Tayo-D:


@Aloy-Emeka,
Absolutely!  Next question!

Ok, next time, remember to mortify all the republicans and democrats who played a part in killing innocent citizens for no just cause starting from D/i/c/k Cheney. If no one is holy here, why waste your time pointing out the sins of only Kennedy?

@Alloy-Emeka,

Ok, next time, remember to mortify all the republicans and democrats who played a part in killing innocent citizens for no just cause starting from D/i/c/k Cheney. If no one is holy here, why waste your time pointing out the sins of only Kennedy?

Breaking News. This topic is about Kennedy. You want to talk about Cheney? Start another thread. In the mean time, you still did not say whether Kennedy deserves to be held accountable for his role in the wanton killing of innocent babies.

bawomolo:

why should Ted take responsibility for her death?

Bawo I don't want to keep harping on it for the sake of those who adore him on this thread but here's a short summary from wiki:

On the night of July 18, 1969, Kennedy was on Martha's Vineyard's Chappaquiddick Island at a party for the "Boiler Room Girls", a group of young women who had worked on his brother Robert's presidential campaign the year before.[48] Kennedy left the party, driving a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 with one of the women, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne and later accidently drove off Dike Bridge into the Poucha Pond inlet, a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle, swam to safety and left the scene. He did not call authorities until after Kopechne's body was discovered the following day.[48]

On July 25, Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was given a sentence of two months in jail, suspended.[48] That night, he gave a national broadcast in which he said, "I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately", but denied driving under the influence of alcohol and denied any immoral conduct between him and Kopechne.[48] Kennedy asked the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office and, after getting a favorable response, he did so.[48]

In January 1970, an inquest into Kopechne's death took place in Edgartown, Massachusetts.[48] At the request of Kennedy's lawyers, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the inquest be conducted in secret. The presiding judge, James A. Boyle, concluded that some aspects of Kennedy's story of that night were not true, and that "negligent driving appears to have contributed to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne." A grand jury on Martha's Vineyard staged a two-day investigation in April 1970 but issued no indictment, after which Boyle made his inquest report public.[48] Kennedy deemed its conclusions "not justified."[48] Doubts about the Chappaquiddick incident generated a large number of articles and books over the next several years.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident


  Was it an accident? of course. But his actions following the incident to me are shocking, reprehensible and deserving of punishment. All this drama and hoopla - if his last name wasn't 'Kennedy' he wouldn't be getting the royalty treatment he has gotten all his life.

JeSoul:

As for this:   I'm not sure whether to laugh or take offense.

Whether the former or latter, I am sure that you will be glad to know that the arrangement of your chromosomes gives you licence to go rogue on political issues as long as you can compensate in other departments. 

Tayo-D:

@Ibime,
Who let you out of the asylum and forgot to give you your meds? Or are you still waiting in line for the NHS to determine if you are worthy of the $5 meds it takes to give you some lucid moments of sanity?

Since your inate buffoonery cannot be dampened by palliative measures, I recommend that you submit yourself to the nearest eugenics centre where we can ensure that your idiocy is discontinued from source. It is a shame that such technology did not exist in the time of your forebears and as such, we have had to suffer the consequences of their dalliances. I hope for humanity sake that the kids take after their mother, lest the genetic defect that defines your ilk continues to propagate foolishness into the next generation. 

@Ibime,

Since your inate buffonery can only be dampened by palliative measures, I recommend that you submit yourself to the nearest eugenics centre where we can ensure that your idiocy is discontinued from source. It is a shame that such technology did not exist in the time of your forebears and as such, we have had to suffer the consequences of their dalliances. I hope for humanity sake that the kids take after their mother, lest the genetic defect that defines your ilk continues to propagate foolishness into the next generation.

I take solace in the fact that the same govt you rely upon for your daily living have done the responsible thing by given you up as a Guinea Pig on the altar of Eugenics.  So while the negative eugenics will ensure that the earth is rid of you and your foolishness eventually, it is a crime that they let you loose from the lab to continue to propagate your foolishness on the www.  I have an advise for you.  Get rid of yourself like your mentor Adolf Hitler. You will not be missed one bit  .

Ibime:

Whether the former or latter, I am sure that you will be glad to know that the arrangement of your chromosomes gives you licence to go rogue on political issues as long as you can compensate in other departments.

lol, you're not serious . . .anyways you may already be aware it is a license I indeed utilise on numerous occasions

@Tayo & Ibime,
You're both very learned, intelligent men - who happen to view world issues from different ends of the spectrum - and by God I hope you both see that there is nothing wrong in that! We all differ and our atimes very drastically different experiences are what shape our viewpoints. I think some apparently very cherished opinions stated on this thread are absolutely absurd - and the favor is very much reciprocated by the opposing party. And you know what - I'm okay with that and don't necessarily think the 'absurd'-viewpoint-holder is himself absurd - just that we've both had different experiences leading us to different conclusions about a singular matter.

Tayo-D:

@Alloy-Emeka,
Breaking News.  This topic is about Kennedy. You want to talk about Cheney? Start another thread. In the mean time, you still did not say whether Kennedy deserves to be held accountable for his role in the wanton killing of innocent babies.

I am not his God so, it's not in my place to hold him tenable. He who has no sin, let him cast the first stone.

Aloy~Emeka:

I am not his God so, it's not in my place to hold him tenable. He who has no sin, let him cast the first stone.

How come you don't say that when it comes to George Bush? 

@Aloy-Emeka,

I am not his God so, it's not in my place to hold him tenable. He who has no sin, let him cast the first stone.

Very convenient.  And yet you asked that I call for the head of Dick Cheney and co!  Are you their God?

@JeSoul,

You're both very learned, intelligent men - who happen to view world issues from different ends of the spectrum - and by God I hope you both see that there is nothing wrong in that! We all differ and our atimes very drastically different experiences are what shape our viewpoints. I think some apparently very cherished opinions stated on this thread are absolutely absurd - and the favor is very much reciprocated by the opposing party. And you know what - I'm okay with that and don't necessarily think the 'absurd'-viewpoint-holder is himself absurd - just that we've both had different experiences leading us to different conclusions about a singular matter.

I really have no problem with Ibime. I usually ignore him when he comes here with his childish outbursts. I just decided today to reciprocate in kind, but all in good fate.

Unlike one or two other people I can identify on nairaland, I don't think he is really mean-spirited. He is just trying to have some fun - albeit childishly. He wanted some attention and he's got it. Like every child, he will soon go away to play with his toys and forget any animosity he seems to have now. He is a spoilt childish liberal with a warped view of life, just like every liberal out there.

Tayo-D:

@Aloy-Emeka,
Very convenient.  And yet you asked that I call for the head of privates Cheney and co!  Are you their God?

JeSoul:

How come you don't say that when it comes to George Bush? 

maybe because he has a catapult that he can use,

Tayo-D:

@Aloy-Emeka,
Very convenient.  And yet you asked that I call for the head of privates Cheney and co!  Are you their God?

I did not bring up this issue, remember?. You were the person who asked if God will give Kennedy a proper penance for his sins while others were busy writing their eulogies. I just answered your question with a question and you are turning it back to me. Refer to page 1 and confirm.
Also, you've already judged Bush and Cheney by agreeing that they are evil and God will extend His punishment unto them, I didn't agree to it. Once again, how will God hold you responsible for your own sins and do you think you are holier than these men you cajole and criticize?

@Aloy-Emeka,

I did not bring up this issue, remember?. You were the person who asked if God will give Kennedy a proper penance for his sins while others were busy writing their eulogies. I just answered your question with a question and you are turning it back to me. Refer to page 1 and confirm.
Also, you've already judged Bush and Cheney by agreeing that they are evil and God will extend His punishment unto them, I didn't agree to it. Once again, how will God hold you responsible for your own sins and do you think you are holier than these men you cajole and criticize?

Perhaps you need to have understood the discussion before you jumped into it. I never started the issue of penance for sins or otherwise. I came into the discussion when I noticed the tendency for people to excuse the consequences of their idol's actions. The issue still remains if Kennedy like everyone else should be held accountable for their actions. I stated that Bush and co should, but you have a problem admitting that Kennedy should.

Bush never intended for thousands of innocents to die when he invaded Iraq. However, his actions led to the death of many innocent victims. I believe he needs to be held responsible by his actions including the unintended consequences fo such actions. As for Kennedy and the many who support the killing of innocent babies in the name of reproductive health, do you think they should be accountable for the lives lost through their actions even though the consequnences of such actions were not unknown to them? Do you think they should be held accountable for the intended consequences of killing innocent babies?

Tayo-D:

@Aloy-Emeka,
Perhaps you need to have understood the discussion before you jumped into it.  I never started the issue of penance for sins or otherwise.  I came into the discussion when I noticed the tendency for people to excuse the consequences of their idol's actions.  The issue still remains if Kennedy like everyone else should be held accountable for their actions.  I stated that Bush and co should, but you have a problem admitting that Kennedy should.

I have not admitted to any wrong doing by both parties so, I don't know where you got the notion that I am shying away from admitting the evils perpetrated by Kennedy.

Bush never intended for thousands of innocents to die when he invaded Iraq. However, his actions led to the death of many innocent victims. I believe he needs to be held responsible by his actions including the unintended consequences fo such actions.  As for Kennedy and the many who support the killing of innocent babies in the name of reproductive health, do you think they should be accountable for the lives lost through their actions even though the consequnences of such actions were not unknown to them?  Do you think they should be held accountable for the intended consequences of killing innocent babies?

Are you telling me that if you decide to bomb Lagos today, you wouldn't expect human casualties?. Even a robot will expect human casualties so, don't tell me that  Bush himself was surprised. How can you defend somebody like this to a fault?. Dem swear for you?.  I do not wish to give any adjudication on the case of Kennedy because of personal convictions. I repeat for the umpteenth time, I AM NOT GOD and judgment is not in my place. I will make the same adjudication in the Bush/Cheney combo.

Tayo-D:


finally, most of the nincompoops saying rubbish about him today in this thread should realise that kennedy was part of the struggle in the United States Senate in the 60s that helped push immigration reform which enabled the nincompoops in this thread to come to the US to make noise.
apart from that, He was also a strong voice in the senate for civil rights which enabled blacks, even blacks with nigerian names to have a say in the US . . . . . a move opposed vehemently by the republican party at that time . . .and even now
@pres-elect,
You know this is an outright lie. I have often ignored this accusatin that you've made on nairalanad several times. You might want to go back and study your history, thereby correcting yourself. Spewing Leftists propaganda on the www does not make it true.

mr tayo d
its comforting to know that in the whole post i made u sigled out one line to criticise. this means u agreed to the rest of the post. till further notice.

with regards to ur comment, i agree-----another huge difference between you and me, i am not ashamed to accept when i'm wrong. the civil rights bills was opposed by democrats and republicans as well. but dont forget that the calibre of people we have in the republican party of today, emanated from the politics of the civil rights era. these are the people who were very bitter with president johnson for signing the civil rights bill and giving the bloody niggers voting rights et al, the left the democrat party and rushed over to the opposition republican party. these white supremacists were mostly white southerners, offsprings of the civil war loosers. they left and even president johnson was said to have lamented . . ''we have just handed over the south to the republicans'' . . .a political picture that we see today.

so in a way, i was not substantially wrong when i say the ''republicans'' opposed the civil rights bill in the 60s, it is these same ''cabal'' of republicans that opposed the bill in the 60s, only some of them were in the democrat party.


as per ur issue of abortion and senator kennedy. i really need to remind you holy pharisees that the democrat party is not ''pro-abortion'' but ''pro-choice''. they mean different things. i am not in favor of abortions. but if a woman wants to kill her baby for no just cause, I am not God to control her body. it is her choice, she will answer to God. not me. pro-choice is different from pro-abortion.

kennedy did a lot of good, but if you choose, even at this moment of his death, to remember his faults and imperfection, then mr tayo, i am ashamed of you as a fellow african, b/c regardless of how long you've been in america, our culture discourages saying evil about people who just died . . .at least for the sake of their survivors. not even for abacha.

and by the way, now that he is dead, i guess the weaklings in congress called democrats will get even weaker in the presence of a few republican minority congressmen.

the guy singlehandedly introduced the US Visa lottery program

For that, he is a great man in my book.


On a serious note, the Kennedy family were great public servants who served there country well.

Tayo-D:

I really have no problem with Ibime. I usually ignore him when he comes here with his childish outbursts. I just decided today to reciprocate in kind, but all in good fate.

Unlike one or two other people I can identify on nairaland, I don't think he is really mean-spirited. He is just trying to have some fun - albeit childishly. He wanted some attention and he's got it. Like every child, he will soon go away to play with his toys and forget any animosity he seems to have now. He is a spoilt childish liberal with a warped view of life, just like every liberal out there.

It is a shame that Tayo-D has chosen to indulge in an exercise of self-aggrandisement. For anyone to suggest that the ubiquitous Ibime seeks attention from a RoosterDrinker like Tayo-D suggests that the person has forgotten his position in the intellectual-strata. Einstein cannot seek attention from Emeagwali, neither can Shakespeare seek attention from Cyprain Ekwensi. Of course I like toying with the village idiot, but he should never forget that he is nothing but an ephemeral curiosity. 

@Aloy-Emeka,

You said this: "I have not admitted to any wrong doing by both parties so, I don't know where you got the notion that I am shying away from admitting the evils perpetrated by Kennedy."  Yet, a few post earlier you claimed that: "Ok, next time, remember to mortify all the republicans and democrats who played a part in killing innocent citizens for no just cause starting from D/i/c/k Cheney."

My question.  Is this a case of selective amnesia or you are telling us that you view the killing of innocent civilians as no wrong doing? 

Are you telling me that if you decide to bomb Lagos today, you wouldn't expect human casualties?. Even a robot will expect human casualties so, don't tell me that  Bush himself was surprised. How can you defend somebody like this to a fault?. Dem swear for you?.  I do not wish to give any adjudication on the case of Kennedy because of personal convictions. I repeat for the umpteenth time, I AM NOT GOD and judgment is not in my place. I will make the same adjudication in the Bush/Cheney combo.

Are you okay upstairs? Me defend Bush to a fault even when I said he should be held accountable for his actions? Are you for real? 

As to the death of many innocent thousands in Iraq, that was definitely not his intentions or plan.  If I recall correctly, only one US soldier and a few dozen Iraqis were killed at the time the US overthrew Saddam. While there is still no excuse for the innocents that may have been killed at that point, no one expected that the Sunnis and Shias will turn agaisnt each other and cause the killing spree to spread to thousands more.  That was my point. But whether Bush expected the killing spree or not, he should answer for the deaths.

@pres-elect,

its comforting to know that in the whole post i made u sigled out one line to criticise. this means u agreed to the rest of the post. till further notice.

Wrong conclusion. I only picked that out at this time because you've consistently lied about this isue on nairaland. I remember planning to respond to it on another thread but never got around to doing so. 

with regards to your comment, i agree-----another huge difference between you and me, i am not ashamed to accept when i'm wrong.

Your point is taken.  You are a better person than I am.  Can we move on now? 

the civil rights bills was opposed by democrats and republicans as well. but dont forget that the calibre of people we have in the republican party of today, emanated from the politics of the civil rights era. these are the people who were very bitter with president johnson for signing the civil rights bill and giving the bloody niggers voting rights et al, the left the democrat party and rushed over to the opposition republican party. these white supremacists were mostly white southerners, offsprings of the civil war loosers. they left and even president johnson was said to have lamented . . ''we have just handed over the south to the republicans''  . . .a political picture that we see today.

You have only tried to build a house on the foundation of lies you admitted a paragraph earlier. How could you think such a house can stand? There were a lot more reasons why there were defections. How could people who hate Blacks defect to a Party who supported them more? It was obvious from the voting record that the racist Whites will feel more at home with the DNC than with the RNC. Quit this spinning abeg.

so in a way, i was not substantially wrong when i say the ''republicans'' opposed the civil rights bill in the 60s, it is these same ''cabal'' of republicans that opposed the bill in the 60s, only some of them were in the democrat party.

You see why I said you are better than me? You have the ability to state categorically that you were wrong about an issue a few senences earlier. Yet, you claim a few breathes later that you were not substantially wrong. Tell me, how can I evolve into a finer Homo Sapien specimen like you with the ability to talk from both sides of my mouth?

as per your issue of abortion and senator kennedy. i really need to remind you holy pharisees that the democrat party is not ''pro-abortion'' but ''pro-choice''. they mean different things. i am not in favor of abortions. but if a woman wants to kill her baby for no just cause, I am not God to control her body. it is her choice, she will answer to God. not me. pro-choice is different from pro-abortion.

No no no. I do not say that you are pro-abortion.  Haba, I like the politically correct "pro-choice" much better.  But if I may ask, what are the consequences of being "pro-choice" and providing funding to sustain the choice? Do you know anything about cause and effect? Are we only to dwell on your good intentions and ignore the consequences of the action.  Do you think we should laud Bush for his good intentions to rid the Iraqis of Saddam and to eliminate WMDs while ignoring the human sacrifices that followed his decisions?

kennedy did a lot of good, but if you choose, even at this moment of his death, to remember his faults and imperfection, then mr tayo, i am ashamed of you as a fellow african, b/c regardless of how long you've been in america, our culture discourages saying evil about people who just died . . .at least for the sake of their survivors. not even for abacha.

I have told you before, I am not a good human being. I pray to God to make me as good as you since you exemplify everything good about the human race. I am sorry that I am judging his fruits. How different am I from you when you are also doing the same? We are both paying attention to his fruits - good or bad. "By their fruits you shall know them"  Aren't those the words of the greatest teacher that ever lived?

@Ibime,

It is a shame that Tayo-D has chosen to indulge in an exercise of self-aggrandisement. For anyone to suggest that the ubiquitous Ibime seeks attention from a RoosterDrinker like Tayo-D suggests that the person has forgotten his position in the intellectual-strata. Einstein cannot seek attention from Emeagwali, neither can Shakespeare seek attention from Cyprain Ekwensi. Of course I like toying with the village idiot, but he should never forget that he is nothing but an ephemeral curiosity.

I can see you are back to suck up more attention. You just confrimed to many that they have no reason to doubt your infantile disposition. Only babies make the kind of comparisons you just did.

Do us all a favour. Call yourself an idiot and we will call it a day!

Tayo-D:

Only babies make the kind of comparisons you just did.

I agree with you. . . . .Forrest Gump is more analogous to your humble self than Phillip Emeagwali or Cyprian Ekwensi. 

Tayo-D:

Do us all a favour. Call yourself an idiot and we will call it a day!

Lets call it a day! 

Tayo-D:

@Aloy-Emeka,



My question.  Is this a case of selective amnesia or you are telling us that you view the killing of innocent civilians as no wrong doing? 
Are you okay upstairs? Me defend Bush to a fault even when I said he should be held accountable for his actions? Are you for real? 

Its you that has a problem. I have neither agreed nor disagreed for personal reasons does not equate to either agree or disagree. Americans usually say, "I plead the 5th". It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement spo, stop polarizing this issue and eulogize the dead man.

As to the death of many innocent thousands in Iraq, that was definitely not his intentions or plan.  If I recall correctly, only one US soldier and a few dozen Iraqis were killed at the time the US overthrew Saddam. While there is still no excuse for the innocents that may have been killed at that point, no one expected that the Sunnis and Shias will turn agaisnt each other and cause the killing spree to spread to thousands more.  That was my point. But whether Bush expected the killing spree or not, he should answer for the deaths.

Good for you. Coincedentally, your answer is quite diff from your initial statement that Bush never intended for casualties. I have never heard a dumb comment like that in my whole life. Next time, think before you pen it down.

@Aloy-Emeka,

Its you that has a problem. I have neither agreed nor disagreed for personal reasons does not equate to either agree or disagree. Americans usually say, "I plead the 5th". It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement spo, stop polarizing this issue and eulogize the dead man.

This is classic. Pleading the 5th after a bout of verbal diarrhoea. What a noble concept.

Good for you. Coincedentally, your answer is quite diff from your initial statement that Bush never intended for casualties. I have never heard a dumb comment like that in my whole life. Next time, think before you pen it down.

This is a case of not thinking things through. First you jumped into the discussion on a wrong premise, now you can't even read through the statement made in context. It's all my fault for explaining the obvious to you.

@tayo

even God gave us a choice. to love him OR not to love him

In the book of deuteronomy chapter 30:I5 you will read where God gave humanity two options:Good and Evil, he went on to advice his children to follow the good path. if u start reading from chapter 28 u get the background picture. but we as human beings have a choice given to us by God. a choice over 90% of humanity is abusing, unfortunately. but note that God did not force us to love him, he allowed us to love him on our own volition. that is why it is a wonderful thing to love Him.

if God gives us a choice to love him or to hate him, can we really force people to do good? eh? oga pharisee, will u force someone to be holy? the doctors and women who do these things, apart from therapeutic abortions to save a woman's life, will answer to God, and not to the GOPharisee

no kill me o

@Primate Pres-Elect,

Thanks for the preaching Brother. I was "blessed" so wonderfully. Where do I send the tithes? I understand your middle name is now Melchizedek.

So if God gives us choices, why then do you support the civil rights bill? Why not leave it to individuals to decide whether to actively practice racism or not? Afterall, they have a God-given free will to be racist! Ludicrous baa? So was your argument.

You cannot legislate righteousness but you can create conducive atmosphere/conditions that promotes a virtue or vice. The Civil Rights Bill did not cure racism but limits its practice because of the no-tolerance atmosphere that the law and the consequences of breaking the law advocate. So while a law may limit the evil people practice (even if it does not change the internal dynamics), it can also promote the evil that people do. That is what your so-called "pro-choice" stance does. It promotes the slaughtering of babies and that landmark ruling of Roe v Wade along with the funding provided to promote the slaughtering of babies through the "pro-choice" movement creates and promotes the atmosphere for the wanton killling of babies.

If you are willing to receive the praise for the consequences of promoting the civil rights bill, you should also be ready to take responsibility for every consequences that the "pro-choice" movement brings about. Fair requirement?

the civil rights bills was opposed by democrats and republicans as well. but dont forget that the calibre of people we have in the republican party of today, emanated from the politics of the civil rights era. these are the people who were very bitter with president johnson for signing the civil rights bill and giving the bloody niggers voting rights et al, the left the democrat party and rushed over to the opposition republican party. these white supremacists were mostly white southerners, offsprings of the civil war loosers. they left and even president johnson was said to have lamented . . ''we have just handed over the south to the republicans'' . . .a political picture that we see today.

Yep, they were called the "Dixiecrats". They were the southern wing of the democratic party.

But on a serious note, its amazing to think that for over a 100 years, the democratic party was a southern party, and that it was the republicans who freed the slaves. Now things are quite the opposite thanks to Richard Nixon's southern strategy and Ronald Reagan. What a pity.


On a good note though, there are no dixiecrats left in the republican party and bush deserves some credit for that because he nudged out the last of the dixiecrats in office: senator trent lott.

@tayo d

i say make u no kill me, yet u wan kill me with laff

melchiwetin? me, primate primate melchi-wetin?

RIP Ted, . . . . . , he made such an incredible impact as a democrat, and even just as a politician in general , . .

But on a serious note, its amazing to think that for over a 100 years, the democratic party was a southern party, and that it was the republicans who freed the slaves

thats showbiz for ya.

Only constant thing is change.

davidif:


But on a serious note, its amazing to think that for over a 100 years, the democratic party was a southern party, and that it was the republicans who freed the slaves. Now things are quite the opposite thanks to Richard Nixon's southern strategy and Ronald Reagan. What a pity.

they can go by different identity in different generations but their character is the same. white supremacists based mostly in the deep south. in the I800s they found peace in the democratic party. the democratic party emanated from jeffersons democratic-republicans which andrew jackson modified to bring forth the so-called jacksonian democracy which is the democratic party we know today (the jackass symbol of the dems came from a satire against president jackson being potrayed as a jackass . . lol)

the white supremacists were confortable in this party and both jackson and jeffersons owned slaves. the abolitionists came from a split in the whigs and in the I850s formed a new party called the republican party. they won the war, ended slavery, ruled the nation and controlled the wealth. but the slave owning supremacists remained in the democratic party

in the I930s FDR made great changes in policy which angered a lot of white supremacists and as if that was not enough, JFK, and then LBJ came with civil rights laws, voting rights, immigration reform etc. this infuriated the white supremacists of the democratic party and when the ''freed'' blacks now rushed en masse to the democratic party that gave them these new rights, the white supremacists left the party in their numbers and were wellcome by the republican party. so these poeple have different political affiliation in different generations but their character is basically the same:racism. in this generation, they are found mostly in the republican party.