Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Black Republicans run radio ad in Maryland alleging that Democrats started

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:38 PM
Original message
Black Republicans run radio ad in Maryland alleging that Democrats started

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_POL_US_Black_Republicans_Ad.php

Black Republicans run radio ad in Maryland alleging that Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan
The Associated Press


ANNAPOLIS, Md. A national black Republican group is running a radio advertisement accusing Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by civil-rights researchers.

Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the black Republican nominee for Maryland's open Senate seat, disavowed the ad Thursday as "insulting to Marylanders". He said his campaign asked the Washington-based National Black Republican Association to stop running it.

At an event in Baltimore, Steele said, "I don't know exactly what the intent of the ad was" but that "it's not helpful to the public discourse."

The ad does not mention Steele or his Democratic opponent, Rep. Ben Cardin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. "challenged" by researchers... more he said, he said reporting
Isn't that more like, manifestly (censored) wrong? I mean, that King was a Republican at least. I wouldn't know about who started the KKK but errm.. wouldn't it be more proper to say it was started by southern white Christians, who now dominate the Republican party? Because the Democrats weren't about keeping blacks down anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. I have no idea about MLK, but..
to some extent it's kinda logical...

Back in the early 60's in the South, the Dem's were more like todays republicans and the reps were more like todays Democrats.

When Johnson signed the civil rights legislation he supposedly said, "We might have lost the South to Republicans for years to come." Basically, he knew that the Southern Democrats weren't happy about it and would jump parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Yeah that's what I've heard.. but this is just sewer trawling now.
Trying to say Democrats are the real racists and whatever. Um sure, whatever.. it's their fantasy world, I don't need to join them in it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RangerSmith Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Oh yeah
It's trying to play on the label, no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
59. It doesn't take a whole lot of research to determine
that its extremely unlikely that MLK voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Democrats turned out the klan...
and the rest of the racist bigots years ago, and the Republicans welcomed them with open arms. Still do.

I think the overwhelming majority of African Americans will be able to see through this.

I'm utterly appalled, sickened and disgusted by this race-baiting tactic, but I have to say, not surprised. This from the party that gave us Willie Horton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. !
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
61. Malcolm X: "Wrong is wrong, no matter who does or says it."

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. Malcolm X (1925 - 1965)


I think it's fair to paraphrase this for Black Republicans: You're not to be so blind with racial pride that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.

It's also good advice for the uber-religious of any denomination: You're not to be so blind with religious fervor that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOLADEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. I will never understand the phenomenon of a Black Republican
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Or a Gay republican
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. Or any Republican who makes less than $200,000 a year
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinerow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
55. or a Black, Gay Republican...
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is one topic I'm staying out of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. and why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well, at least they're not blaming Clinton. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
64. No just all of the Dems...we're racist pigs
and Martin Luther King wanted nothing to do with us. Is that why the Reverend at Coretta Scott King's Funeral made chimpy and pickles' faces look like they smelled their own shite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. I forgot my sarcasm smilie.
It sure wasn't the Dems who suppressed the black vote in the past two presidential elections, and it isn't the Dems who are trying to suppress the black vote in the upcoming November election.

WTF is wrong with Republicans, anyway? Everything they do in the political arena is hateful and divisive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I knew it was :sarcasm: I just thought
I'd take that opporturnity to get that out about Coretta's funeral and the bushes get raked.

No way MLK would be a bushit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. They would assassinate Martin Luther King in these times, too.
I didn't recognize you with your Lamont avatar. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #68
79. :)
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. hmmmm, Black rethuglicans, eh? What, all 12 of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. And those Dixiecrats went and became Republicans
Just ask Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm and Richard Shelby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. And this is pertinent to this day and age exactly how? Grasping
at racist straws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. and I wonder where they get their funds from......
One "Black" Republican group was funded by the Wyle brothers and claimed no members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. southerners joined the democratic party after the civil war because the
republicans were the party of the north and black equality and anti slavery.

since the democratic party embraced the civil rights movement in the 60s the racists left and filled the republican party with their hate.

there is one common thread running through the parties though. Republicans have always primarily cared for business interests and the wealthy, Democrats for Labor and individual rights.
Religion, Racism and many other issues have migrated back and forth.

A Black Republican in this day and environment has to have some serious issues so this doesnt surprise me one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. More than half of the group's board of directors quit after Katrina
More than half of the newly formed National Black Republican Association's board of directors has walked out, according a now former high ranking board member.

Christopher Arps, the association's former communications director, claims he and six others resigned from the "10 person board" in an e-mail to Redding News Review.

The exodus comes as President Bush has come under fire for his administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, a storm in which many blacks died.

http://tinyurl.com/k2aj4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxrandb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
15. Isn't the National Black Republican Association
the one headed by Sean Hannity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. well I'm sure there will be some sound bites coming out of this
ad for repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. *snicker*
i guess we can expect some real whoppers this campaign season. i hear santorum has been running an add just chockful of lies. this is gonna get waaay out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. Black Republicans?
Oh, right all two of them scraped together money to run this ad. Steele will do anything to win. He might be pretending to be outraged, but don't think he didnt know about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
74. Ya know, that's pretty racist right there.
Are you implying that black's can't make good money and be successful? I saw another remark like this too. Implying blacks don't have money. Do you not know any successful blacks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. did you read this?
"Oh, right all two of them scraped together money to run this ad."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wallwriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. I'd like to see the current membership party affiliation n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
23. Black Republicans Run Racially Tinged Ad
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20060921/45120e40_3ca6_1552620060921-1101826030

Black Republicans Run Racially Tinged Ad
By KRISTEN WYATT (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
September 21, 2006 2:01 PM EDT

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A national black Republican group is running a radio advertisement accusing Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by civil-rights researchers.

Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the black Republican nominee for Maryland's open Senate seat, disavowed the ad Thursday as "insulting to Marylanders". He said his campaign asked the Washington-based National Black Republican Association to stop running it.

At an event in Baltimore, Steele said, "I don't know exactly what the intent of the ad was" but that "it's not helpful to the public discourse."

The ad does not mention Steele or his Democratic opponent, Rep. Ben Cardin.


Can you believe this craziness. Democrats starting the KKK. This gets to new lows :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Holy shit. They really will lie about anything.
Worst part of that is - some people who see the ad will believe it. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "Path To 9/11"
They don't much care whether it's the truth or not. So long as Millions & Millions of MORONS & IDIOTS in this country watch it, then the message will get through.

The MORONS & SHEEP are the goal. If they can succeed in reaching all those folks, they have succeeded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisoWeaver Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Historically Speaking its acutally true
The KKK was formed by southern democrats after the civil war. From what I can remember about MLK was that he was originally a Repug but something happen and he got a better deal from the Dems. But I am fuzzy on that point...


/Look it up if you don't believe me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Only true for the first, original KKK
The second KKK, founded in 1915, was a different critter altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I can't imagine that it will be on the air much longer
The repugs seem to be trying to get to more and more of the black vote away from the dems. I don't see any thing to suggest it's working. Seems like desperation. Does anyone have a historical time line on what alll the dems have done to help our fellow black citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
45. Some people may believe this. but they won't black people. n/t
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 05:20 PM by Roy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Nathan Bedford Forrest
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 04:30 PM by mahatmakanejeeves
I doubt he was a Republican.

Nathan Bedford Forrest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. don't think this tells us much
this is from your link. I did a quick read and didn't see any mention of his political party

He stated that the Klan did not see blacks as its enemy so much as "carpetbaggers" (northerners who came south after the war ended) and "scalawags" (white Republican southerners). However, violence against blacks by the organization was pervasive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Let's try another link.
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 05:15 PM by mahatmakanejeeves
Someone pointed out something that I had not known, namely that the Klan founded at the end of the war by Forrest and others was only the first Klan. The one founded early in the 20th century was a different organization.

The first Ku Klux Klan

Creation
The original Ku Klux Klan was created after the end of the American Civil War on December 24, 1865, by six educated, middle-class Confederate veterans who were bored with postwar routine from Pulaski, Tennessee. The name was constructed by combining the Greek "kyklos" (circle) with "clan." It was at first a humorous social club centering on practical jokes and hazing rituals but soon spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who had served in constitutional conventions."


It gets worse.

The second Klan - Creation

D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation glorified the original Klan, which was by then a fading memory. His film was based on the book and play The Clansman and the book The Leopard's Spots, both by Thomas Dixon who said his purpose was "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!"


The Klan did demonstrate against Al Smith, Democratic candidate for president in 1928, on the grounds that he was a Catholic. My father was taken by other family members to a Klan rally in Loudoun County, Virginia, then. He was nine years old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. However the republicans make up the KKK now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Sen Byrd.??? W. VA
How do you get around that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. You don't get around it.
You face it.

He has.

Not to say that it's not troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredScuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. KATRINA! How do you get around THAT one?
Bush hates black people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. He's admitted it and talked about it.
Long time ago. What is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. you're criticisng blacks for not being vindictive toward an EX-klansman?
Sen Byrd.??? W. VA How do you get around that one?

In what way has Sen. Byrd retained the KKK's racist ideology? None that I can see. There's no need to "get around" something that you've already moved beyond.

If someone changes his ways, is it wrong -- rather than decent and reasonable --to forgive him and let bygones be bygones?

Are you arguing that blacks should be more vindictive toward their FORMER enemies? Is that it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. no not at all
only that to my knowledge he's the only former KKK in the senate. That was in flow with the discussion. But by all means, No, I don't feel that blacks should be vindictive toward a former enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
63. Shall we go back to 1919
when BOTH parties didn't support woman's right?
I see nothing the thugs are doing for the working poor in this country,regardless of skin color
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. He wised up, the rest converted
How fucking complicated is that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. geez
I'm getting rattled for only asking a question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
56. We Don't Have to
That was a "Was" and the man has reformed since then. If you have to dig up shit, we can do the same, and a hell of a lot better than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxrandb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
82. And how does the former RNC Chairman and current AL Governor
Hailey Barbor and current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Trent Lott, and Senator Allen, and Dick Cheney, etc., get around their recent-please note-"RECENT", association with the Council of Concerned Citizens CCC (aka "the KKK-lite"). Oh, and if you don't believe the CCC is a racist hate mongering organization that feels the way the KKK does and is just ashamed to use the KKK logo, visit their site and do some research.

The type of crap you're throwing around may work on Dildo-heads and Hannity's audience, but it won't work here. In the classic words of Jack Nicholson; "Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
70. I heard a humorous KKK ike story tonight
My kid's school had its homecoming bonfire and I was talking to a teacher.

He said the most interesting thing that's ever happened at the bonfire was about 15 years ago thew spirit squad set up an effigy of the opposing team at the top of the bonfire.

It was football pants and a jersey and a hat all with the opposing school's name on it.

Then the fire started and things got interesting. The clothing quickly burned away and what was left was a wooden cross burning on top of a pyre of packing crates about 10 feet high.

He said the kids were pretty oblivious to it, but the teachers kind of all gasped and looked at each other and lots of cars slowed down passing the school to see what the heck was happening over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Those Dixiecrats became REPUBLICANS!
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 04:31 PM by Ignacio Upton
It was LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act and said "we've lost the south for a generation." Just ask Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmon...oh wait, he's dead!

And even during the 1800's the GOP was selling out blacks, especially in 1877, when southern Democratic Congressmen allowed for Rutherford Hayes to get electoral votes in three contested states, in exchange for pulling troops out of the south and ending Reconstruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. As did the Indiana klan
The Democratic Party has got to answer this and "enough blame to go around" just does not cut it because it's not right. Lincoln was ridiculed for his populist beliefs and would no more be a Republican today than Trent Lott would be a Democrat. The Republicans now have the worst of America all together - racists, zealots, warmongers, and crooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. SOUTHERN democrats at the turn of the century most likely
started the Klan, and these democrats followed Strom Thurmond in abandoning the party when the party adopted a policy promoting civil rights. The "Southern" democrats of yore are now republicans who are hypocrites for not remembering their party under Lincoln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. Can anybody say "flip-flopper"
In an interview yesterday, Steele said he had not heard the 60-second spot but said he generally does not oppose Republican efforts to assert their "real place in history."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100701.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. And Reagan started the Taliban
You can look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredScuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. delete
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 04:55 PM by FredScuttle
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. Black Republicans ??
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 05:08 PM by jaysunb
Who are they ? Are there more than 5 ? LOL !
Oh yeah, and where did they get the money to run ads :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. Democrats "lost the south for a generation" because they....
supported Civil Rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
49. Acknowledge that Dems did start the KKK in the 1800s ... but it's now the
Republican party that breathed life into the corpse and keeps it alive now ...

(And, point out that, if Byrd can't be forgiven for his "childish stance" of decades ago, then the current Pope cannot be forgiven for his "Hitler Youth" days ...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BronxBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
50. Black Republicans.....
Probably the biggest waste of molecular material since I went to the bathroom this morning.

Does anybody know what particular media outlets this was run on and the demographic audiences of those outlets.

"Keep you poor and Democratic" I guess make you Republican and dead makes a much better choice! :sarcasm:

Black Conservatives: Clueless creatures rolling rocks uphill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
57. All political parities are coalitions. here is a short history.
The Democratic Party started out as a combination of Plantation owners influenced by the Enlightenment period of Europe, but the backbone was Rural progressive Farmers who wanted "Internal Improvements" i.e. improve Roads and Schools. The backbone of today's GOP started out as the Federalist Party, a combination of Northern commercial groups and most Southern Plantation owners. The Federalist lost the South and Atlantic States when the Militia embraced the Democratic Movements of the 1790s and finally Lost in New England when the Federalist voted to succeed from the Union over the War of 1812, and then the next day the News Arrived of Jackson's victory at New Orleans AND the signing of a Peace Treaty (The Federalist Party just dissolved over that one two punch).

Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, was a merger of his enlightenment AND the Small Farmers of the South and Atlantic States. It ruled the US from 1800-1824 and then dissolved into two groups, first the larger part became the modern Democratic Party with its base in the Small framer. In opposition to the Democratic party the Whig Party was formed made up of people who hatred Jackson but supported by the Commercial Interest of the US, the then new Corporations, and the large Plantation owners of the South (Yes, the membership of the old Federalist party).

While the Whig party was able to win election twice, for it had all the money, it was never a majority party in the US. The Whig Party broke up over Slavery, the Northern Commercial interests switching from being primary shipping prior to 1820 to industry after that date, ended up backing the Anti-Slavery Movement (which formed into the Republican Party). While the Southern Whigs broke off and joined the majority party of the South at that time (The Democratic Party).

At the same time the Democratic Party was also breaking down, but trying to find a peaceful solution to the issue of slavery. In the South the merger into the Democratic Party of the old Whigs made the Democratic party very Conservative for the old Whigs wanted to preserve Slavery at all costs, the old Democrats of the South also backed Slavery for Slavery was an integral part of the Southern Economy (and 60% of all US Exports in 1860 was Cotton, which was picked by Slave Labor).

In the North the Democratic Party broke up into parts that join the Republican party and parts that opposed using force to end Slavery (With the "Middle Roaders" saying force had to be used, but lightly and this opposed the full scale assault on the Southern armies between 1863-1865).

The significance of the period 1860-1865 as far as the parties were concerned, was that for the first time since 1800 the Largest Political Party in the US was NOT the Democratic party, the Republican Party became the Number one party. The Democratic Party was split two ways, the Majority Party in the South, but the opposition party in the North.

Thus in the period 1865-1900 the GOP strength was based on the Commercial Interest of Wall Street and the growing Corporations, Control of most Cities (With the Exception of New York City where the Democratic Party dominated), Rural Northern Voters who voted as their fought, Progressives who wanted to improve America (most left over from the anti-Slavery movement) and blacks (based on the fact Lincoln Freed them from Slavery).

The Democratic Party was dominated by Southern "old Whigs" and Rural Southerns who vote like their Fought, and regional minorities in the North (New York City, Western Pennsylvania and Southern Illinois are three examples). The Democratic party would alternate with the GOP in this period basically do to the fact the Democratic Party believed in a Tariff for Revenue only, while the GOP wanted the highest Tariffs to protect American Industry. The significance of this was when the Democrats had power in the House, Senate or the Presidency, the tariff rates would drop, bringing in more revenue for the Democratic to spend, when the GOP gained one or all of the political Branches, the Tariff went up, revenue drop for the rate discouraged imports and the GOP had to cut expenditures to meet the drop in revenue.

Now this existed till the 1884 election. In 1884 progressive Republicans who had been backing the introduction of Civil Service for 20 years accepted the fact that the GOP was NEVER going to permit Civil Service to be introduced, thus their backed the Democrats in that Election based on the Democrats support for Civil Service (This was more to get votes than any hard belief in Civil Service by the Democrats, but once elected the Democrats did introduced and expand Civil Service).

Anyway, this was the first effort by the Democratic Party to do Governmental economic and Social Reforms since Jackson had introduced the Spoil System in the 1830s. A huge number of Northern Reformers than Joined the Democratic Party pushing further reforms. President Cleveland opposed those reforms, but the cat was out of the bag, the Democratic Party was going to be a Reform party. This was shown in the 1896 Election when for the First (and only time) a Sitting President was unable to control the nomination of his Successor. William Jennings Bryan would lose that year (Out spent 10-1) but still pulled over 45% of the Vote. Bryan advocated Government Assistance to small farmers, reform of Government, inflation to wipe out debts (Thus his support for the "Free Minting of Silver"). In the subsequent election of 1900 he would come out against imperialism and as Wilson's Secretary of State try to get countries to use Arbitration instead of war (and would resign as Secretary of State when Wilson refused to crack down on the banks loaning money to England the France, Bryan said such loans would force the US into WWI, just to prevent the US banks from collapsing).

During this time period the Democratic Party was still the Minority party, most cities were still overwhelming Republican. As the minority party, The Democratic Party had to look for Allies anywhere it could and not offend its base (Primary the South). Thus the reform movements in most Urban Areas were backed by the Democratic Party at this time (Given most cities were GOP dominated, and corrupt, the Phase "Vote Early and often" was made by a REPUBLICAN CITY BOSS, inside dealing etc was commune). The scary part was the Democratic Party would win some City Elections during this period after a especially corrupt Republican Rule, straighten out the City and then the Voters would vote the GOP back in. Much of this was do to the greater amount of money the GOP could collect, even then, in elections, but also it took years for the people to accept the fact the GOP Commercial Interest are hopelessly corrupt and anything they touch is also going to be corrupt.

This was the situation in the 1920s, then the bottom fell out of the Country. FDR won election, had Congress pass legislature that Bryan had advocated from 1896 till his death in 1925 (A Republican of the 1930s called the "New Deal" Bryanism without Bryan). This combination of economic Collapse and GOP Corruption forced a re-alignment of the Parties. For the first time Labor was backing just one of the Political parties (The Democrats), the Cities all started to vote Democratic for only the Democrats were doing anything about solving the problems of the Cities caused by the Great Depression. Even Rural Northern areas voted Democratic, for the GOP had no answer to the Democratic New Deal. FDR insistence that his programs be run honestly and without regard to race started even blacks to vote Democratic.

The GOP did not recover till 1946 (When it won the house) and proceeded to show the American People the GOP had NOT learned anything since 1930 when the Democratic party took the House from the GOP. The people voted in Truman and the Democratic Party in 1948.

To win something, the GOP looked to Eisenhower to save them. He did win election in 1952, but had to deal with Democratic Congresses. The GOP BARELY won in 1952 and that was constant screaming of Communism in the Government and military weakness abroad ("Who Lost China?" Truman and the Democratic was the refrain of the GOP). Even under these conditions most Americans realized that the GOP was Not the better choice to lead the US (and once it was shown that the GOP was NOT doing any better job of chasing the Commies out of Europe, even the red Scared died down).

Now in the 1960s, Nixon saw how the Democratic Party was going. The Democratic party dominated the Cities, but the Suburbs were Republican. Prior to 1920 most people lived in Rural Areas, but after 1920 most Americans lived in Urban Areas. The Democratic Party had been the voice of Reform in Urban areas since the 1880s, including expanding the rights of blacks. At the same time even FDR kept the Southern Whigs happy by not challenging Segregation. This conflict could not be avoided forever (Even JFK tried to avoid the dispute when he could, for example calling the Southern National Guard in Federal service so Southern Racist Governors could not use them to suppress black protests, but JFK was more worried about how the protests were being handled by the Southern Segregationist as opposed to solving the problems of Civil rights).

On the other hand, LBJ saw that the problem of Race had to be resolved, even if that meant weakening the Democratic Party. LBJ forced through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 knowing ti would cost the Democratic party lost of the old Southern Whigs to the GOP (These Southern Whigs had always been more in line with the GOP, but could not join the GOP do to the Civil war, but such people would oppose any political party that helped the blacks).

Anyway, the Democratic Party survived the slow defections of Southern Conservative Democrats, but only for a while. In 1980, with the election of Reagan, the GOP controlled the Senate for the First time since Eisenhower, but also had de factor control of the House (They were enough Conservative Democrats to win votes for Reagan even through technically the House was still contained more Democrats than Republicans). This continued throughout the 1980s with only a brief respite with Clinton's elections in 1992. In the Election of 1994 the Shift of the South to GOP control was complete and the GOP took control over both houses.

Now, during the 1960s-1980s the GOP crowed every time any Democrat, even as the State or local level, switch to the GOP. This was almost always in the South. Thus the 1994 GOP victory was not only a result of the South going GOP, but the GOP's ability to retain Northern Republicans. The problem for the GOP is they are losing control of such Northern Republicans. Today is much like the 1960s but in reverse. In the 1960s the Democratic Party was the Majority Party, but that majority was based, in part, on a group (Southern Conservative Democrats) whose thinking was more in line with the Opposition Party then their own party. The same is going now, Northern Republicans have more in common with Democrats than the rest of the GOP. This is especially true in the Rural areas where except for Guns and Gays, the Rural northern Voter want Government Spending increases, taxes on high income people increased, and want improved heath care. These people are slowly switching, like the southern whites who slowly switch from the 1960s-1990s.

We are looking at an upcoming era, where the Democratic Party Strengths is going to be a combination of Rural Northern America and the Central Cities (including Blacks and Liberals and the older, pre and post WWII Suburbs). The GOP will control the South and the Suburbs (Mostly the newer suburbs, post 1980) and as always Wall street and the Corporations.

In many ways we are returning to the situation prior to the Civil war, except in an urban dominated society as opposed to an Rural dominated Society (and with Blacks given the right to vote). In many ways the GOP understand this and this is why the GOP opposed real election reforms (For the GOP needs to cheat to win) and why the GOP wants Voter picture IDs, to suppress votes of poor people who live in Rural areas in addition to Central Cities (But not in the newer Suburbs).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #57
73. Dang, did you write this or is this from somewhere else?
Interesting read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. I just wrote it, but it has been written about before
Politics is called the Art of Ruling, it is more Art than Science. The main art is doing enough so that you accomplish something, while retaining 50% of the Vote. It is sometime difficult (And hard doing times of change such as the Immediate post-WWII period where Truman had to balance the desire for people to de-mobilized the Army while at the same time stretchering out that De-mobilizations so not to cause a new recession like what happened after WWI). Then having to deal with the "Lost" Of eastern Europe to the USSR (and the Domestic problems by that "lost" followed up by the lost of China in 1949). Truman and the Democrats had to balance domestic concerns, with the economy and what was happening in both East Asia and Europe. An difficult period of adjustment, one that the Democrats did successfully.

In the 1970s, the Democrats in Congress forced Nixon to do a domestic Balancing act, balancing the need to keep inflation down, while also keeping unemployment down. This was complicated by the fact that in the 1970s you had two huge factors kicking in, First was the baby-boomers getting out of School (The peak year for the baby boomers was 1957, but continued with a steady decline till 1964, in 1965 you had a substantial drop in the number of births). 1957 plus 20 is 1977, thus most Baby Boomers entered the workforce in the 1970s (Through this started in the mid-1960s). Thus huge entrance of new workers kept unemployment high and Congress kept on trying to solve the this unemployment by various efforts (including expanding Educational benefits and jobs).

The second problem was the huge increase in the price of oil. Thus you had high unemployment and high inflation. The best way to defeat inflation is to cut Federal spending, but the best way to defeat unemployment was to increase federal spending. Thus Congress had to balance these two objectives and did an excellent job given terrible circumstances (including pre-existing inflation do to Spending on the Vietnam War AND Nixon use of deficients to enhance Presidential power). In many ways the Democratic Congress did to good a job balancing the above, for the baby boomers were mostly already in the work force by the time Reagan became President AND the unity of OPEC was becoming undone (as do most cartels sooner or later) which was bring down the price of oil. Thus Reagan could increase unemployment to kill inflation knowing that the unemployment will drop do to the lack of new workers entering the workforce (Do to the fact the Baby-boomers had already entered the work force) AND inflation would be reduced do to the drop in oil prices (Aided by the opening of the North Sea and North Slope oil fields in addition to the break up of the OPEC quota system do to the Iraq-Iran war).

Compare the Democratic Congress of the 1970s with Reagan's de-facto Republican Congress of the 1980s (The house was technically Democratic, but in reality with many SOuthern Conservative Democrats voting with the GOP, the GOP Controlled both the House and Senate). Unemployment remained high despite the drop in new people entering the work force (and this would continue into Bush I Administration where At first Bush, and then the GOP Congress under Clinton, would open up the borders to foreign immigrants to prevent a "labor Shortage" that should have raise wages in the late 1990s).

As to inflation, Carter had 18 percent as his highest Unemployment, but he was trying to end that inflation by cutting military spending (and the 18% reflected the sudden price in oil at the start of the Iraq-Iran War). Reagan increased Military spending causing a steady 6-7 % yearly inflation that did not end till the middle of Clinton's Term (and should NOT have ended except Labor was not pushing for any wage increases in the late 1990s do to the increase in immigrants that prevented a labor Shortage given the low inflation rate under Clinton).

Anyway, the Art of Governing is an Art, sometime you win (Like Truman in 1948) and sometimes you lose (As the Democrats did in 1980 and 1994). The real question is can the GOP rule during a period where they have to make hard Decisions? The GOP has NOT had to do so since 1932, every economic disaster has been handled by the Democrats (The Great Depression, Stagflation of the 1970s etc). Now that the economy is tanking for the first time since 1930 the GOP is in control of ALL PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. Can the GOP make the HARD DECISIONS needed? The last Six years have NOT shown that the GOP Can, and now that the situation is getting worse the people are turning to the Democratic Party as the people have done since the Great Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
51. Dems were different back then, whatever they were called
they the great grand parents of the little piece of shit Nazis that make up 98% of conservatives. This hate can only come from a closed minded person aka a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #51
72. Why do they think this is an effective tactic?
Reminding people that the Democratic Party has drastically changed from what it was 50 years ago only emphasizes that the Republican Party has changed from what it was 50 years ago. Big whoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
54. Martin Luther King SENIOR was an (R)
as were the great majority of African Americans between Reconstruction and the New Deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Sr.#Background

In October 1960, when his son Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia, Robert Kennedy telephoned the judge and helped secure King's release. King expressed his appreciation for these calls. Although King Jr. himself made no endorsement, his father, who had previously been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon, switched his support to Kennedy.

So if the ad said simply, "Martin Luther King was a Republican", without reference to Jr. or Sr., it is technically correct -- but, of course, still a blatant atempt to mislead African American voters into thinking that the Martin Luther King was a repuke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. republicons/blatant attempt?!!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
58. Audio of the ad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recidivist Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
60. Grow up, people.
The truth isn't always pretty.

The truth is, George Wallace was a Democrat, Lester Maddox was a Democrat, and Bull Conner was a Democrat. Heck, Bull Conner's DOGS were Democrats, and so was every Ku Kluxer who ever soiled a sheet. The opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was almost exclusively Democratic, consisting of the southern Democrat block in the Senate.

Barry Goldwater, who was no racist, also opposed the Civil Rights Act for hard-core, western conservative, states rights reasons, as did a few others in the GOP, but the Republican caucus of the day supported both Acts more than did the Democratic caucus, percentage-wise. (Both the House and Senate were, at the time, more than two-thirds Democratic.)

That's the record. Is it an historic shame and embarrassment to the Democratic Party? Sure. I have never suffered from the delusion that the Democratic Party was perfect. It ain't. Historically, it was the Party of slavery, secession, and Jim Crow. I am not proud of that history, but we do a grave injustice to those who struggled to change the Party, and the nation, if we forget.

What is the proper response to this record today? To remember it with regret, to be grateful that the racism has been (largely) purged, and to deal constructively with the issues of the day.

Times have changed, issues have changed, and the Parties have changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. You are missing the whole point
The point is alot of the racists that left the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party, so the Republicans have no room to use this. The parties switched places a long time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felix Mala Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #60
77. Most of the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights promptly became Republicans
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
Trent Lott (He was working for a congressman, then.)
Most of those Dixiecrats who carried Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and South Caroline in the 1948 election switched to the GOP.
Nixon even had his own name for it, the "Southern Strategy" and it worked great for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #60
83. You're right, but the ad doesn't make that distinction
The racist party reversal goes back to LBJ's domestic policies and Nixon's "Southern Strategy", but that info isn't going to be in the ad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
69. Steele is running some really good ads, has me worried
He actually looks somewhat appealing in the ads, of course he says nothing. At least they aren't negative, but I shudder to think of Steele winning. He actually says he loves puppies in one of the ads.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
71. It's very true that at the beginning of the realization that all
people in this country had equal rights the fight was led by the republican party. That's just the way it is. Can't go back and change it. But it in the relative scheme of things it doesn't matter one damn bit. It's what's happening now, the here and the present, that matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imfreaky Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #71
75. that's the bottom line
I'm in sales, and my boss is always saying,... What have you done for me lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
76. Malcolm X "sort of" endorsed Goldwater, and there was a dem/KKK connection
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 08:05 AM by noonwitch
Malcolm called LBJ a "sly fox" and considered him to be a racist who was manipulating black people into voting for him. He was not necessarily wrong on either count. LBJ gets a lot of credit for the civil rights act, but the private comment he made about signing it gets less cover (something to the effect that signing it will keep the n-----s voting democratic for years).

Malcolm thought voting for either candidate was bad news, but that Goldwater at least was honest about who he was and what he stood for. Malcolm himself was probably not allowed to vote, as he spent time in prison for a felony.

I think there was a connection between the KKK and the Democratic party, but that connection was back during the reconstruction (1865-80). There may have been southern democrats associated with the klan in the 20th century, but not among northern democrats. Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Stevenson never had ties to the Klan. Strom Thurmon did, before he switched parties to the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoping4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. I think you do a great disservice to LBJ who far exceeded Kennedy
in actually producing concrete results. If you think about the rascist attitudes in the 60s, white politicans like LBJ who wanted progressive change had to be be cagey about showing all-out support of blacks and LBJ was the epitome of cagey. Dismissing his own efforts as simply a way to ensure blacks kept voting Democrat was politically astute as such remarks would have soothed the sensibilities of racists who he needed on his side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC