Would you be offended ...

[Wakie]

If a German Prime Minister went to a former concentration camp and gave a speech praising social darwinism?

[Wakie]

If a German Prime Minister went to a former concentration camp and gave a speech praising social darwinism?

Did I miss something? What prompted this question?

I was just thinking about Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi (a town known only for the infamous murder of 3 civil rights workers) and giving a speech on "states rights".  Heck, old Ronny should have just said "Klansmen vote for me".

[Wakie]

If a German Prime Minister went to a former concentration camp and gave a speech praising social darwinism?

Did I miss something? What prompted this question?

I was just thinking about Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi (a town known only for the infamous murder of 3 civil rights workers) and giving a speech on "states rights".  Heck, old Ronny should have just said "Klansmen vote for me".

Hey, could you possibly stop telling lies Wakie?

Reagan actually kicked off his campaign at the Neshoba (sp?) County fair, where all the big politicos in Mississippi gather. Since he was running against Southerner Jimmy Carter, Reagan's campaign wanted to try and make inroads in the South, and this major event was well timed for an appearance.

So, yeah, he was in Philadelphia, MS. But it had nothing to do with getting the Klan vote, since that a) doesn't matter and b) would probably go to Carter anyway. Unless Reagan thought the election would come down to 100 votes in Mississippi, which, while at least theoretically possible, makes Wakie pretty stupid nonetheless for believing.

Goldwater, nice try to distort the facts.  But here they are, plain and simple.  He went to Philadelphia, MS while campaigning and chose to talk about (of all things) "state's rights".  It is no secret that talking up "state's rights" are (and were even more so in the 80s) a nice way to pander to racist elements of society.

He could have talked about foreign policy, the economy, the energy crisis, firearms, education, or any other number of things.  But instead he decided to send a clear message to bigots that they had a friend in Ronald Reagan.

[Wakie]

Look Wakie, you were caught in a lie, get over it.

Unless you want to produce text of the speech.

Nice dodge of the reason he was there, by the way.

Where did I lie?  I said Reagan made a speech in Philadelphia, MS whose subject matter was "state's rights".  Are you denying that?

Philadelphia, MS is primarily known for the murder of 3 civil rights workers in the '60s.  Are you denying that?

"State's Rights" was often used as a nice way of talking about support of segregation.  Are you denying that?

As I said, I don't care WHY he was there .... he certainly had a right to campaign anywhere he wanted.  But the choice of topic for the speech was, at best, in extremely poor taste.  He could have discussed the economy, foreign policy, or any other number of topics.  But we see what he chose.

So ... tell me wherein I am lying ... otherwise we will have to brand you as being blatantly dishonest.

[Wakie]

The only problem with the web is that not every piece of information in the world is on it.  So we can't find text of Reagan's Philadelphia, MS speech.  All we have to go on is 20 years of reports that it was about "state's rights".

Philadelphia, MS is a reasonable political campaign stop (even if the area is known only for casinos and killing civil rights workers).  But using the language of segregation there on the campaign trail is, at best, in poor taste.

You're right that Reagan struggled to win MS.  He was from CA while Carter was from GA.  But the Reagan admin's undoing of much of the Civil Rights Acts certainly helped to lock up MS for the GOP for the next 20 years, didn't it?

[Wakie]

See the problem with arguing with an idealogue (such as Goldwater) is that they do 3 things.

1) They claim that any report which goes against their cause is invalid and was "created by professional liars".  Since, as I pointed out, the web doesn't have EVERY piece of information ever readily available, this makes an online debate with them pointless as original sources cannot always be produced.

2) They attempt to twist your argument to suit their own needs.  I have stated repeatedly that Philadelphia, MS is ok as a campaign stop.  But anyone who has a brain knows Presidential candidates must be conscious of the history of the places they visit.  But he continues to try to twist my point.

3) They resort to insults.  Instead of just building a case and trying to stand on it they have to resort to personal attacks.  Its childish really.

BTW ... if we really want to consider Ronald Reagan's view on Civil Rights lets look at his record.

*Reagan sided with Bob Jones University in a lawsuit to obtain federal tax exemptions that had been denied by the IRS. The IRS denied tax exemptions to segregated private schools. Many of them were schools such as Bob Jones University, which enrolled a handful of minority students but prohibited interracial dating and marriage. It was the basis of this discrimination that the IRS denied the tax exemption.

*He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.”

*He sat quietly by and supported Apartheid in South Africa.

[Wakie]

*He sat quietly by and supported Apartheid in South Africa.

As any sane person would've done considering the sh**thole South Africa is today

South Africa was always a sh**thole.

[Wakie]

- the South was Reagan's weakest region.

Yep, it was tough for Reagan to defeat an ardent Christian Southerner.  But he pulled it out. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, probably true.  And even if it wasn't he certainly had every right to campaign there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Candidates don't plan their own events but they certainly are informed about them.  I also find it hard to believe that Reagan would forget about an event which resulted in the FBI sending an army of agents to Mississippi only 16 years after it happened.  1989 is not some distant memory to me right now, why would 1964 be a distant memory then?