A bit of history "Negroes With Guns"

[Blitzkrieg]

It is truly too bad for them that 98% of them will never hear that old and sage wisdom here in 2012

 

[Bigfoot]

Actually the Klan were an improvised police force bent on protecting Southerners from crime, since the Northern aggressors would not.. they hung far more bad whites than blacks

Stop getting your information from the mainslime media and you might actually learn something

I have one question.. since desegregation and the "civil rights" movement, is black on white crime better, or far worse?

Ah yes police, that rode at night wearing hoods to protect their identity as they spread terror. And they protected the fine White folks against Blacks trying to vote and the Jooooos that were carpetbagging by starting up industries, and the Native Americans, and the Asians, and the Catholics, and the Latinos. Did I forget anyone?

Black crime is up since the Civil Rights Era as is out-of-wedlock births. They share the blame for this with the party that rewards them for failure.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Ah yes police, that rode at night wearing hoods to protect their identity as they spread terror. And they protected the fine White folks against Blacks trying to vote and the Jooooos that were carpetbagging by starting up industries, and the Native Americans, and the Asians, and the Catholics, and the Latinos. Did I forget anyone?

Black crime is up since the Civil Rights Era as is out-of-wedlock births. They share the blame for this with the party that rewards them for failure.

They rode with hoods because the Northern aggressors would have hung them and stood by laughing while the Southerners wives and daughters were raped and their homes burned

Your compassion for them is touching

 

[Jamie6.5]

The reason it was relavent is because when this thread started it was based on an Ann Coulter article that talked about the Klan being a democratic organization. I felt that was irresponsible reporting to leave out the fact that the democrats at the time were conservative and on the right side of the political spectrum. That's what this whole thread has been about and you are asking me why it is relavent.

You're still not "getting it" ereezy. You are thinking about things in terms of left=liberal, right=conservative.
Because that's what the people that steer public opinion want you to *think*, at the moment.

Try this.
Today's conservative is most interested/motivated by the Constitutional constructs that decree freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness through meritocracy, and free market principles. "Restore our Constitutional government" is the rallying cry.

con·serv·a·tive
   [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Today's liberal believes that the free market has failed, that The Constitution is outdated, and that the government needs to step in and "level the playing field" with respect to outcome. They perceive that as "social justice." "Change the system" and "the system is rigged," tend to be the rallying cries.

lib·er·al
   [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Now, the Klan was/is all about control. The control of the lives of blacks, Jews, native Americans, Catholics etc. If they couldn't control/subvert them, then they advocated killing them. Often, they just skipped the control part out of hate and ignorance.

At no time, has anyone from the true conservative movement EVER advocated control. Government control is the antithesis of Constitutional conservatism.

And yes, there are social issues that intrude on politics. But far too often, people on the opposite side of the political aisle pigeon-hole us and start with the name calling and comparisons to the KKK, John Birchers, Sex nazis etc.
It just isn't so! It's crazy. Ann Coulter was just pointing out that, democrats were the first American racists, homophobes and anti-semites. I'm sure this is a fact they would most likely choose to forget, and that facts show that there isn't room in the conservative agenda for that level of control.

Conservatives believe in the power of a society that is free from a government that insists on picking winners and losers. There are no guarantees of outcome in life and there shouldn't be.
Least of all, guarantees made by a government that can't give to one, without taking from another! I ask you, just where is the merit in that scenario? Where is the motivation to improve? To excel? To succeed on one's own.

It was the ideals of the founders, and the doctrine that they laid down that allowed this country to lead the world in medical, technological, industrial, educational and societal excellence.
And we did it with our own resources/minds/sweat/skills.
But we didn't do it at anyone elses expense, just because we didn't "share."
We didn't do it out of spite, and we didn't do it out of a desire for conquest.

We did it for us. As a country, for a country, but as a country of individuals, for ourselves.
Not because our government told us we had to. Not because we were out to take from others.
We were/are a country of individuals pulling together because we wanted to. Sound selfish?
It isn't. During that period, we were also the most generous country in the world. If we weren't giving money and technology and time to the world, we were giving the lives of our citizen soldiers to stop the tyranny of the Kaiser. Or Hitler. Or Yamamoto.

The progressive/left movement has co-opted the marxist doctrine of class warfare and envy. That no matter how hard you work, how hard you studied, how much you scrimped and saved, you are only entitled to what the tyrannical government tells you you can have.
Because you have to "share."
Because it isn't "fair" if the outcomes of citizen's lives aren't more "equal."
That in order for "social and economic justice" to prevail, we must provide the fruits of our labors for others to enjoy.
Because they are less fortunate.
But what/who made them that way? Rich people? Nope. Just because the rich made themselves more fortunate doesn't mean they took away what others made of themselves.

The government did. Because they told them to begin with, waayy back when they were kids, that because they were black/hispanic/jewish/female/short/fat etc. that they needed the government's help.
That they couldn't do it on their own. That the government needed to "control the outcome" for them to succeed, and attain "justice" socially/economically.


And that my friend is how altruism gets subverted into control.
And that control is far closer to what the KKK and the progressive movement preaches, and does, than what the conservative movement advocates, or ever has.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Now, the Klan was/is all about control. The control of the lives of blacks, Jews, native Americans, Catholics etc. If they couldn't control/subvert them, then they advocated killing them. Often, they just skipped the control part out of hate and ignorance.

You too need serious history lesson that was not taught in the mainslime press