name of the party. For a while it seemed they'd traded places ideologically, now, I find it rather tough to separate them at all unless I get out my hairsplitter.

We've had Republicans act like Democrats, but in general:

Republicans want:
============
safer, and more controlled borders. We want immigration, but we want LEGAL immigration.

our government to spend only the money that it has, instead of piling up debt, spending money that it doesn't have.

less taxes, and fewer tax loop-holes (U.S. tax code is now 70,000+ pages, and grows ever longer)

less regulation of private business (fanny mae and freddie mac, overseen by Democrats like Barney Frank), caused a huge portion of this housing bust we're now going through. Gov't regulations on bank loans, and allowing derivatives from those notes, also added to the problem.

less subsidies. We still are paying out subsidies to farmers for obsolete programs started before 1940. Paying a farmer NOT to grow on his land is also, generally a bad idea.

require valid ID when you vote - stop voter fraud

require e-verify for a job, to help eliminate easy identity theft, and help prevent illegal immigration.

It's seems our liberal leaders have found a new hate target -- the well off, dare I say "rich".

I'm not sure what the hell they're thinking of, but if you wait for the welfare supported guy or gal to offer you a good paying job, you'll be waiting for a very long time.

Who else is going to be starting up a business? Hiring new employee's? Buying that $40,000 new tractor/combine to harvest the wheat that you'll be eating later?

Think of what it takes to start up a business of any kind. That's not chump change that makes that happen.

* I spent a few years in the Deep South, when integration was still the law of the land (early 50's). I learned all about Democrats, at that time. I did support Clinton for President, because he was experienced at running things (former Governor), and smart (a former Rhodes Scholar).

Not to speak ill of the dead, but compared to John Kennedy, or FDR, Clinton was a marital saint.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim Spaza

According to their beliefs, they are not burning the crosses. They are "lighting" them to shine the teachings of Jesus Christ to all the world. That the cross itself is consumed is irrelevant.

Originally, the KKK was not a racist organization. And some KKK organizations today still are not. Some actually have black, hispanic, and asian members.

Originally, the KKK was created as a vigilante group to police their own towns and were used extensively when the real police and courts could do nothing about lawbreakers and criminals.

For example, if a man beat his wife and the police could do nothing, then the KKK would light a cross in the guy's front yard as a warning. If that warning went unheeded, then the KKK would take the guy out into the woods and explain the nature of the problem to him.

It originally was NOT about racism. It was about law and order. The fact that some (most?) KKK groups today are racist doesn't change this historical fact.

(I'm not a KKK member. I just like accurate history to be taught.)

That is a strange addition to the otherwise know facts about a hate group.

[Adak]

Yes, the KKK was a vigilante group. They didn't JUST lynch blacks, but blacks were their most frequently killed victim. For whites, an obvious warning of a burned cross, or a "trip to the woods" for a bit of "learnin'", was generally quite sufficient.

Their efforts in the 50's and 60's, mirrored the deep loss they felt as the wave of civil rights and integration became more of a reality.