01-16-2012, 03:19 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As many will point out today, the ignored truth about MLK is that he was a Republican. At Grand Old Partisan, Michael Zak reminds us that Dr. King met with Nixon to try to figure out how to overcome the Democrat’s opposition to the Republican’s civil rights agenda.

And let’s not forget who voted for the Civil Rights Act, and who voted against it.

The Democrats do not now “own”, nor have they ever “owned” civil rights. The truth they want to hide from everyone is that they were dead set against it. This is the pro-slavery party, the KKK party, the Jim Crow party, the segregation party, and the party against civil rights. Always were, still are. And by expanding the welfare state, tearing down the family structure, endlessly playing the race card, and engaging in an endless war of character assassination against those with a certain color to their skin who show the content of their character by “leaving the plantation” (Hillary - “you know wha I’m saying!"), not to mention the soft racism of unnecessary affirmative action and lowered standards and expectations, they continue to do their damnedest to keep the black man down, beholden to the “massa” of big government.

WWDKS? What would Dr. King Say, seeing how many people voted for Obama mainly based on the color of his skin, knowing nothing - worse, purposely ignoring blatant evidence - of the corruptness of his character? </div></div>

INCONVENIENT TRUTH (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/)

01-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Because of sloppy phrasing, this must be agreed to:

Martin Luther King was indeed a Republican.

Meaning the father of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, absolutely true, although I believe that after he was a Republican, he was later a Democrat.

It is widely reported that although having endorsed Nixon, MLK (Sr.) switch his support to JFK after the October 1960 incident when both JFK and RFK intervened with the judge to help get MLK, Jr. released and offered their support to his wife, Coretta.

Then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">King Sr. played a notable role in the nomination of Jimmy Carter as the Democratic candidate for President in the 1976 election. After Carter's success in the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary and the Florida primary, some liberal Democrats were worried about his success and began an "ABC" ("Anyone But Carter") movement to try to head off his nomination. King Sr. pointed to Carter's leadership in ending the era of segregation in Georgia, and helping to repeal laws ending voting restrictions that especially disenfranchised African Americans. With King's support, Carter continued to build a coalition of black and white voters and win the nomination. King Sr. delivered the invocation at the 1976 and 1980 Democratic National Conventions. </div></div>

That is strong evidence that in later life, MLK himself became a Democrat, just as MLK, Jr.'s family were all Democrats.

What did MLK, Jr. say about the parties?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">July 28, 1960
King advocates political nonpartisanship

In a televised conversation with CBS, King comments that nonpartisanship creates a ''better bargaining position...the Negro will not be inextricably linked to any political party.''</div></div>

That sounds as if he didn't register in either party.

So far as I recall from when this came up last year, it is only the niece of MLK, Jr. who, in the family, claims he was a Republican, whereas his son and wife deny that.

Wiki's reporting seems to deny what the niece has said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Public stance on political parties

As the leader of the SCLC, King maintained a policy of not publicly endorsing a U.S. political party or candidate: "I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either."[30]

In a 1958 interview, he expressed his view that neither party was perfect, saying, "I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."[31]

King critiqued both parties' performance on promoting racial equality:

Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights.[32]

Personal political advocacy

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for the Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."</span>[33]

In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy in 1964, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[34]</div></div>

01-17-2012, 02:22 AM
I may be wrong but in those days Democrat and Republican were pretty close together on most things. As I recall, and I may be wrong, but didn't a bunch of Southern Democrats storm out of some convention and split with the Dem Party on the issue of Civil Rights?


01-17-2012, 06:31 PM
The Dixiecrats answer to at least part of that description from the past, yes.

Oddly, they all mainly later became Republican, and Sen. Trent Lott (R) opined that we wouldn't have had all the subsequent trouble, had Strom Thurmond (previously a D, then an R after he left the Dixiecrats), the leader of the Dixiecrats, won when he ran for president.

01-18-2012, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Dixiecrats answer to at least part of that description from the past, yes.

Oddly, they all mainly later became Republican, and Sen. Trent Lott (R) opined that we wouldn't have had all the subsequent trouble, had Strom Thurmond (previously a D, then an R after he left the Dixiecrats), the leader of the Dixiecrats, won when he ran for president. </div></div>

Why do you cling to myths so?

01-18-2012, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you cling to myths so? </div></div>

Why do you continue to make claims and not back them up?

Answer. I can't. I am just a troll.

If I took your last 20 posts, it would only take up one page.



01-18-2012, 11:40 AM
Actually, this is one of LWW's more supportable points, although he didn't support it, as you mention.

For, here's the hall of shame for the Democrats:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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


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 </div></div>

Of this entire list, very few of these Democrats switched parties, to my recollection. Thurmond is one, of course, but I cannot name one other.

01-18-2012, 03:58 PM
So your "PROOF" that, as you claim, "oddly, they all mainly later became Republican" is that ... oddly ... only 1 out of 30 actually did what you claim they "mainly" did?

That's precious brother.

01-19-2012, 05:17 PM
Easy, boy--chill!

Please learn to take the implied 'you were right' as an answer. I can't believe you attack my admission to that effect.

I clearly proved my own prior claim wrong, as I said, when listing all the Dems in question and mentioning almost all of them never turned Republican, prefaced by my statement to Q that you had a supportable point, which I then provided the support for.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>CAN YOU... UNDERSTAND... ME... NOW?? </span> (speaking more slowly, and in an all-cap larger font, LOL!)

To be very clear, you were right about a secondary issue, not the subject of your post, which was wildly misinformed and misinforming.

As I see you've dropped defending it, wanted to make sure to make that point. You've dropped defending it, to concentrate on complaining that I agreed with you (probably objecting to anyone supplying evidence, as a tactical matter).