What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
270 Comments
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -37/+181Are you people that ignorant of your own country's history? I'm not American and even I know that long ago Democrats = conservative and Republicans = liberal. Lincoln was a liberal (for those times).
I think it was in the 1930's when the parties "changed". Then the south started voting republican. Thurmond is just a remnant of the old days.
I love this quote:
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
- Jimmie Smits, playing Matthew Santos on "West Wing" - omglazers, on 10/12/2007, -60/+175Considering the Democrats of the Civil War are the Republicans of today, I cant imagine your point.
A name is a name in name only.
Im pretty sure a liberal hippie godless nutjob like LBJ was the one who passed major civil right bills and it was a god-fearing good american republican like Strom Thurmond who holds the longest filibust ever in attempting to block it.
You get dugg down for being an idiot. - dasilva333, on 10/12/2007, -14/+92grand wizard? what level is he? does he play WoW?
*prepares to get dugg down* - GraceHead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75From a logical standpoint, it does not matter who says "2+2=4", whether the KKK, or Stalin, or Hitler. The statement can (and should) be judged on its merits or lack thereof.
Guilt-by-association is a weak minded refutation and appeals generally to the weak minded, who fall easily to the illogic of this approach.
So, just because Hitler says the sky is blue, doesn't mean that I am "just like him" if I also agree that the sky is blue.
Get over it. - audj, on 10/12/2007, -26/+78Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was once a member of the the racist Christian Ku Klux Klan. Subsequently, he resigned and has apologized ad nauseum ever since for his membership. He has served the people of West Virginia and this country well. This man holds the United States Constitution as dearly as he holds the Bible. That says a lot. When he made a mistake, especially in joining the KKK, he swiftly remedied the situation and has spent the following half century repeatedly voicing his apologies. West Virginia has been the butt of jokes on the American landscape for a hundred years, but the great state gave America one of the greatest Americans in its history - Senator Byrd. (Partially taken from BlogCritics)
One thing you learn from having lived in an incredibly poor state like West Virginia is that where there are poor people there is poor education. Sen. Byrd grew up in an incredibly poor part of the state. The KKK was more of a social club here then a "Let's String Up Some Blacks!" club. There aren't that many African Americans in the state, particularly when he joined in his twenties. The KKK of WV was treated like the Masons, the Skulls, or otherwise - it was a club. Besides, how many mistakes did the rest of you make in your 20s? How many of you are even in your 20s and remember a time before Jim Crow laws or the Detroit Riots, or hell, the LA riots?
I got to work with Sen. Byrd on his biography during an internship. He is a brilliant man who has learned from his mistakes, fought for his constituents, and always kept the best intentions in his heart for the American people. He deserves our respect. - jmcloud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the Klu Klux Klan. Later on in life, he quit the clan. His reason was that the organization was too extremist. He tried to change things, but when he realized everyone was against him, he left. I am not saying that the man was entirely innocent, but he later regretted his mistakes. The current KKK is not democratic or republican. It is a bunch of crazy, hate-filled men that are too ignorant to see the true cause of there ire, so they hate for no reason other than hate.
- iam413x, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36Democrats today are not the same as they were in the mid 1800's.
Hell, democrats today are not the same as they were in the 2000 election. Political parties change, I loved the Rebublican party under Teddy Rosevelt. Too bad some things have to change. - missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Classic ad hominem falacy on two fronts.
1) Just because the speaker did terrible things doesn't automatically disqualify everything that he ever said as false. He probably ate lunch too, but that doesn't mean that everyone who eats lunch is a racist.
2) Just because this Representative quoted him does not mean that he agreed with everything that he said or did.
This is a partisan game of "gotcha" that doesn't shed any light into contemporary politics and really only stirs up strong negative feelings from both sides (see almost every post in this thread...) - ArnoldTPants, on 10/12/2007, -38/+66Republican quotes KKK member
Democrats: OMG! How dare he!
KKK member runs for Senate as Democrat
Democrats: Lets put him into office for 54 years! - LooseCannon1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+39@omglazers
"Im pretty sure a liberal hippie godless nutjob like LBJ was the one who passed major civil right bills and it was a god-fearing good american republican like Strom Thurmond who holds the longest filibust ever in attempting to block it."
Strom Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT when he made that filibuster! And LBJ himself thanked the Republicans for supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he acknowledged wouldn't have passed without their help! In fact, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the act then Democrats.
See, this is exactly what I mean when I say some of the Digg members are complete idiots and our education system is rotting the brains of our youth! - Sophren, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Actually, sonofdy1 is *partly* correct.
Strom Thurmond did indeed filibuster the Civil Rights Act, but for reasons not immediately obvious. He felt that it was too much too soon; that it would create too much social conflict. He was for the equal rights of blacks, but believed it would be better to smoothly transition over a period of time.
Somehow he became a poster child for racism in the political South, even though he was the among the first southern politicians to accept integration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#Moderation_of_views_on_race
(Ironically he never publicly renounced segregation). - sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22The third reich was a country, the nazi party started as a drinking club.
- afeitarse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Well, while you're technically correct, your assertion is based on the same misrepresentation of facts used by present-day republicans to claim Lincoln as their own. While it's true that more republicans than democrats voted in the Civil Rights Act of the 1964, it was that very Act that led southern democrats to run to the republican party in the first place. Notice below the split between north and south on the house vote below:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
"The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both political parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964#Passage_in_Congress)
So, if anything, the vote on the Act was a split between north and south, leading to southern democrats who voted against the Act to later flee to the Republican party, where they remain today. So before you go calling Diggers idiots, do some research. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Shock and Aw... you are actually trying to make everyone on Digg believe that this is a Klan guy when in fact you are totally missing the point that he is quoting a Military GENERAL (and not a Klan member) on how to handle the enemy in a fight. Nothing raciest about this but I do have a lot of disdain for websites that do their best to trick the reader like the very website you linked this posting.
- redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25STOP.
just because someone was a confederate does not mean they were ignorant. they were fighting, first and foremost, for states rights. they wanted the US to act more like the modern EU.
just because someone uses a different DIALECT than you doesn't make them STUPID either! that idea teeters on the edge of racism.
people just look for excuses to start ***** with politicians. what he said was fine, a worthy quote, and believe it or not THE MAN WAS A RESPECTED AMERICAN GENERAL. people in the confederacy were AMERICAN.
having an opinion is swell, as long as it's at least a little educated. - oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."
~ Adolf Hitler - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16yeah and some people on this website think Che was a ***** freedom fighter.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14let it go
- Devil45, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Nathan Bedford Forrest's KKK was in no way like the KKK we all know and hate.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Our government seems to have dissolved into a cat fight between republicans and democrats...
- sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Lee, another confederate general, was possiably the best general in that war. There is no reason not to learn from the best in thier feild no matter what side they are on. Such as Rommel. Forrest made a good point about logistics on the battle field. It was a good quote are far as I am concerned. Will we know ignore Rommels or Lees tactics because they were on the wrong sides? Please.
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I can't say I read your link. Mostly because it doesn't matter. The Klan of today is a bunch of dangerous racist ***** and that's all that really matters.
- altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Holly crap dude where do you people come up with this garbage. The KKK was a militant and racist organization from day one, only back then they were more vocal about killing white people who helped black people. Get a grip.
- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Exactly, even PETA's founder hates to associate with PETA now because the thing got taken over by extreme nutjobs. It was a decent orignal idea that just took a bad turn.
The original idea, while highly flawed, had nothing about violence to other groups, just "We are here. You are there. We all don't mix." - cyranthus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13the whole time i was thinking Bedford was the creator of the ORIGINAL KKK.... the original KKK was nowhere near what the present KKK was. Therefore Bedford is directly responsible for creating the KKK, he was in no way responsible for the racist hate that the KKK is now.
- Jerim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@reddevil
Actually, the South continued to vote heavily Democrat up until the late 80's, well after the Democrats had become liberal. Why? Because among the Democrat social programs were many programs for farmers. Democrats, no matter what you think of their social policies, were a very good friend to the farmer. They continue to be I believe. - gharding, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So racists aren't allowed to be quoted, even if the quote has nothing to do with racism? Interesting.
- lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19yay for package-deal fallacy!
- Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14That was the best example describing winning and victory? You're telling me that Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, or even Regan didn't say something a little more eloquent than that?!
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11For reference... The poster... PitViper appears to only look to thinkprogress.org for any new sources.
I have perused 5 pages of his submissions. Not a single submission has come from any source EXCEPT thinkprogress.
For reference... George Soros has donated tens of millions of dollars to the parent of thinkprogress... American Progress.org
Here's the donation page that proves the parent of thinkprogress.org: https://ssl1.americanprogress.org/dia/organizationsCAP/americanprogress/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2072&t=thinkprogress.html
Digg... wake up and realize that you are being used to ACTIVELY ATTACK the government of the united states with twisted facts and half truths in an effort to whip you into a frenzy and not use your head. Great propaganda. - altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Their true cause being? Their cause was to kill or terrorrize anybody involved in the Reconstruction. In otherwords they were the people who wouldn't give up after the South surrendered. Their objective was always to the reinstatement of slavery at any cost. Being an apologist for the KKK really isn't something you should... well be. From the day they were formed their objective was murder. Yes they murdered white people too, but that doesn't make them any better than the bunch of hick ass rednecks they are now, it just shows you what a Southern Gentlman is underneath his fancy coat.
- sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10It is only one aspect of war, he is talking about logistics which any good general will tell you is vital. Stop getting hung up on grammar.
- JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9can we all agree though that the kkk come up with the best ***** names ever? grand dragon wizard...super power...ultimus....lol it sounds like a friggin D&D character! the only way it could've been better is if the congressmen showed up in those fantastic ghost costumes that they've got. hey, congressmen and senators will do anything to get votes...so showing up in a clan robe could get you alot of votes from the "hard core south" of course all the people who want to get away from that steriotype about souterners wouldnt vote for him...the question is though...how many of them are there (of each group)....
- damnclem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13wow....that is the most obviously biased thing I've ever read. The author should just dig up his corpse and suck his *****.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"just because someone uses a different DIALECT than you doesn't make them STUPID either! that idea teeters on the edge of racism."
I wish people would stop throwing around the term racism. Most of the time, people don't even use it correctly.
Please, pick up a ***** dictionary. - MacBigot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8THIS IS SPAM FROM ONE OF THINKPROGRESS.ORG's OWN EDITORS who conveniently fails to mention two things:
1) Nico Pitney (Digg ID: pitviper) is a paid editor for ThinkProgress.org (a liberal advocacy group funded by Geo. Soros) who regularly posts their own stories on Digg (exclusively; pitviper contributes to the Digg community in no other way) to drive traffic to their own site. Personally, I think this is a violation of Digg's TOS.
http://digg.com/politics/ThinkProgress_org_is_pwning_Digg_com_Netscape_com_Reddit_com
2) Sen. Robert Byrd (D), currently serving in the U.S. Senate for West Virginia, IS A FORMER KKK MEMBER HIMSELF. That doesn't seem to have stopped the Democrats from both reelecting him numerous times. Moreover, he is considered one of their great orators and senior statesmen. - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Also you should know that a greater percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights bill. The bill passed BECAUSE of the republicans and in spite of democratic opposition. And his record filibuster was for another bill, when he was still a democrat."
Claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed because of Republicans based on percentage of each party voting for is a bit misleading. The votes on the bill fell down almost perfectly along REGIONAL lines rather than PARTY lines, with southerners of both parties voting overwhelmingly against, and northerners of both voting overwhelmingly for. - saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15What do you expect? Most of them can't even remember Clinton's dealings with Iraq and claiming they had WMDs and al-Quaeda ties in back in ye old 1998, let alone something from over a century ago.
Seriously, Google - "clinton iraq 1998" - sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12It is a sound military doctrine, no matter who said it. If you get the most people and stuff to the objective first, you usually win. Just because the guy was on the wrong side, doesn't make it incorrect.
- krebcycle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Oh, to long for the good old days of the KKK when they took care of widows and fought crime. Lol. From their onset they were lynching blacks. This apologist BS is disgusting.
- Jedismurf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Now, when I was a baby, Momma named me after the great Civil War hero, General Nathan Bedford Forrest... She said we was related to him in some way. And, what he did was, he started up this club called the Ku Klux Klan. They'd all dress up in their robes and their bedsheets and act like a bunch of ghosts or spooks or something. They'd even put bedsheets on their horses and ride around. And anyway, that's how I got my name. Forrest Gump. Momma said that the Forrest part was to remind me that sometimes we all do things that, well, just don't make no sense."
Tom Hanks FTW ;) - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Was the (D) really necessary? The parties flipped ideals about 80 years ago.
- matthewaaron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why Texas? There are other states that are much more fun to make fun of.
- VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@lpmiller
To enhance your point... The issues of the day are not about left vs. right. That's looking at it the wrong way. The issues are truly about those with power vs. those without power. In political terms, that would be the voters vs. the politicians. At some basic levels, both left and right have common goals. We all want good schooling for our children. We all want public safety. We all want clean water, air and decent food for our families. We all need decent incomes with which we can easily support our families. The main difficulties between the political persuasions are the approaches to achieving these goals. And while those might not be the easiest thing to sort out, it is a certainty that the people with power don't want people without power to sort these things out at all.
The right winger might want good education for their kids by having public schools greatly reduced or abolished entirely and replaced with less taxes so they have extra money to use to send their kids to better schools. The left winger might want more money and support additional taxing as well as bonuses to encourage more young people to become teachers so as to improve public schooling. While these approaches are different, the end goal is not. Couldn't the voters work together to reach an agreed upon course and then tell the politicians what they want and how to achieve it, instead of the politicians just taking a side and keeping things divided to ensure their own careers? Who does it benefit to keep the arguments alive? Only the ones who want things destabilized so as to continue their stranglehold grip on power.
So stop looking at things as left vs. right. Look at it as voters vs. all politicians in the context of the goals of the voter. Because typically, a voter is someone who doesn't have much power. - MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"...if firefighters fight fire, then what do freedom fighters fight?" - George Carlin
- MatthewTheRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest (apologies for comment abuse)
This is actually very interesting reading. I made the same assumption about this guy until prompted by some of the comments here to look up more information. If accurate, I would say that perhaps Forrest ended his life as an advocate for civil rights, at least voting rights...
From wikipedia:
"On July 5, 1875, Forrest became the first white man to speak to Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a civil rights group whose members were former slaves and a precursor to the NAACP. Although his speech was short, he expressed the opinion that blacks had the right to vote for any candidates they wanted and that the role of blacks should be elevated. He ended the speech by kissing the cheek of one of the daughters of one of the Pole-Bearer members." - twoof53, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@redlemon
If state's rights means slavery in Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia or even California, then this Wisconsin farm boy wants you to know that I will see the south razed and re-peopled first. Don't think that the northern footsoldiers from Illinois, the Wisconsin territories and what would become Minnesota were fighting to keep the Union together pal. OUR forefathers were LUTHERAN zealots fighting because God told them it was wrong to hold another man in bondage, except for the thousands of Confederated POWs we kept at Camp Randall in Madison. The capital of Wisconsin. We no longer need God to tell us that by the way, now we have been educated, we had lots of time to think on it, and we STILL think you guys were in the wrong.
These guys actually had the audacity to ask for a confederate battle flag back from a Wisconsin guard unit a few years back, your lucky I wasn't in charge, you would have received some used toilet paper on a stick. Thousands of U.S. men died getting that flag.
It irks me that these "Sons of the Confederacy" can slither out from under whatever rocks they've been hiding under for the past 150 years, and start acting like their cause was as just as ours. It wasn't, you lost, get over it. Trust me, settle for a nice tall glass of STFU, because if you want to play it the other way the "Sons of the Union" can bottle up Whoop Ass by the gallon and send it south for you.
Don't cast State's Rights in Civil War terms, it just raises emotions and pisses people off. I am a conservative, I believe in State's Rights. That said, no one cares what your dumb ***** ancestors thought State's Rights was about, and it only makes my argument harder to have you idiots on my side. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13You people have your history of the south so ass backwards it's funny. The present Governor of the state of Georgia is the first Republican since after the civil war. You heard me right. Georgia was so pissed about the civil war, and the burning of its cities by Sherman, that they did not elect a republican as governor until the past 4 years. The parties did not swap sides. And comparing conservatives to liberals from the civil war era is ridiculous. Apples and oranges.
- VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@twoof53
I applaud you sir! I'm a liberal and I have to say I really wish there were more conservatives like you because I think the discussion of various issues (politically throughout the U.S.) would have a different and more reasonable tone. Both sides are just way over the top these days and you're almost forced into the position otherwise no one listens. I know as I go over the top many times just to get myself heard and it bothers me to no end. But you cut through the crap, pointed out that you support state's rights (which I only have limited support for), and stressed that you want it disassociated from the Sons of the Confederacy crap. Much admiration for your comment. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@drekor
Maybe because Mr. Soros is able to actively manipulate the economy of a country by trading in foreign currency? He made $1B by actively attacking the UK financial situation.
In the UK, it's known as black wednesday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday -
Show 51 - 100 of 270 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is