Breaking - Thug Fight: 9 Dead in Waco, TX

[Uncensored2008]

Affirmative Action is institutional racism, Herr Goebbels.

You're not just a demagogue, you're not just a racist, you're dumb to boot...

 

[hunarcy]

No, I think that there's nothing in most of them that have ANYTHING to do with the Tea Party and one where a guy at an open rally had a rude sign. But, I'm sure YOU consider that iron clad proof, right?

You hacks are amusing.

Pictures are usually proof. Only in RW land is an actual photo not an actual photo.

I notice you like to talk really vague, good. If you had a point you'd make it

Oh my...was my meaning not clear to you? I agree that they are pictures. I agree that some of the pictures have rude words and negative messages. I see nothing that says they were put out by the Tea Party. When you can provide proof that they are, I'll read it.

I like the way you keep replacing "racist" with the term rude, its cute.

Obama witch doctor t-shirts a big hit at Tea Party convention theGrio You can act like you didnt see this one

Addicting Info Racist Obama T-Shirts Big Hit With Tea Party Conventioneers AND this one



Tea Party Express Racist Letter Mother Jones and then you can deny that you saw any of it.

But I know, what you're going to do is ignore all of it and simply say "thats not proof" to keep yourself in denial.

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pictures are usually proof. Only in RW land is an actual photo not an actual photo.

I notice you like to talk really vague, good. If you had a point you'd make it

Oh my...was my meaning not clear to you? I agree that they are pictures. I agree that some of the pictures have rude words and negative messages. I see nothing that says they were put out by the Tea Party. When you can provide proof that they are, I'll read it.

I like the way you keep replacing "racist" with the term rude, its cute.

Obama witch doctor t-shirts a big hit at Tea Party convention theGrio You can act like you didnt see this one

Addicting Info Racist Obama T-Shirts Big Hit With Tea Party Conventioneers AND this one



Tea Party Express Racist Letter Mother Jones and then you can deny that you saw any of it.

But I know, what you're going to do is ignore all of it and simply say "thats not proof" to keep yourself in denial.

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

Good I win. No point in reading someones opinions when I have eyes

 

[Pogo]

Really? How did we do it?

with malice and forethought yeah really moron

And that is about the extent of the answer(s) I have been able to find.

It is a myth. THe South went Republican because it grew a middle class.

Poor whites kept voting dem. The new middle class is the one that started voting GOP, and flipped the South.

Republican/GOP Racism: The History

Something that’s rarely mentioned is how the voting power of the modern Republican party is largely grounded in racist sentiments that grew out of racist disfavor toward:

1. A Democratic administration who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. A subsequent switch of African Americans who began voting Democrat due to policy changes in Republican circles intended to gain the ‘anti-black’ vote.

It’s no secret that historically, it had been the Democratic Party who had catered to racist sentiment. Abraham Lincoln was himself a Republican (as Republicans happily point out). Martin Luther King was also a Republican in his day. But what people generally overlook is this: After 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed under a Democratic administration, America’s racists switched to the Republican Party. The history of the electoral map makes this quite clear. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

After the Act passed, the electorate in the south went to the Republican party. The only exceptions to this are in 1968 when the South actually voted for George Wallace (who ran as an American Independent; a party that had very pro-segregation views) and Jimmy Carter, an evangelist from the South who unlike future Democrats, would have the backing of popular evangelists. You can see the voting trends for yourself below.


In other words, the Democratic party indeed used to be the party of racists, but this changed after 1964. Those who attempt to tie the Democratic party to racism rely well into the past in order to claim that the Democratic party is the party of racism.
[3]

Republican Racism Tea Party Racism GOP Tactics Fact and Myth

And that's because the South has always been (overall) decidedly conservative. It's the culture. Political parties shift with the winds but social cultures -- not so much. The Republican party was ignored in the Shout for a century because, at the time it was created, it represented bold liberal ideas and "big government". That changed, and eventually the electorate followed.

Fun fact: after the CRA passed in 1964, not only did Strom Thurmond open the floodgates by doing the unthinkable switching to the Party of Lincoln, but in the same year George Wallace petitioned Barry Goldwater to be his running mate. Goldwater of course declined but also had to talk Wallace out of running on his own (as he would later in '68 and '72) since Wallace would siphon off Goldwater's ability to break into the South after all that time.

Strom Thurmond switched.

Robert Byrd did not.

The claim has been made that these old racist switched to the GOP. It has not been supported.

Here ya go, maybe you missed this:
Ku Klux Klan activism in the 1960s is linked to the South’s swing to the Republican Party

The strong tie between white southern voters and the Democratic Party began to unravel with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. As national Democratic candidates increasingly embraced the cause of civil rights, white southerners began to defect to the Republican Party. Figure 1 illustrates increases in the vote for the Republican candidate in the 2000 election (George W. Bush) over the vote for Republican Richard Nixon in 1960. Most southern counties have shown substantial increases in Republican voting. Yet the change has not been uniform across local contexts.

Historians and social scientists have studied the ways in which Republican candidates capitalized on backlash generated by the civil rights movement to win the sympathies of southern voters. But in recent research, David Cunningham of Brandeis University and Justin Farrell of Yale University and I examined the role that racist extremism played in the realignment of voting patterns in southern communities. Because the FBI was involved in an extensive surveillance campaign directed against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, we have a good record of which southern counties had at least one Klan organization and which ones did not. As Figure 2 shows, Klan organizations were spread primarily across ten southern states, with significant geographical clustering.

... We found that Klan counties did, in fact, experience greater movement to the Republican candidates and, importantly, we found that the effect of Klan activism did not diminish over time. For example, when we examined the difference in the Republican vote for Richard Nixon in 1960 and the vote for Republican George W. Bush in 2000, the growth in Republican voting was, on average, more than five percent higher in Klan counties compared to non-Klan counties, net of other factors that contributed to the change. Given that the 2000 election was decided by an extremely tight race in the state of Florida, one might argue that the historical influence of the Klan represents the difference between a Bush presidency and an Al Gore presidency.

(maps at the link)​

 

[hunarcy]

Pictures are usually proof. Only in RW land is an actual photo not an actual photo.

I notice you like to talk really vague, good. If you had a point you'd make it

Oh my...was my meaning not clear to you? I agree that they are pictures. I agree that some of the pictures have rude words and negative messages. I see nothing that says they were put out by the Tea Party. When you can provide proof that they are, I'll read it.

I like the way you keep replacing "racist" with the term rude, its cute.

Obama witch doctor t-shirts a big hit at Tea Party convention theGrio You can act like you didnt see this one

Addicting Info Racist Obama T-Shirts Big Hit With Tea Party Conventioneers AND this one


Tea Party Express Racist Letter Mother Jones and then you can deny that you saw any of it.

But I know, what you're going to do is ignore all of it and simply say "thats not proof" to keep yourself in denial.

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

Didnt think so...lol

Now, I'm going out to mow the back yard, so please claim victory again for any post you make in the future that I don't respond to immediately. So mature.

 

[Pogo]

with malice and forethought yeah really moron

And that is about the extent of the answer(s) I have been able to find.

It is a myth. THe South went Republican because it grew a middle class.

Poor whites kept voting dem. The new middle class is the one that started voting GOP, and flipped the South.

Republican/GOP Racism: The History

Something that’s rarely mentioned is how the voting power of the modern Republican party is largely grounded in racist sentiments that grew out of racist disfavor toward:

1. A Democratic administration who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. A subsequent switch of African Americans who began voting Democrat due to policy changes in Republican circles intended to gain the ‘anti-black’ vote.

It’s no secret that historically, it had been the Democratic Party who had catered to racist sentiment. Abraham Lincoln was himself a Republican (as Republicans happily point out). Martin Luther King was also a Republican in his day. But what people generally overlook is this: After 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed under a Democratic administration, America’s racists switched to the Republican Party. The history of the electoral map makes this quite clear. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

After the Act passed, the electorate in the south went to the Republican party. The only exceptions to this are in 1968 when the South actually voted for George Wallace (who ran as an American Independent; a party that had very pro-segregation views) and Jimmy Carter, an evangelist from the South who unlike future Democrats, would have the backing of popular evangelists. You can see the voting trends for yourself below.


In other words, the Democratic party indeed used to be the party of racists, but this changed after 1964. Those who attempt to tie the Democratic party to racism rely well into the past in order to claim that the Democratic party is the party of racism.
[3]

Republican Racism Tea Party Racism GOP Tactics Fact and Myth

All you have done is restate the accusation.

What racist policies were enacted in order to supposedly pander to these racists to get them to switch?

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

 

[hunarcy]

Oh my...was my meaning not clear to you? I agree that they are pictures. I agree that some of the pictures have rude words and negative messages. I see nothing that says they were put out by the Tea Party. When you can provide proof that they are, I'll read it.

I like the way you keep replacing "racist" with the term rude, its cute.

Obama witch doctor t-shirts a big hit at Tea Party convention theGrio You can act like you didnt see this one

Addicting Info Racist Obama T-Shirts Big Hit With Tea Party Conventioneers AND this one



Tea Party Express Racist Letter Mother Jones and then you can deny that you saw any of it.

But I know, what you're going to do is ignore all of it and simply say "thats not proof" to keep yourself in denial.

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

Good I win. No point in reading someones opinions when I have eyes

LMAO! Go savor your non-victory, trollboy. You're obviously not having a serious discussion and don't want to see anything that disrupts your partisan fantasies.

Bye now.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I like the way you keep replacing "racist" with the term rude, its cute.

Obama witch doctor t-shirts a big hit at Tea Party convention theGrio You can act like you didnt see this one

Addicting Info Racist Obama T-Shirts Big Hit With Tea Party Conventioneers AND this one



Tea Party Express Racist Letter Mother Jones and then you can deny that you saw any of it.

But I know, what you're going to do is ignore all of it and simply say "thats not proof" to keep yourself in denial.

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

Good I win. No point in reading someones opinions when I have eyes

LMAO! Go savor your non-victory, trollboy. You're obviously not having a serious discussion and don't want to see anything that disrupts your partisan fantasies.

Bye now.

You're right, I'm trying to get to the point where I ignore my eyes and listen to what others tell me is the truth but so far its not working

 

[Correll]

And that is about the extent of the answer(s) I have been able to find.

It is a myth. THe South went Republican because it grew a middle class.

Poor whites kept voting dem. The new middle class is the one that started voting GOP, and flipped the South.

Republican/GOP Racism: The History

Something that’s rarely mentioned is how the voting power of the modern Republican party is largely grounded in racist sentiments that grew out of racist disfavor toward:

1. A Democratic administration who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. A subsequent switch of African Americans who began voting Democrat due to policy changes in Republican circles intended to gain the ‘anti-black’ vote.

It’s no secret that historically, it had been the Democratic Party who had catered to racist sentiment. Abraham Lincoln was himself a Republican (as Republicans happily point out). Martin Luther King was also a Republican in his day. But what people generally overlook is this: After 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed under a Democratic administration, America’s racists switched to the Republican Party. The history of the electoral map makes this quite clear. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

After the Act passed, the electorate in the south went to the Republican party. The only exceptions to this are in 1968 when the South actually voted for George Wallace (who ran as an American Independent; a party that had very pro-segregation views) and Jimmy Carter, an evangelist from the South who unlike future Democrats, would have the backing of popular evangelists. You can see the voting trends for yourself below.


In other words, the Democratic party indeed used to be the party of racists, but this changed after 1964. Those who attempt to tie the Democratic party to racism rely well into the past in order to claim that the Democratic party is the party of racism.
[3]

Republican Racism Tea Party Racism GOP Tactics Fact and Myth

All you have done is restate the accusation.

What racist policies were enacted in order to supposedly pander to these racists to get them to switch?

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

So, outraged over the support of the CRA by the dems the racist bolt to the party that gave EVEN MORE support to the CRA?


THIS is the issue that the GOP you brought up as the GOP supposedly pandering to racists to get them to switch parties?


If this is the best you got, it's really time to consider that you might be wrong.

 

[hunarcy]

And that is about the extent of the answer(s) I have been able to find.

It is a myth. THe South went Republican because it grew a middle class.

Poor whites kept voting dem. The new middle class is the one that started voting GOP, and flipped the South.

Republican/GOP Racism: The History

Something that’s rarely mentioned is how the voting power of the modern Republican party is largely grounded in racist sentiments that grew out of racist disfavor toward:

1. A Democratic administration who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. A subsequent switch of African Americans who began voting Democrat due to policy changes in Republican circles intended to gain the ‘anti-black’ vote.

It’s no secret that historically, it had been the Democratic Party who had catered to racist sentiment. Abraham Lincoln was himself a Republican (as Republicans happily point out). Martin Luther King was also a Republican in his day. But what people generally overlook is this: After 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed under a Democratic administration, America’s racists switched to the Republican Party. The history of the electoral map makes this quite clear. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

After the Act passed, the electorate in the south went to the Republican party. The only exceptions to this are in 1968 when the South actually voted for George Wallace (who ran as an American Independent; a party that had very pro-segregation views) and Jimmy Carter, an evangelist from the South who unlike future Democrats, would have the backing of popular evangelists. You can see the voting trends for yourself below.


In other words, the Democratic party indeed used to be the party of racists, but this changed after 1964. Those who attempt to tie the Democratic party to racism rely well into the past in order to claim that the Democratic party is the party of racism.
[3]

Republican Racism Tea Party Racism GOP Tactics Fact and Myth

All you have done is restate the accusation.

What racist policies were enacted in order to supposedly pander to these racists to get them to switch?

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

So, 92% of 14 people indict a whole political party. And example of lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[hunarcy]

Ah, so your proof comes from partisan blogs. Yeah, that's convincing. But, as I promised, I read the articles and gave the "proof" you provided the weight it deserved. If you have nothing more substantial, I think I'll go mow the yard.

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

Good I win. No point in reading someones opinions when I have eyes

LMAO! Go savor your non-victory, trollboy. You're obviously not having a serious discussion and don't want to see anything that disrupts your partisan fantasies.

Bye now.

You're right, I'm trying to get to the point where I ignore my eyes and listen to what others tell me is the truth but so far its not working

You've already revealed yourself to be what can only be described as a partisan troll. I won't read your drivel anymore.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your "bowels in an uproar bro" ?

I hope yours aren't - I'd hate for you to have more ammunition to fling, you mindless monkey.

 

[Pogo]

Strom Thurmond switched.

Robert Byrd did not.

And btw the reason for this is that Byrd changed his views over time, while Thurmond didn't. Wallace changed his too.

People grow, who knew. Either they grow or they conserve the mindset they're living in the past with.

 

[Correll]

Strom Thurmond switched.

Robert Byrd did not.

And btw the reason for this is that Byrd changed his views over time, while Thurmond didn't. Wallace changed his too.

People grow, who knew. Either they grow or they conserve the mindset they're living in the past with.

Byrd didn't switch and then switch back years later after "growing".

He was a dem when he was a Klansman.

He was a dem when he was against Civil Rights.

He stayed a dem when they switched, and just dealt with the new reality.

Did he really change? Or just change his rhetoric?

 

[Pogo]

Republican/GOP Racism: The History

Something that’s rarely mentioned is how the voting power of the modern Republican party is largely grounded in racist sentiments that grew out of racist disfavor toward:

1. A Democratic administration who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. A subsequent switch of African Americans who began voting Democrat due to policy changes in Republican circles intended to gain the ‘anti-black’ vote.

It’s no secret that historically, it had been the Democratic Party who had catered to racist sentiment. Abraham Lincoln was himself a Republican (as Republicans happily point out). Martin Luther King was also a Republican in his day. But what people generally overlook is this: After 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed under a Democratic administration, America’s racists switched to the Republican Party. The history of the electoral map makes this quite clear. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

After the Act passed, the electorate in the south went to the Republican party. The only exceptions to this are in 1968 when the South actually voted for George Wallace (who ran as an American Independent; a party that had very pro-segregation views) and Jimmy Carter, an evangelist from the South who unlike future Democrats, would have the backing of popular evangelists. You can see the voting trends for yourself below.


In other words, the Democratic party indeed used to be the party of racists, but this changed after 1964. Those who attempt to tie the Democratic party to racism rely well into the past in order to claim that the Democratic party is the party of racism.
[3]

Republican Racism Tea Party Racism GOP Tactics Fact and Myth

All you have done is restate the accusation.

What racist policies were enacted in order to supposedly pander to these racists to get them to switch?

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

So, outraged over the support of the CRA by the dems the racist bolt to the party that gave EVEN MORE support to the CRA?


THIS is the issue that the GOP you brought up as the GOP supposedly pandering to racists to get them to switch parties?


If this is the best you got, it's really time to consider that you might be wrong.

Did that sail ENTIRELY over your head?

The Southerners in those stats -- voted 90%+ AGAINST the CRA. And the Republicans among them voted more against it than the Dems did. In the case of the House -- ZERO.

Are you this dim all the time, or just when playing the role of partisan hack?

 

[Pogo]

Strom Thurmond switched.

Robert Byrd did not.

And btw the reason for this is that Byrd changed his views over time, while Thurmond didn't. Wallace changed his too.

People grow, who knew. Either they grow or they conserve the mindset they're living in the past with.

Byrd didn't switch and then switch back years later after "growing".

He was a dem when he was a Klansman.

He was a dem when he was against Civil Rights.

He stayed a dem when they switched, and just dealt with the new reality.

Did he really change? Or just change his rhetoric?

Wrong again. He had quit the Klan before he ever ran for office.

I'm afraid Photoshop images aren't real. When you come to terms with that I've got distressing news about the Easter Bunny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And btw the reason for this is that Byrd changed his views over time, while Thurmond didn't. Wallace changed his too.

People grow, who knew. Either they grow or they conserve the mindset they're living in the past with.

No he didn't - it was Thurmond who abandoned the democratic policy of judging others by the color of their skin. You democrats still do that to this day.

Who is the biggest racist in this forum? Asslips? Closed Caption? That fucking nazi scum (now banned so I can't us his name.) Common element - far left democrats, all.

Racism has the same home it always did, in the democratic party.

You depend on the BIG LIE. You are easily defeated by pointing out that you are indeed lying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Told you. Simple question: Are you saying the blogs and news sites are lying? If you arent then you have no rebuttal. If you are you have the burden of proof showing the lie.

I am saying that there's no proof the blogs are telling the truth and actual news sites don't say what you are claiming. You and George W. Bush have a LOT in common as you claim he cherry picked information and made his argument on a faulty basis.
As for rebuttal, please read this from an ACTUAL news source, left leaning though it is. Black tea party members dispute racist claims - politics - More politics NBC News

Good I win. No point in reading someones opinions when I have eyes

LMAO! Go savor your non-victory, trollboy. You're obviously not having a serious discussion and don't want to see anything that disrupts your partisan fantasies.

Bye now.

You're right, I'm trying to get to the point where I ignore my eyes and listen to what others tell me is the truth but so far its not working

You've already revealed yourself to be what can only be described as a partisan troll. I won't read your drivel anymore.

Thats not true because I have a link to a guy who said I'm not. So there!

 

[Correll]

All you have done is restate the accusation.

What racist policies were enacted in order to supposedly pander to these racists to get them to switch?

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

So, outraged over the support of the CRA by the dems the racist bolt to the party that gave EVEN MORE support to the CRA?


THIS is the issue that the GOP you brought up as the GOP supposedly pandering to racists to get them to switch parties?


If this is the best you got, it's really time to consider that you might be wrong.

Did that sail ENTIRELY over your head?

The Southerners in those stats -- voted 90%+ AGAINST the CRA. And the Republicans among them voted more against it than the Dems did. In the case of the House -- ZERO.

Are you this dim all the time, or just when playing the role of partisan hack?

Both parties supported the CRA.

Neither party was willing to give the white racist anything. That ship had sailed long ago.

Neither party did give them anything.

There was no reason for racist to leave the dem party and go to the GOP. The GOP national party was MORE in support of the CRA than the national Dem Party.

There was no reason for racist gop to leave the GOP to go to the Dems. The dems supported it too.


You libs claim the GOP pander(ed) to racist, especially southern racist, yet the one example you give show the GOP being more in support of the CRA than the dems.

The Southern republicans were not in charge of the Party. They did not set the agenda.

 

[Pogo]

"Policies" aren't what draws voters or incites them to switch --- rhetoric is.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia .... the one in Mississippi -- the one that was a flash point of civil rights conflict -- talking "states rights", which immediately establishes an emotional connection with the Old South. That's the kind of pandering that draws votes.

But if you want an actual policy, that's easy. The 1964 CRA. Prompted Thurmond to switch publicly, prompted Wallace to consider either going indie or running as a Republican's running mate, and prompted the South to vote Republican to a level not seen since Reconstruction.

The Republican Party supported the 1964 CRA more strongly than the Dems did. That's an odd way to get racists to join your party.

"By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)"

Rhetoric? That's how the GOP took a dozen states away from the dems?

The dems never thought to point out that the GOP wasn't living up to this supposedly rhetoric?

And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going ....

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

There is your pattern.

So, outraged over the support of the CRA by the dems the racist bolt to the party that gave EVEN MORE support to the CRA?


THIS is the issue that the GOP you brought up as the GOP supposedly pandering to racists to get them to switch parties?


If this is the best you got, it's really time to consider that you might be wrong.

Did that sail ENTIRELY over your head?

The Southerners in those stats -- voted 90%+ AGAINST the CRA. And the Republicans among them voted more against it than the Dems did. In the case of the House -- ZERO.

Are you this dim all the time, or just when playing the role of partisan hack?

Both parties supported the CRA.

Neither party was willing to give the white racist anything. That ship had sailed long ago.

Neither party did give them anything.

There was no reason for racist to leave the dem party and go to the GOP. The GOP national party was MORE in support of the CRA than the national Dem Party.

There was no reason for racist gop to leave the GOP to go to the Dems. The dems supported it too.


You libs claim the GOP pander(ed) to racist, especially southern racist, yet the one example you give show the GOP being more in support of the CRA than the dems.

The Southern republicans were not in charge of the Party. They did not set the agenda.

Actually it shows the opposite, but I guess it all depends on how you look at it...