You misunderstand the motivations of people who study history, military history at that, as being it is something that is full of joy like a vacation. It is no vacation from the state of humanity, rather it is a bare bones lesson in how to avoid con artists. It doesn’t matter if the observer likes the lesson or not. He either learns the lesson and reproduces that lesson in life, or he doesn’t.

you don’t much like the civil rights era (and therefore, have studied it very little).

I am quite familiar with Harriet Tubman, the Civil War, the advent of the Republican party, Andrew Johnson’s throwing away of the sacrifices that allowed the Emancipation Proclamation to exist, and the Redemption Democrats that used terrorism and lawfare to prevent blacks from voting Republican.

If you are somehow implying that Robert Byrd and the Democrat’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act under Johnson is somehow “special”, I reject that proposal in any shape or form.

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.[5]-Robert Byrd Early Comments

That’s the kind of people you have in your party and movement for equality, helen. Not had but have

This is not old news. Democrats have known what they harbored within their party for generations. They just don’t care.

History, helen, is something totally different to you than it is to me.

On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving U.S. Congress approval, Byrd stated:

“Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.”[47]

Obedience and threats of recrimination are interesting terms for Byrd to use in the acceleration of Democrat domestic insurgencies against the Iraq war. Since it was Byrd that demanded loyalty to his racist and Democrat creed when he rejected blacks being put into positions of real power.

In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP)[44] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP’s position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd[45] proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that “With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.”

It’s convenient for the Democrat party to see people like Reverend Wright and Byrd as useful allies, regardless of their personal ideologies. They may even claim that such people should be forgiven, like Democrats forgave Senator Trentt Lott.

Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, the only two African Americans to have been nominated to the court. Marshall’s confirmation vote came in 1967 when Byrd and other segregationist senators were opposed to the idea of a black integrationist being placed on the court[37] In order to gain evidence against Marshall’s appointment, Byrd asked the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, to look into what Byrd believed to be the possibility that Marshall had either connections to communists or a potential communist past.[38] Byrd opposed Thomas because Byrd stated that he was “offended” by Thomas using the phrase “high-tech lynching of uppity blacks” in his defense. Byrd stated that he was “offended by the injection of racism” into the hearing. He called Justice Thomas’ comments a mere “diversionary tactic”. Byrd commented upon the “racism” issue that Thomas raised by stating that “I (Byrd) thought we were past that stage.” Byrd called Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” reference an attempt by Thomas of “blatant intimidation” of members of the committee. Byrd dismissed Thomas’ racism charges by stating that Thomas exhibited “arrogance” and Thomas’ comments were, “nonsense, nonsense.” Regarding Anita Hill’s sexual harrassment charges against Thomas, Byrd believed Hill.[39] Byrd joined 45 other Democrats in their opposition to Thomas.[40] Byrd also opposed some of George W. Bush’s judicial and cabinet nominees who were black, notably Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Niger Innis, a self-described conservative[41] and official with the civil rights organization Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), told NewsMax that Byrd’s hold on Rice’s nomination was “racist” and said that Byrd has “black colleagues in the House and the Senate who apologize for him.”[42] Mychal Massie of Project 21, another prominent conservative African American commentator, has also hinted at an underlying racism as a possible motive for Byrd’s opposition to the confirmation of these nominees.[43]

In reality, however, the views of Byrd are perfectly in line with mainstream Democrat views on perpetuating institutional racism. There is nothing to forgive, even if his fellow travelers were capable of it.

Byrd is a nice example of how blacks are kept down by the white man. A 100% approval rating by the NAACP is quite rare. Certainly when Byrd couldn’t stop integration in the military and the rest of America, he went into stealth mode and became allies of organizations and institutions designed to keep black people bottled up and enslaved in this country. The NAACP is just one of many such organizations Byrd saw promise in helping.

Every time you mention the total war theory, you use history.

I doubt you know much history involving the background of any total war, helen. You are not really in a position to tell me I am only using parts of history I like. That is a just a baseless claim. You don’t know whether it is true or not because you either don’t want to argue the details of history or you don’t have the facts available to dispute me.

The Leftist irrational tendency to bring back the heroic dead and have them mouth off support for the current administration is a bit too much.

I suppose creating new heroes is too hard. Digging up the dead is easier since they can be made to say whatever you want them to say, even if their writings and actions in life were inconsistent with the new party platform.

The real purpose of polls is to manipulate people with a weak propaganda defense system. And it does that quite well by skewing the results towards the intended goal.

Racism, poverty and violence (war).

The only reason King would support Democrats, obama, and Rev Wright would be to get up close to them and smack them upside the head with a two by four. The last there are some of primary sources for racism, eternal proverty, and renewed violence.

The difference between King and Malcom X was that they were really oppressed. If you aren’t oppressed, then you can’t really be backed in your liberation attempts from conditions you yourself created. King can’t help you throw off the shackles of what you yourself created. He can only help people that are really in trouble and not just in trouble cause they made it happen for themselves.

Having graduated from Harvard law, he headed off to South Chicago to work for the betterment of the blacks who lived there. It was a continuation of his journey of self-discovery — of finding out what it means to be a black man in American in a brand new Century. He arrived still the optimist, striving to lead his people to the promised land.

But it seems that instead of transforming the blacks’ worldview, the black community in South Chicago, and especially Trinity UCC, transformed him. And he became the stereo-typical angry black man. His mother and MLK must be spinning in their graves.

81% dissaatisfaction rate? The actual statistic is that 81% think the U.S. is on “the wrong track”.
I would claim:
- Any hater of George Bush will claim we’re on the wrong track, because our administration is evil and corrupt.
- Anyone who thinks religious values ought to be paramount in the culture will claim we’re on the wrong track, because we are too secular and people’s terrible behavior reflect this moral void.
- Any opponent of the Iraq War will claim we’re on the wrong track, because we’re involved in an illegal or outrageous war.
- Any social conservative will look at the state of our media, our movies, our TV, our culture, and claim we’re on the wrong track, because our values are out of control in a downward spiral.
- Any fiscal conservative will look at our federal spending and claim we’re on the wrong track, because we are bankrupting our children and in an endless spiral toward fiscal collapse (my own personal dissatisfaction with this country).
and on, and on.

There’s nothing to this question, no common ground, except that they are all dissatisfied with something around them that, in some way, they disagree with. That’s a broad canvas on which to paint a picture!

Our responses to this specific question seem to be to be the response to THIS more detailed question: Compared to a perfect utopia where every person’s beliefs and way of life matches your own, and where everything is done perfectly… do you think the USA is on the right track?

I would bet that if the question were rephrased… so that the respondent would consider whether or not, compared to the general condition of humanity, the USA were on the right track or not, you’d see a significant difference in the result.

Further, there is an entrenched philosophy that avers, “As long as there is one person who is the victim of injustice, as long as there is one person who is suffering, you should not enjoy your own comforts, and you should not feel happy How dare you be comfortable and thoroughly happy, when you know of someone suffering? That is selfish and actually sinful.”

This is a world of 4.5 billion people. Contemplate that! 4.5 billion people. Can you grasp how many distinct individuals that means?

Somewhere, at every second, SOMEONE will always be suffering. Today, somewhere, a child is being abused. Somewhere. A murder has happened. A kidnapping has taken place. A court has handed down an unjust opinion. A society has at least one law that marginalizes or harms some of the people it controls. Etc.

And any time any such thing happens, anywhere, we are all supposed to become deeply unhappy? That guarantees that no matter how much progress is made in the world, we will ALL remain deeply unhappy. That is the very essence of a deeply evil philosophy. It guarantees an absence of hope, an absence of joy; an eternity of misery for ALL.

To the extent that you buy into this philosophy, you will never be free to feel personal joy, ecstasy, happiness, without guilt. On the other hand, a philosophy that allows every person possible to experience joy, ecstasy and happiness is clearly better. You shouldn’t be oblivious to the awareness that suffering and injustice exist.

Finally, there is the concept of the utterly spoiled, rich, totally pampered princess whose life collapsed into hysterics when she broke a fingernail. To the extent that you are unable to accept the concept of “I was unhappy because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet”, you will be dissatisfied, and convinced things are on the wrong track.