You are absolutely right. They are the party that had KKK members. Here is a little bit about the Democrats. Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators: - Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort. Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning. http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html
Of course abortion is a form of violence. Killing of any living thing is a form of violence. Unfortunately, humans need to kill plants and animals to survive. King was referring to injustice against living humans. You have given no legitimate support for the claim that abortion in the early stages of pregnancy involves a living human. - - - Updated - - - ROFL ... what does the KKK have to do with the abortion issue ?
That is NOT freedom of religion. The founders were clear they did not want a theocratic form of government.
The US Constitution says NOTHING about a national religion. You're making that up. Why are you protesting that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, then you turn around and make up "national religion." The personal letter was written by Jefferson, and explains the first amendment. That is what he said it means, he was there, he had influence over the wording, Because of Incorporation, we can now include the states in the limitations placed on Congress. It protects freedom of religion for all. Please...LOOK at the first amendment. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. Now an establishment of religion could mean any individual church, it could mean any individual denomination, or it could mean "church" generally. But IAC Congress is not supposed to be RESPECTING any of them, and that means showing preferential treatment or aid. It says NOTHING about a national religion whatsoever. At the time, it was a state issue and states could be involved, but it is no longer because of INCORPORATION. Jefferson had a major impact on the constitution because he and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, were in constant contact. They discussed issues with each other.
You think children who are older, not white and who may have a disability are not worthy of adoption? You think they are imperfect?
Your comments are juvenile at best. The actual text reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The term "respecting" here in context may as well say "regarding" or "concerning". Ever heard the terminology "with respect to....." It means "with regard to" or "concerning". your misinterpretation of the term respect is silly. From the dictionary definition of "Respect": "with respect to something concerning something" If you read the entirety of the ammendment it is obvious that the authors intended all religions to be respected.
Yet they had control on only the federal government, which they never envisioned having the broad sweeping oppressive powers it currently has.
Again you are just moving the goal posts, you didn't say anything about attempting murder, you said "would be killers" .. very different. You are the one who should honest.
and so are just about every single person in the world "would be killers" .. there is a difference between "attempting" and "would be" Would be - adjective 1. wishing or pretending to be 2. intended to be 3. a person who wishes or pretends to be something Attempting - 1. to make an effort at; try; undertake; seek 2. Archaic. to attack; move against in a hostile manner: to attempt a person's life. 3. Archaic. to tempt. noun 4. an effort made to accomplish something: He made an attempt to swim across the lake. 5. an attack or assault: an attempt upon the leader's life. one is a thought the other an action.
That is truly warped. You should seek professional help. - - - Updated - - - Regarding the establishment of religion? No. Please stick to the actual language of the ammendment, oh that's right the truth doesn't support your position.
That is your favorite new little catch phrase now "moving the goalposts". I doubt you even know what it means.
The authors intended for citizens to have the freedom to decide which religion or if any would be respected as an individual. Government should protect an individual's right to choose what to respect, and government should not interfere with or influence that decision by endorsing or semi-endorsing any one of them. There's nothing about government at any level respecting or regarding or concerning any religion at all. While I think the Founders were smart enough to say exactly what they meant, I have no problem with the interpretation of "regarding" or "concerning", since both still reinforce separation.
Wow you guys really need some remedial English. I quoted the actual language. It says "Respecting" LITERALLY! It says it in the context of regarding , meaning pertaining to or concerning. Do they reinforce separation? DOn't people hold govt offices, or individuals? Don't individuals have the right to religious freedom? Don't religious beleifs directly affect how people view issues of morality? So then, explain how these individuals with religion in govt offices represent separation between govt and religion. There never has been this separation, and there never will be. Its a myth. While the collective govt cannot adopt a central religion, individuals are free to excercise their own, even if they are govt officials and it influences their manner of doing their job.
. English is always capitalized and I do believe you meant to type literally and context. General rule of thumb; always make sure your language skills are perfect before you go picking on others language skills.
At one time, Blacks were not considered by many to actually be humans. If a Black person is murdered, should the court prosecution be required to prove that the victim was human before the defendant can be found guilty? You ask for "legitimate support", there is plenty of it in other threads. Not every thread in the abortion section can be about whether the unborn are "human" or not. Plants do not have human DNA. Nor do they resemble a baby and squirm around.
When reading comprehension is this pathetic, I will point it out even if my punctuation is incorrect. It is a far lesser offsense than outright inability to comprehend what the words mean. Besides, my spelling and punctuation look just fine to me, I don't know what you are squawking about.
You are the one who said "respecting" meant "regarding" in the establishment clause. See? It doesn't really work, does it?
I think every child should be given the opportunity not only to be BORN...but to be adopted. Your side does not. IMO from the pro-aborts I have ever encountered they think if a child has one abnormality in the womb...they are better off dead. Abortion is better than adoption...for the pro-choice crowd.
This is where you are confused. We believe that the woman should be free to choose what is best for her. We are not biased in favor or against any of the options, birth, adoption, or abortion. We just think she should be free to choose for herself. None of these choices is better than the other, but they are all choices and the woman has to make one.
Which makes no sense whatsoever. I assume you want her to be prohibited from killing her child the moment it is born, correct? Makes no sense.
Again evading .. sure sign of a coward - - - Updated - - - Sorry playing at being a troll won't work with me .. so again .. answer the questions, or are you afraid to?
Nah .. that would be one of your pro-life buddies who wants euthanasia for all babies born with Downs Syndrome or are of mixed race.
