[G-Force]

I did some looking around to find any articles about Mr. Bonds comments at Fayetteville State University and did not find any other news organizations reporting his typical rhetoric about Republicans and the Bush Administration. I found some of his other gems, but alas they are not from "acceptable" news resources.

Mr. Bond does not hide his strong dislike for President Bush and seems prone to spout off whenever he is "preaching to the choir". Either there are usually no reporters from the big news agencies present or the reporters just choose not to print Mr. Bonds divisive ramblings. After all, who would dare print something bad about the leader of the NAACP? Perhaps the "mainstream media" has decided that Bond's utterances are not worth reporting anymore.

[MARIS61]

If a progressive-minded person who values racial equality among humans calls a political party that has historically supported inumerable horrors against humanity A BAD NAME and nobody reports it, does it make a sound?

[MARIS61]

Okay, I went and read the few quoted snippets.

Not sure what all the hullabaloo is about.

They seem entirely accurate to me.

[Talkhard]

a political party that has historically supported inumerable horrors against humanity

You DO realize that many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement, and that many Republicans supported it. You do realize that, don't you?

You also realize that Clinton ignored the horrors in Uganda while he was in office, and later said it was his biggest foreign policy mistake. You do realize that, don't you?

And what are these supposed "inumerable horrors against humanity" that the Republicans have supported?

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You DO realize that many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement, and that many Republicans supported it. You do realize that, don't you?

Absolutely. But we are discussing party platforms, not individuals.

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You also realize that Clinton ignored the horrors in Uganda while he was in office, and later said it was his biggest foreign policy mistake. You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, he bowed to overwhelming Republican Party pressure to not get involved.

A President who has the stones to admit his mistakes. How refreshing.

Hasn't happened since Jimmy Carter.

Originally Posted by Talkhard

And what are these supposed "inumerable horrors against humanity" that the Republicans have supported?

Now you're feigning ignorance????
Just a few well publicized ones that stand out in my lifetime are Vietnam, Kent State, bombing of Cambodia, military support for Pol Pot's regime, Osama Bin Laden, the Shaw of Iran, Sadaam Hussein, Noriega, facist regimes in insert your choice of South American countries here, the genocide in East Timor, the invasions of Granada, Iraq, Iraq again...I could keep going all day but I know the futility of forced education.

Stay tuned for many more in the next few years.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You DO realize that many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement

Yes, the Dixiecrats. And they split away from the Democratic party soon after expressly because of racial issues and became Republicans.

So, it's misleading to a large degree to say that "many Democrats" opposed the civil rights movement, as though that says anything about the Democratic party. Those "many Democrats" found the Republican party more to their liking because the Republican party was the party that made opposing equal rights for non-whites part of their platform.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Yes, the Dixiecrats. And they split away from the Democratic party soon after expressly because of racial issues and became Republicans.

So, it's misleading to a large degree to say that "many Democrats" opposed the civil rights movement, as though that says anything about the Democratic party. Those "many Democrats" found the Republican party more to their liking because the Republican party was the party that made opposing equal rights for non-whites part of their platform.

Not entirely true. Bob Dole voted for the civil rights act and is still a republican. While Al Gore's dad voted against the civil rights act. One of the highest ranking democrats (Byrd) was part of the the Klu Klux Klan. What we can all agree upon is neither party has a good civil rights record. Pointing fingers at either political party to me seems pretty ridicuolus.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by Brian

Not entirely true. Bob Dole voted for the civil rights act and is still a republican.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say that everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act became a Democrat and that everyone who voted against it became a Republican.

However, the vast majority of Democrats who voted against it were the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats for historical reasons and very quickly split from the Democratic party precisely because they didn't agree with the Democratic platform on minority rights.

So it is true that it's misleading to say that a lot of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act. While technically true, the fact that they soon after became Republicans because of that issue means that they really weren't Democrats on that issue.

While Al Gore's dad voted against the civil rights act. One of the highest ranking democrats (Byrd) was part of the the Klu Klux Klan.

Byrd was one of the foremost among the Dixiecrats.

What we can all agree upon is neither party has a good civil rights record. Pointing fingers at either political party to me seems pretty ridicuolus.

I think both parties have their share of sins, on that matter, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest that they are precisely identical. While it's not as much in evidence now (now, I think the Democrats take minority support for granted more than they politic for them), the Democrats have a much greater history of supporting minority rights than do the Republicans.

It's not precisely the difference between "good" and "evil" on that score, but the Democrats have the better record, in my opinion. That doesn't mean they're particularly better at it today.