Anti-Semitism (3 Viewers)

[Dedfin]

Thank you for your usual uncalled for personal cheap shot and completd mischaracterization of the discussion.  You are a real piece of work.  The point was made in response to a ridiculous point by skoo suggesting Democrats have never been the party of racism, seemingly oblivious to the civil war and the fight for civil rights in the 60's.  

You should be embarrassed. You aren't embarrassed?

 

[FBG Moderator]

Please drop the personal shots back and forth. 

If you want to talk about how the Civil Rights Bill was passed, use facts. https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south   And yes, Democrats opposed it. 

I'm not sure who opposed it back then has a lot relevance for today. But don't insult each other. 

 

[Dedfin]

Sorry

That's to the mod team for making them put up with me and to jonmx. Sorry jonmx.

 

[D Baseball]

At least the notion of calling out globalism as being anti-Semitic has been put to rest. 

 

[jon_mx]

Sorry

That's to the mod team for making them put up with me and to jonmx. Sorry jonmx.

Thank you for acknowledging and we can move forward. 

 

[sho nuff]

Great point. I never knew that. Another liberal falsehood put to rest 

Jon is the one who first made the claim that he was a social conservative.  He just admitted to his own falsehood...and he isn’t a liberal.

 

[Insomniac]

Please drop the personal shots back and forth. 

If you want to talk about how the Civil Rights Bill was passed, use facts. https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south   And yes, Democrats opposed it. 

I'm not sure who opposed it back then has a lot relevance for today. But don't insult each other. 

Everyone talking about this knows the facts. The denial of current day conservatives that virtually all opposition to the Civil Rights movement was from the conservatives of the time is  dishonest.

 

[[scooter]]

Please drop the personal shots back and forth. 

If you want to talk about how the Civil Rights Bill was passed, use facts. https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south   And yes, Democrats opposed it. 

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for the FBG Moderator account to be making posts of a political nature, especially when those posts are misleading.

It is technically correct that there were 117 Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But there were also 199 Democrats who supported the act.

That's right -- the vast majority of Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Here is the vote breakdown:

The House:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87   (8–92%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  
• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
  

The Senate:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
  
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)
  

Northern Democrats: 95% yes

Southern Republicans: 0% yes

Total Democrats in favor: 199

Total Republicans in favor: 165

The fact is, the Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat (John F. Kennedy), then introduced by another Democrat (Emanuel Celler,), then pushed to a vote by another Democrat (Mike Mansfield), then signed into law by another Democrat (Lyndon Johnson). This bill is the symbolic touchstone of today's Democratic party.

It's true that most southern Democrats opposed the bill, and it's true that southern Democrats attempted to filibuster it. But they were defeated because of the determination of other Democrats. And this single act of intra-party rebuff is the primary reason why much of the South began to turn red in 1968 and is solidly red today. Democrats disavowed their own.

Why would any Republican want to bring this up in 2018? Not only does it make the Republican party of 1964 look bad (ZERO PERCENT of southern Republicans voted for the bill. How shameful!), but it also makes Republicans of 2018 look bad. Because today's Republican party (in the south) is a direct descendant of the racist Democrats and Republicans from 1964. Republicans should be ashamed of this legacy.

 

[jerseydevil20]

Everyone talking about this knows the facts. The denial of current day conservatives that virtually all opposition to the Civil Rights movement was from the conservatives of the time is  dishonest.

Facts don’t support that.  Nothing against you personally.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

 

[timschochet]

Great point. I never knew that. Another liberal falsehood put to rest 

Lol it’s a terrible point. Margaret Sanger was absolutely hated by social conservatives, regarded as evil. No social conservative would have accepted an award from Planned Parenthood ever. 

MLK did have some social conservative views; he was after all a Protestant minister from the Deep South, ordained in the early 50s. But my point, which jon pretender to ignore, is that the vast majority of white social conservatives in 1966 (those who in our day would call themselves the “Christian Right”) strongly opposed the Civil Rights act, and not just in the South, but all over the country. 

 

[timschochet]

At least the notion of calling out globalism as being anti-Semitic has been put to rest. 

It has not. To paraphrase Andrew Gillum: not everyone who attacks globalism is an anti-Semite. But all anti-Semites attack globalism. 

 

[Insomniac]

Facts don’t support that.  Nothing against you personally.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

Your link doesn't show opposition to the CRA from any people considered liberals at the time.

In the Senate the only Democrat from a state other than the Confederate states that voted against the CRA was Robert Byrd. I don't think he'd be considered a liberal at that point in time, especially on racial issues. Even if you did consider him a liberal that would be just 1 vote, thus virtually all the opponents in the Senate were conservatives.    

Prominent conservatives like  William F Buckley were strongly opposed to the civil rights movement.  Why the South Must Prevail

 

[D Baseball]

It has not. To paraphrase Andrew Gillum: not everyone who attacks globalism is an anti-Semite. But all anti-Semites attack globalism. 

And I assume the leftists get to decide who's an anti-Semite? Convenient, as usual. You can't lose like that. 

 

[jerseydevil20]

Your link doesn't show opposition to the CRA from any people considered liberals at the time.

In the Senate the only Democrat from a state other than the Confederate states that voted against the CRA was Robert Byrd. I don't think he'd be considered a liberal at that point in time, especially on racial issues. Even if you did consider him a liberal that would be just 1 vote, thus virtually all the opponents in the Senate were conservatives.    

Prominent conservatives like  William F Buckley were strongly opposed to the civil rights movement.  Why the South Must Prevail

So the Democratic opposition was conservative?  No sarcasm. 

 

[General Malaise]

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for the FBG Moderator account to be making posts of a political nature, especially when those posts are misleading.

It is technically correct that there were 117 Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But there were also 199 Democrats who supported the act.

That's right -- the vast majority of Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Here is the vote breakdown:

The House:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87   (8–92%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  
• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
  

The Senate:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
  
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)
  

Northern Democrats: 95% yes

Southern Republicans: 0% yes

Total Democrats in favor: 199

Total Republicans in favor: 165

The fact is, the Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat (John F. Kennedy), then introduced by another Democrat (Emanuel Celler,), then pushed to a vote by another Democrat (Mike Mansfield), then signed into law by another Democrat (Lyndon Johnson). This bill is the symbolic touchstone of today's Democratic party.

It's true that most southern Democrats opposed the bill, and it's true that southern Democrats attempted to filibuster it. But they were defeated because of the determination of other Democrats. And this single act of intra-party rebuff is the primary reason why much of the South began to turn red in 1968 and is solidly red today. Democrats disavowed their own.

Why would any Republican want to bring this up in 2018? Not only does it make the Republican party of 1964 look bad (ZERO PERCENT of southern Republicans voted for the bill. How shameful!), but it also makes Republicans of 2018 look bad. Because today's Republican party (in the south) is a direct descendant of the racist Democrats and Republicans from 1964. Republicans should be ashamed of this legacy.

As a history major from a college located in the deep south, this is one the best posts I've read on this website regarding this topic.  Incredibly well stated, succinct and I completely agree with the thought that the FBG Moderator was out of line here. 

 

[timschochet]

So the Democratic opposition was conservative?  No sarcasm. 

Yes and no. This is a complicated issue: 

Some of the opposition, from both Democrats and Republicans, was simply racist: they believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the rights of white people. In fairness to those who believed this, especially from the south, they had been raised to think this way and never knew anything else. 

But some of the opposition was based on a principled belief in federalism- that the federal government should not impose its will on the states- this would reflect the views of Barry Goldwater, who was by no stretch a racist. 

And some of the opposition was simply conservative- not based on racism, or a belief in federalism per se, but based on a larger feeling that the government in general should not try to force through social change. That has been an element of conservative thinking forever, but it conflicts at times with another element of conservative thinking: that individual rights must be protected. How can individual rights be protected in a society in which they’re not, if the government is not allowed to force change? This is an essential contradiction in conservatism which makes it seem contradictory at times and even schizophrenic. 

 

[Insomniac]

So the Democratic opposition was conservative?  No sarcasm. 

Yes. The Southern Democrats from the end of Recontruction until the Civil Rights movement were  socially conservative. It's only in recent years that the 2 parties became consistent with themselves in terms of ideology. There used to be Rockefeller Republicans who were pro big business and for the time socially liberal.  For the Democrats there was the Hubert Humphrey type of liberal Democrats and the southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, who quit the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and became a Republican.

  There really aren't any liberal Republicans anymore, there are still a few conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin but IMO they'll be extinct within 20 years too.

 

[jerseydevil20]

Yes and no. This is a complicated issue: 

Some of the opposition, from both Democrats and Republicans, was simply racist: they believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the rights of white people. In fairness to those who believed this, especially from the south, they had been raised to think this way and never knew anything else. 

But some of the opposition was based on a principled belief in federalism- that the federal government should not impose its will on the states- this would reflect the views of Barry Goldwater, who was by no stretch a racist. 

And some of the opposition was simply conservative- not based on racism, or a belief in federalism per se, but based on a larger feeling that the government in general should not try to force through social change. That has been an element of conservative thinking forever, but it conflicts at times with another element of conservative thinking: that individual rights must be protected. How can individual rights be protected in a society in which they’re not, if the government is not allowed to force change? This is an essential contradiction in conservatism which makes it seem contradictory at times and even schizophrenic. 

Thanks Tim.  It seems like racism was the motivator for southern dems (and the few republicans that opposed).  I don’t see a logical connection between democratic racism and conservatives though. By extension would that mean that the 80% of republicans that supported the act were not conservatives?  I wasn’t alive then but that doesn’t seem possible. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Yes and no. This is a complicated issue: 

Some of the opposition, from both Democrats and Republicans, was simply racist: they believed that blacks were inferior and did not deserve the rights of white people. In fairness to those who believed this, especially from the south, they had been raised to think this way and never knew anything else. 

But some of the opposition was based on a principled belief in federalism- that the federal government should not impose its will on the states- this would reflect the views of Barry Goldwater, who was by no stretch a racist. 

And some of the opposition was simply conservative- not based on racism, or a belief in federalism per se, but based on a larger feeling that the government in general should not try to force through social change. That has been an element of conservative thinking forever, but it conflicts at times with another element of conservative thinking: that individual rights must be protected. How can individual rights be protected in a society in which they’re not, if the government is not allowed to force change? This is an essential contradiction in conservatism which makes it seem contradictory at times and even schizophrenic. 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I'm a schizophrenic 

And so am I 

 

[timschochet]

Thanks Tim.  It seems like racism was the motivator for southern dems (and the few republicans that opposed).  I don’t see a logical connection between democratic racism and conservatives though. By extension would that mean that the 80% of republicans that supported the act were not conservatives?  I wasn’t alive then but that doesn’t seem possible. 

No, not necessarily. In many cases it meant that as conservatives they valued individual rights over their fear of excessive state authority. They saw that the 14th Amendment was being violated and chose to try to fix that. This would not be inconsistent with conservative thinking. 

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks Tim.  It seems like racism was the motivator for southern dems (and the few republicans that opposed).  I don’t see a logical connection between democratic racism and conservatives though. By extension would that mean that the 80% of republicans that supported the act were not conservatives?  I wasn’t alive then but that doesn’t seem possible. 

Sure, you can take conservatism pretty much out of the equation. Dems were the traditional home of the southern racists who have since switched parties in large part because of their dismay with the Dems' commitment to civil rights.

 

[[scooter]]

Thanks Tim.  It seems like racism was the motivator for southern dems (and the few republicans that opposed).  I don’t see a logical connection between democratic racism and conservatives though. By extension would that mean that the 80% of republicans that supported the act were not conservatives?  I wasn’t alive then but that doesn’t seem possible. 

One of the broad definitions of "conservative" is "opposed to change".

Northern conservatives and southern conservatives were opposed to different types of change.

Northern conservatives (Republicans) were opposed to tax increases and social programs. Southern conservatives (Democrats until 1964) were opposed to black equality.

For many years (until roughly 1964), the Democratic party tolerated and even endorsed racism, so therefore the southern conservatives felt more at home in the Democratic party.

After 1964, many southern conservatives no longer felt at home in the Democratic party, and so they shifted their support to the Republicans.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The attack at Poway was inhumane and anti-American. We have a much bigger problem on our hands.

 

[gianmarco]

US's Biggest Christian Charity funneled $56M to hate groups

 

[jonessed]

US's Biggest Christian Charity funneled $56M to hate groups

It doesn’t seem surprising that conservative religious people would send money to organizations that don’t support gay marriage like the Family Research Council.

Using the Southern Poverty Law Center definition of a hate group is always going to bring some mixed results.

 

[unckeyherb]

It has not. To paraphrase Andrew Gillum: not everyone who attacks globalism is an anti-Semite. But all anti-Semites attack globalism. 

Not all people that drive a car are racists.  But all racists drive cars.  

 

[timschochet]

Not all people that drive a car are racists.  But all racists drive cars.  

Oh I’m sure there are some bike riding racists out there. In any case, the connection I was making is a little bit more solid than that. 

 

[timschochet]

It doesn’t seem surprising that conservative religious people would send money to organizations that don’t support gay marriage like the Family Research Council.

Using the Southern Poverty Law Center definition of a hate group is always going to bring some mixed results.

Not supporting gay marriage is a little different from promoting gay conversion therapy. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Not supporting gay marriage is a little different from promoting gay conversion therapy. 

Wait, they are trying to convert us?  I knew it!  They better back off! I am hetero and I have a nearly unblemished record to prove it!

 

[jonessed]

Not supporting gay marriage is a little different from promoting gay conversion therapy. 

 They aren’t a hate group.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It doesn’t seem surprising that conservative religious people would send money to organizations that don’t support gay marriage like the Family Research Council.

Using the Southern Poverty Law Center definition of a hate group is always going to bring some mixed results.

So is using newsweek.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This doesn’t seem very good:

https://twitter.com/howroute/status/1127273020744245249

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

https://www.ushmm.org/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This doesn’t seem very good:

https://twitter.com/howroute/status/1127273020744245249

The worst part of this is the WW2 vet being shouted over.

 

[RC94]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/polish-nationalists-protest-us-holocaust-claims-62978393

 

[timschochet]

Today President Trump shook hands with one of the world’s leading antisemites, Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary. Trump praised him for his “strong leadership and firm stand on immigration (along with Jews, Orban seems to detest all foreigners, particularly anyone from the Middle East, Africa, or with too dark skin. Trump admires his policies.) 

 

[Trump Tight]

Today President Trump shook hands with one of the world’s leading antisemites, Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary. Trump praised him for his “strong leadership and firm stand on immigration (along with Jews, Orban seems to detest all foreigners, particularly anyone from the Middle East, Africa, or with too dark skin. Trump admires his policies.) 

You chastise NCC for standing up for his values and not suborning his beliefs to the D party line. You abhor moral absolutism in Cav's latest abortion thread. Yet you don't grasp the realpolitik here. I wonder why?

 

[timschochet]

You chastise NCC for standing up for his values and not suborning his beliefs to the D party line. You abhor moral absolutism in Cav's latest abortion thread. Yet you don't grasp the realpolitik here. I wonder why?

1. Welcome new poster who is obviously not an alias but just happened to have (incorrectly) read my posts on a variety of subjects! 

2. Your first sentence is completely incorrect. I disagree with NCC on some issues but I never chastise him for not suborning his beliefs. I would never ask anyone to suborn their beliefs and I would never chatise NCC for anything.

3. Your second sentence is completely wrong. I don’t abhor moral absolutism at all. I abhor demonizing my opponents. 

4. Trump praised this guy and called his ideas great. That’s not any part of realpolitik. Trump meant it. 

 

[knowledge dropper]

Is this the thread where we address the DNC doubling down on antisemitism within their own party or is that a different thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-democratic-leaders-back-muslim-lawmaker-holocaust-comments-235932742.html

 

[sho nuff]

Is this the thread where we address the DNC doubling down on antisemitism within their own party or is that a different thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-democratic-leaders-back-muslim-lawmaker-holocaust-comments-235932742.html

Actual antisemitism...sure.

What was said there though...that isn't antisemitism.

 

[timschochet]

Is this the thread where we address the DNC doubling down on antisemitism within their own party or is that a different thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-democratic-leaders-back-muslim-lawmaker-holocaust-comments-235932742.html

I’m a Jew and a history fan, particularly 20th Century. I have read quite a bit about anti-Semitism in my life. It’s not always easy to define, but to paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. I can offer you examples of anti Jewish bigotry from both the left and the right: blatant examples, along with subtle ones as well. 

Please explain how Ms Tlaib’s comments are in any way anti-Semitic: I challenge you to do so. 

 

[timschochet]

I should add that Tliab’s support of a one-State solution is an awful, extremist, unworkable plan. 

 

[timschochet]

Her history is also revisionist and incorrect; the Jews were not given Israel as some sort of guilty response to the Holocaust; the legal, moral, and practical justifications for Israel were established  prior to World War II. It was also not necessary that Israel be created at the expense of the Palestinians, though that is effectively what happened, due to bumbling, mistakes, some bad action, some bad choices, and the chaos of war. 

But to disagree with any of this is not anti-Semitic. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this the thread where we address the DNC doubling down on antisemitism within their own party or is that a different thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-democratic-leaders-back-muslim-lawmaker-holocaust-comments-235932742.html

On the Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery" last week, Tlaib was asked about her support for a one-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.

Don't Trump and Kushner also support a one state solution, @knowledge dropper?

 

[knowledge dropper]

Don't Trump and Kushner also support a one state solution, @knowledge dropper?

Well they support a different state than the  quoted Democrat US Representative. This  is an anti-semitism thread.   I guess your point is better discussed in the 250 Trump hate threads.  

 

[sho nuff]

Well they support a different state than the  quoted Democrat US Representative. This  is an anti-semitism thread.   I guess your point is better discussed in the 250 Trump hate threads.  

What was anti Semitic about what she said?

 

[knowledge dropper]

What was anti Semitic about what she said?

The holocaust had a “calming” effect on her. I know what she meant   She resented the Jews that came to Israel   

It’s okay.  This is America. I have my right to be offended for you and Tim.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Is this the thread where we address the DNC doubling down on antisemitism within their own party or is that a different thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-democratic-leaders-back-muslim-lawmaker-holocaust-comments-235932742.html

As a Jew, I would like to reiterate what I've said before on this topic:

Conservatives who co-opt anti-Semitism for their own transparent political purposes make me want to retch. Liz Cheney, who almost certainly is smart enough to know better, should be ashamed of herself. Donald Trump, who almost certainly isn't smart enough to know better but has a basic responsibility as President to ask someone who does, should be ashamed of himself. And you should be ashamed of yourself.  This is gross.

Stop using the serious, dangerous, hateful rise in anti-Semitism as a shield for your own Islamophobic trash. If you really cared about anti-Semitism you'd be upset about Trump embracing and praising the openly anti-Semitic Hungarian prime minister at the White House yesterday. But you're not, because you and every other Trump supporter who tolerates "very fine people" and sucking up to Orban and winking and nodding at white nationalists and "globalism" tropes and stereotyping by the President himself doesn't really care about anti-Semitism. It's very obvious. Either act like a real ally or stop pretending you're one so you can take dumb potshots at politicians you dislike. Thanks.

 

[sho nuff]

The holocaust had a “calming” effect on her. I know what she meant   She resented the Jews that came to Israel   

It’s okay.  This is America. I have my right to be offended for you and Tim.  

That’s not at all what she meant or how she said it...

 

[knowledge dropper]

As a Jew, I would like to reiterate what I've said before on this topic:

Conservatives who co-opt anti-Semitism for their own transparent political purposes make me want to retch. Liz Cheney, who almost certainly is smart enough to know better, should be ashamed of herself. Donald Trump, who almost certainly isn't smart enough to know better but has a basic responsibility as President to ask someone who does, should be ashamed of himself. And you should be ashamed of yourself.  This is gross.

Stop using the serious, dangerous, hateful rise in anti-Semitism as a shield for your own Islamophobic trash. If you really cared about anti-Semitism you'd be upset about Trump embracing and praising the openly anti-Semitic Hungarian prime minister at the White House yesterday. But you're not, because you and every other Trump supporter who tolerates "very fine people" and sucking up to Orban and winking and nodding at white nationalists and "globalism" tropes and stereotyping by the President himself doesn't really care about anti-Semitism. It's very obvious. Either act like a real ally or stop pretending you're one so you can take dumb potshots at politicians you dislike. Thanks.

I’m not ashamed.  I am a real ally.  

It would be sad if you won’t stand up to hate spewed by 2 new Representatives because they are on your team.  

This is a shield and “very fine people” proven to be taken out of context isn’t?